Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 Consultation
Written by Belonging Effect
Belonging Effect is committed to shaping intention into impact and supporting people with their Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging strategy and training needs.
On 12th February 2026, the Department for Education published a new draft of the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges: Keeping Children Safe in Education.
Amongst other changes, the new draft guidance includes an amended section titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’; and a new section titled ‘Children who are questioning their gender’.
Since the draft guidance was published, these sections specifically have been reported on widely. We have read and listened to much of the coverage from diverse sources, and are concerned to see some exaggeration or misrepresentation of the current situation. To be clear, this is not currently statutory guidance – it is a draft of proposed guidance, which has been opened for a 10 week consultation period ending on 22nd April 2026. Currently, schools and colleges should not make changes which are informed by this draft guidance. They should continue to follow the 2025 version of KCSIE.
Our intention in this piece is to set out the context in which this draft guidance has been released, the details of the guidance, and provide information about the ongoing consultation as accurately and clearly as we can in order to encourage those involved in education to express their views through the consultation. In order to do so, we have tried to avoid presenting our own opinions in much of the following piece. However, we think it is important to be transparent before we begin. We have worked with transgender, non-binary, and gender questioning students, and we are fully committed to their inclusion and belonging in educational spaces. We believe that any statutory guidance for schools and colleges should provide workable and inclusive guidance that protects all students from discrimination, and ensures safety, dignity and respect for all young people in education – including trans students. With that clear, let’s begin.
The Context
Chances are, if you are reading this piece, you are very familiar with the statutory safeguarding guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education (often referred to as KCSIE). It was first published in 2014, and is reviewed and updated by the Department for Education annually, with updated versions typically becoming statutory each September. Most years these updates come without consultation, but a consultation or call for evidence may be made when substantive changes are proposed.
In the KCSIE update for September 2022, under the section ‘Children potentially at greater risk of harm’ a new category was added, titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, bi, or trans (LGBT)’. This new guidance was brief, but acknowledged that being LGBT, or being perceived to be LGBT, could be a risk factor for bullying. The following year, in the 2023 September update, this section was slightly expanded. It stated:
‘203. The fact that a child or a young person may be LGBT is not in itself an inherent risk factor for harm. However, children who are LGBT can be targeted by other children. In some cases, a child who is perceived by other children to be LGBT (whether they are or not) can be just as vulnerable as children who identify as LGBT.
204. Risks can be compounded where children who are LGBT lack a trusted adult with whom they can be open. It is therefore vital that staff endeavour to reduce the additional barriers faced and provide a safe space for them to speak out or share their concerns with members of staff.
205. LGBT inclusion is part of the statutory Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education curriculum and there is a range of support available to help schools counter homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic bullying and abuse.’
Later that year, in December 2023, the Department for Education published draft guidance relating to trans and non-binary students in schools, which they called ‘Gender Questioning Children’. This was draft, non-statutory guidance, which opened for a 12 week consultation period ending on Tuesday 12th March 2024. You can read more about this draft guidance and consultation here.
Shortly after that consultation closed, the Cass Review was published in April 2024. The Cass Review was intended to be an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people. It has been widely criticised since its release. Although not an education focused document, the review made some recommendations relevant to schools and colleges.
In the same year, the UK saw a change of government with a new Labour government elected in July 2024. The Labour government committed to looking at the results of the consultation into the ‘Gender Questioning Children’ guidance and to publishing finalised guidance for schools. They also committed to enacting the recommendations of the Cass Review.
On 12th February 2026, The Department for Education published a new draft of the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges, KCSIE. Amongst other changes, this new draft guidance includes an amended section titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’, and a new section titled ‘Children who are questioning their gender’.
In materials published online, the DfE explains their choice to position gender guidance as part of KCSIE, rather than in separate non-statutory guidance as first proposed in 2023. They state that they “propose instead to include this content in KCSIE so that children’s wellbeing and safeguarding are considered in the round, and so that schools and colleges can easily access this information in one place”.
The DfE also provides some limited details about the results of the consultation. They explain that the consultation into the draft ‘Gender Questioning Children’ guidance received 15,315 respondents and “demonstrated that this is a highly contested policy area with no clear consensus on the appropriate approach, but more respondents expressed negative than positive views about the usability of the draft guidance published for consultation”.
