CSIE has responded to the Department for Education’s consultation on the draft Guidance for Schools and Colleges: Gender Questioning Children.
In its response(with link to response please), CSIE argued that the draft guidance is not fit for purpose. It is inconsistent with existing law and statutory guidance, there is no Easy Read version, and the consultation document itself has been presented in a form which looks more like government guidance than a consultation document. As a result, it has been widely misunderstood, even mis-represented in the media, as the long-awaited guidance that schools have to follow.
CSIE’s response also stated that are significant gaps in the guidance, for example the absence of any reference to neurodiversity, learning difficulties or any other issues of SEND, and no reference to the intersection of trans and SEND identities. These issues need to be explored and understood by educators who will be called upon to support children and young people who are questioning their gender identity.
There are also significant conflicts with existing legislation and statutory guidance.
The Equality Act 2010 protects all trans people regardless of age, so there is no justification for a blanket ban in primary schools – in fact that would seem unlawful.
Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) places a statutory duty on schools to safeguard and promote the well-being of all pupils, yet the proposed guidance invites staff to act in ways which undermine trans pupils’ well-being – particularly suggestions that staff should ignore pupil wishes and disregard their identities, for example by not adhering to requests for change of name, pronouns or use of spaces. Such practices would also be in conflict with the Equality Act’s Public Sector Equality Duty, especially the duty to eliminate harassment and discrimination.
Further, KCSIE states that sharing with parents an LGBT disclosure may not be in the pupils’ best interest and could constitute a breach of confidentiality. The draft guidance says that parents should be informed, which is in direct conflict with existing statutory guidance and, potentially, with young people’s well-being.
Our response further suggested that if a “watchful waiting” period is interpreted as a blanket policy for no immediate action, this could prove detrimental for some young people who have waited a long time before confiding in an adult and are ready for things to begin to change.
