My daughters have adhd and autism. One attends the ERP unit at this school where her year 6 class works at a year 1 level, and the only children’s toilets are mixed sex with gaps below and above the doors, and basins outside the toilets (my daughter has never once used a toilet in school because of this). Her sister attends mainstream, but with equal EHCP support/funding due to disability needs. Both are very vulnerable, highly anxious and have rigid thinking. They both accept what their teachers say as the absolute truth.
The school they attend takes in more children with autism, other SEND needs and children who are under LAC than other primary schools in the area. So all children the Cass review identifies as being at increased risk from gender ideology in schools.
First I challenged why the schools single equality policy claimed gender was a protected characteristic, and didn’t list sex as one. I asked they correct this as it’s legally inaccurate. The head teacher said she would pass it onto the MAT, but it was never changed and when I asked why/requested contact details for the MAT staff responsible for policy, she refused to answer.
When the September 2020 plan your relationship, sex and health document was released I asked if the schools RSE teaching was in line with this update. The head teacher claimed it was. I asked to see the lesson plans, and while I was told she would ensure I had these the term before they began teaching this I was never given them.
Eventually I was given a ‘medium term RSE plan’ days before they were due to commence teaching it. I wasn’t given any lesson plans. This medium term RSE plan was for both sections of the school, so for the children in the ERP who work at a year 1 level.
It didn’t comply with the DfE guidance.
The section on romantic relationships listed gender identity as a topic to be taught, along with pansexuality listed with heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality, as if it were a sexual orientation. In this section on romantic relationships it said that everyone had the right to be loved. There was a definition list that included cisgender, transgender, pansexual and asexual.
I had many phone and email discussions with the PSHE lead, the head of the ERP, the head teacher, the MAT safeguarding lead and the chair of governors. And a meeting in school. I provided free resources from Safe Schools Alliance, Transgender Trend, Genspect, Bayswater, LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, Teachers for Evidence Based Education and the Cass Review interim report when released.
I asked the definition of gender identity they planned to teach and how that complied with the DfE guidance. They repeatedly refused to provide a definition. I asked they consider how they safeguard girls if they have taught them that a boy can be a girl because he says he feels like one. And I asked how they teach girls they have a right to boundaries, privacy, safety and dignity if they push gender ideology in this way.
They refused to correct the plan so I put a formal complaint in. I asked that each individual point be answered directly and individually, yet the head teacher’s answer conflated several and didn’t answer others. She said they will teach the NSPCC definition of gender identity-which uses the unscientific term sex assigned at birth, claims everyone has a gender identity, that gender identity is expressed through hair, make-up, dress and interests, and encourages parents to socially transition children and schools to allow them to access opposite sex facilities.
The other stages of the formal complaint process continued to involve the MATs refusal to answer the original complaint, refusal to answer how they will safeguard girls once they’ve taught them boys are girls because they like skirts, made the claim that the evidence base for gender identity being real, and sex changeable, was ‘still emerging, so they must teach it’, and also revealed that the head teacher and had used schools funds to pay a solicitor to provide the NSPCC definition of gender identity, that still breaches the DfE guidance.
During this time my girls have come home asking ‘what’s my pride?’ as if they expect adults to define their sexuality or gender identity. They have told me their teachers taught them children can be transgender- and my girl’s understanding of that was children should change sex if they are a girl who likes ‘boy things’ or a boy who likes ‘girl things’. One came home saying a classmate told the class her sister was now her brother, and the teachers backed the claim the sister is now a brother.
They then had Diversity Role Models in. When this was in the newsletter I complained, and the PSHE lead let slip that several other parents had an issue with this. I provided the links on DRM from Transgender Trend, Safe Schools Alliance, Conservatives for Women and the news articles about DRM Asda home learning pack. These show DRM using the gender unicorn-which breaches DfE- the tweets in support of highly sexualised drag queens for children, the tweets using PIE phrases of ‘love has no age limit’, and the recommendation of books for children that include descriptions of a 6-year-old giving oral sex as a positive way of discovering sexuality.
We had to chase school up several times, and they continued to say they were meeting with the MAT safeguarding lead to discuss this. The result was they chose to go ahead with funding DRM to access primary children, and effectively advertise the MAT support and promotion of DRM as a child suitable organisation.