This draft guidance is now open for a 10 week consultation period, ending on 22nd April 2026. The following sections will set out the details of this proposed guidance, and information about the ongoing consultation.
The Guidance & Consultation
Although other important changes have been made, we focus specifically here on the parts of the guidance titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’ and ‘Children who are questioning their gender’.
Part Two of KCSIE sets out the statutory guidance around the management of safeguarding, and it includes a section on ‘Children potentially at greater risk of harm’. It is within this section that LGBT identities are discussed under the following two headings.
‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’
This amended section used to include the word ‘trans’ (2022 & 2023), and later ‘gender questioning’ (2024, 2025). That has now been removed, and this section focuses specifically on sexual and/or romantic orientations lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The draft guidance states:
“244. A child or young person being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not in itself a risk factor for harm; however, they can sometimes be vulnerable to discriminatory bullying. In some cases, a child who is perceived by other children to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual (whether they are or not) can be just as vulnerable as children who are. Schools and colleges should consider how to address vulnerabilities such as the risk of bullying and take steps to prevent it, including putting appropriate sanctions in place.”
‘Children who are questioning their gender’
This new section is the result of the 2024 consultation into the then draft non-statutory ‘Gender Questioning Children’ guidance. It includes some general information, followed by specific advice on:
- Preventing and responding to bullying
- Decision making when a request is made for social transition
- Parental Involvement
- Physical Spaces (toilets, changing, accommodation)
- Record Keeping
- ‘Children living in stealth’
- ‘Children who wish to detransition’
This section of the draft guidance is long so we have not quoted it here in full, but it includes significant changes in how schools should work to support trans, non-binary, or gender questioning young people. We would encourage you to read it in full in the draft guidance released by the DfE, or in this longer article published by Pride & Progress.
The draft guidance is currently open for a 10-week consultation period, which ends on 22nd April 2026. The consultation invites responses from a variety of educational spaces, and those working in them.
The consultation is divided into 9 sections:
- Section 1 – proposed changes to the ‘about this guidance’ section and general updates to KCSIE
- Section 2 – proposed changes to Part one: Safeguarding information for all staff •
- Section 3 – proposed changes to Part two: The management of safeguarding
- Section 4 – proposed changes to Part three: Safer recruitment
- Section 5 – proposed changes to Part four: Safeguarding concerns or allegations made about staff including supply teachers, volunteers and contractors
- Section 6 – proposed changes to Part five: Child-on-child sexual violence and sexual harassment
- Section 7 – proposed changes to Annex B – further information
- Section 8 – proposed changes to Annex C – the role of the designated safeguarding lead
- Section 9 – expanding our evidence base
You can view all of the questions asked in each section of the consultation in the DfE consultation document. Section 3 of the consultation is where questions are asked about the proposed changes to Part Two of KCSIE. There are no questions asked about the guidance relating to ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, and bisexual’. Of the guidance relating to ‘Children who are questioning their gender’, three questions are asked. They are:
- Question 33: Does the updated section of the guidance on children who are questioning their gender provide clarity about the considerations schools and colleges will need to take into account?
Yes, No, Not Applicable, No Opinion, Please Explain Further (Optional)
- Question 34: Do paragraphs 104-115 provide clarity for schools and colleges about their legal obligations relating to toilets, changing rooms, and boarding and residential accommodation?
Yes, No, Not Applicable, No Opinion, Please Explain Further (Optional)
- Question 35: Do paragraphs 94-97 provide clarity for schools and colleges about the circumstances in which the school is justified in having a policy of single-sex sports?
Yes, No, Not Applicable, No Opinion, Please Explain Further (Optional)
These questions focus on the clarity of the advice set out in the new draft guidance, but they offer a vital opportunity for those working in education to consult on the workability of this guidance. As stated earlier, we have worked with transgender, non-binary, and gender questioning students, and we are fully committed to their inclusion and belonging in educational spaces. As, in our experience, are the vast majority of those working in the education sector. We believe that any statutory guidance for schools and colleges should provide workable and inclusive guidance that protects all students from discrimination, and ensures dignity and respect for all young people in education – including trans, non-binary, and gender questioning young people.
Actions you may wish to consider taking
We hope that reading this piece has helped you to feel more informed. Below are some actions you may wish to undertake as a result of what you have read:
- Please challenge any mis-characterisations of this draft guidance. This is not currently statutory guidance – it is a draft of proposed guidance, which has been opened for a 10 week consultation period ending on 22nd April 2026.
- Please contribute to the consultation process, and consider specifically the workability of the guidance set out, and whether it is inclusive guidance that protects all students from discrimination, and ensures dignity and respect for all children in education. You may wish to delay your contribution to the consultation until other organisations have released guidance and support on doing so.
- Consider encouraging colleagues and connections to read about the draft guidance, and contribute to the consultation themselves. The previous consultation had over 15,000 responses – the more people who contribute, the more informed the finalised guidance can be.
- Finally, you may wish to begin considering what policies and practices you may need to review when the finalised guidance is released in September. What has been discussed here is the draft guidance, and no changes should be implemented yet, but it may be a good idea to begin to consider your policies and practices relating to LGBT+ students ahead of the final guidance being released later this year.
This piece was written by members of the Belonging Effect team and is intended for informational purposes only. This blog was published on 17/2/26, and all information was to the best of our understanding at the time of publishing.
Pregnancy Loss in Education: Breaking the Silence, Structures and Support
Written by Morgan Whitfield
Morgan Whitfield is an experienced senior leader and professional development consultant who advocates high-challenge learning. Morgan hails from Canada and has taken on such roles as Director of Teaching and Learning, Head of Sixth Form, Head of Humanities and Head of Scholars. Her book Gifted? The Shift to Enrichment, Challenge and Equity, reframed “gifted” education as a mandate to provide enrichment and challenge for all students. She is a passionate advocate for equity in education, a BSO inspector, radio show host and mother of three brilliant little ones. Morgan has worked with schools across the Middle East, Asia and the UK and currently lives in Vietnam.
I remember the day I had to tell senior leadership that I needed to leave lessons and go to the doctor because I was bleeding. I sent out cover work in the hospital waiting room. Later, I had to tell the same colleagues that I would no longer need maternity leave. The conversations were devastating. The classroom kept moving forward, yet I was stalled. I am not alone in this.
Pregnancy loss is often described as a silent grief. For women in education, the silence is compounded by the relentless rhythm of school life. Our jobs involve performance, we must be the support for our students, and this demands our complete mental and emotional presence. Teachers are expected to stand in front of classes, to smile and be steady, even when their personal lives are marked by loss. With women making up three-quarters of the education workforce in the UK (DfE, 2022), the absence of open conversation about pregnancy loss is striking.
I have been there with colleagues through the heartbreak of miscarriage, and through the long, uncertain path of fertility treatments. One colleague once asked for a mental health day on what would have been her due date, a vivid reminder that grief is not linear and anniversaries bring waves of pain. Another shared the exhausting cycle of appointments, medications, and pregnancy tests that defined her attempts to conceive. These stories are part of school life, but they are rarely spoken aloud or formally recognised in policy.
Why Pregnancy Loss Matters in Education
Most schools have no specific structures or training in place to guide leaders or support staff. Teachers can feel forced to suppress grief in order to keep lessons going. When this happens, schools risk not only the wellbeing of staff but also the culture of care that should define education.
Pregnancy loss is both a medical event and a profound emotional rupture. Physically, it can involve surgery, recovery, and the exhaustion that follows. Emotionally, it brings grief for a future imagined but never lived. The disconnect between the devastation inside and the professionalism demanded outside can be unbearable. Without recognition or space, teachers risk feeling invisible in their grief.
Supporting staff through pregnancy loss and fertility journeys requires compassion and clarity. Three areas stand out:
- Policy and Procedure
Schools should establish clear leave policies that explicitly cover pregnancy loss at every stage and ensure staff understand their entitlements. Leadership need practical guidance on responding with sensitivity so that no member of staff feels dismissed. It is equally important that counselling and wider wellbeing services are easy to access and signposted without stigma.
- Culture and Conversation
A supportive culture begins with openly acknowledging pregnancy loss within staff wellbeing policies rather than treating it as a taboo subject. Leaders should be trained to respond with empathy and avoid minimising comments such as “at least you were not far along” or “at least you can try again”. Schools can recognise that grief can resurface around anniversaries of loss and offer staff the flexibility they need at these times.
- Practical Wellbeing Support
Staff deserve practical arrangements that help them re-enter work at a pace that feels manageable, such as phased timetables or temporary workload adjustments. Schools should protect time for medical appointments and mental health recovery. Peer networks or mentoring can provide a valuable source of connection and understanding for those navigating pregnancy loss or fertility treatment.
Workplace pledges, such as those promoted by the Miscarriage Association, provide clear frameworks that schools can adapt. These signal that loss will be handled with dignity and consistency, rather than silence and improvisation.
Schools often pride themselves on teaching empathy to children. We must apply the same principle to one another. Pregnancy loss and fertility journeys should not be taboo in education. When schools speak about them openly, they dismantle stigma. When institutions act with compassion, they protect not only the colleague in pain but also the integrity of the profession. Looking back, what made the difference for me were tangible acts. A colleague who offered to cover a lesson when I needed space. A quiet word that acknowledged my grief as real. These should be built into the school’s structures through purposeful policy and sensitive implementation.
References
Department for Education (DfE) (2022) School workforce in England: Reporting year 2022. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk (Accessed: 26 September 2025).
Education Support (2022) Teacher wellbeing index 2022. London: Education Support.
Miscarriage Association (n.d.) Pregnancy loss in the workplace: Guidance and charter. Available at: https://www.miscarriageassociation.org.uk/miscarriage-and-the-workplace/the-pregnancy-loss-pledge/ (Accessed: 26 September 2025).
Benedict’s Law and the implications for schools
Written by Tracey Dunn
Tracey Dunn is the Education and AllergyWise® Manager for Anaphylaxis UK. Tracey joined the team following her retirement from Headship having taught and led schools for 30 years. Tracey works with a number of different organisations to ensure the safety of students with allergies. These include the Department of Education and co-chairing the education group of the National Allergy Strategy.
Thankfully, fatal anaphylaxis is rare, but, when it does occur, the consequences are devastating. Helen and Peter Blythe have been tirelessly campaigning for change following the tragic death of their five-year-old son Benedict, who died at school in December 2021 after experiencing anaphylaxis. Their efforts have highlighted critical gaps in how schools protect children with allergies.
Although statutory guidance titled Supporting Pupils with Medical Conditions in School exists, it has not been updated since 2017. During the inquest into Benedict’s death, the Department for Education (DfE) acknowledged these shortcomings and announced it would undertake a review and update of the guidance. Research conducted by the Benedict Blythe Foundation into schools’ ability to respond to allergic emergencies found significant cause for concern. Despite schools being permitted to hold spare adrenaline auto-injectors (AAIs) since 2017, only a small proportion had done so. Combined with inconsistent training and a lack of clear allergy policies, this left children with allergies vulnerable and potentially at risk. These findings are echoed by enquiries to Anaphylaxis UK support helpline, where parents frequently seek clarification about schools’ responsibilities to ensure their children are safe, supported, and included.
In response, the Benedict Blythe Foundation has been campaigning for the introduction of “Benedict’s Law” to ensure that pupils with allergies attend schools that are properly equipped to safeguard them. Benedict’s Law has three mandatory components: training for all school staff, a comprehensive allergy policy, and the availability of spare adrenaline auto-injectors in every school.
In February 2026, significant progress was made. In the same week that leading allergy organisations—including Anaphylaxis UK, Allergy UK, the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI), the Benedict Blythe Foundation, and National Allergy Strategy leads—met with Olivia Bailey, Minister for Early Education, to contribute to the review of the statutory guidance, an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was passed by the House of Lords. This amendment confirmed that Benedict’s Law will be implemented in schools from September 2026 as part of the updated guidance.
This represents a historic step forward for children and young people with allergies. It will ensure they can learn in environments that are inclusive and safe, and that staff are properly trained to recognise and respond to allergic reactions and anaphylaxis without delay. Schools will be required to have the necessary medication on site, and staff will be empowered to act confidently and decisively in an emergency.
The updated guidance will be published for consultation by the DfE shortly. The National Allergy Strategy, the Benedict Blythe Foundation, and patient charities including Anaphylaxis UK will work closely with the DfE to provide schools with model policies and practical templates to support compliance with the new statutory requirements.
Schools are welcome to take action now to get ahead of the September 2026 requirements. By undertaking a whole-school allergy risk assessment, arranging staff training and subscribing to the education newsletter, schools can ensure they are fully prepared and compliant before the deadline. Early action will help to protect vulnerable pupils, demonstrate proactivity and give staff confidence in managing allergic emergencies.
Anaphylaxis UK has provided free or low-cost allergy and anaphylaxis training for over a decade, offering both e-learning and face-to-face options alongside a comprehensive suite of resources. Training is continually updated to reflect the latest clinical guidance, including the recent introduction of nasal adrenaline.
Please contact us at Anaphylaxis UK: allergywise@anaphylaxis.org.uk.
Curriculum and Assessment Review Analysis
Written by Belonging Effect
Belonging Effect is committed to shaping intention into impact and supporting people with their Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging strategy and training needs.
Steps in Evolution?
The work of Becky Francis and her team should be commended. It is no small feat to be able to manage a volume of feedback and try to create something new. The Final Report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review is comprehensive. This analysis intends only to consider the evolution of diversity in the curriculum in the Final Report.
So what does the Final Report tell us?
The recommendations made about diversity in the curriculum emphasise that the National Curriculum should be for all young people, reflecting the diversity of society and ensuring all children feel included and represented.
A key recommendation is that the Government reviews and updates all Programmes of Study, and, where appropriate, the corresponding GCSE Subject Content to include stronger representation of the diversity that makes up modern society, allowing more children to see themselves in the curriculum.
Specific subject recommendations intended to support diversity and representation include:
- History Programmes of Study should be adjusted to support the wider teaching of the subject’s inherent diversity, which involves analysing a wide range of sources and incorporating local history where appropriate. This enriches the curriculum by introducing a broader mix of perspectives and connections.
- English Literature GCSE subject content should be reviewed to ensure students study texts drawn from the full breadth of our literary heritage, including more diverse and representative texts.
- Design and Technology (D&T) curriculum and GCSE content should explicitly embed the teaching of social responsibility and inclusive design throughout the design process.
- Geography Programmes of Study should undergo minor refinements to make content more relevant and inclusive.
- Music Programmes of Study for Key Stages 1 to 3 should be revised to ensure a curriculum pathway that allows a range of genres and repertoires to be covered.
The curriculum principles guiding the reforms assert that diverse contributions to subject disciplines enable a complete, broad, and balanced curriculum, and that efforts should support equal opportunities and challenge discrimination.
However, the recommendations aimed at increasing diversity in the curriculum might be considered problematic due to several inherent tensions, dependencies on factors outside the Review’s remit, and practical limitations on implementation.
Tension with Retaining Core Knowledge and Content
The Review emphasised that while the curriculum must reflect the diversity of society, this ambition is balanced by the need to ensure mutual access to core knowledge.
- The curriculum principle states that core knowledge and key works that shape a subject must remain central. This focus can limit the extent to which new, diverse content is introduced or prioritized over established material – and also brings into question the definition of ‘established’.
- In History, teachers requested clearer guidance to reflect diversity without replacing core content. The suggested solution relies on updating the aims and refreshing the non-statutory examples to introduce a broader mix of perspectives, but not replacing existing essential topics. There are profound questions as to how we define ‘core’ content as this has been largely defined by colonial standards.
Dependence on Teacher Autonomy and External Resources
Implementing diverse curricula largely depends on the capacity and choices of individual schools and teachers, which can lead to inconsistent application.
- Diverse representation is sometimes judged as being more appropriately achieved through teacher selection of content rather than centralized prescription in the national curriculum.
- For these localised choices to work, they require support from high-quality exemplification resources (like those produced by Oak National Academy) and a wider selection of inclusive materials from publishers and exam boards.
- In English Literature, while the curriculum allows for a range of texts, current practice often lacks breadth and diversity due to the limited availability of resources and a tendency for teachers to rely on well-established works.
Failure to Address Systemic and Financial Barriers
The recommendations primarily address curriculum content but cannot resolve major underlying issues related to funding, infrastructure, and socio-economic disadvantage.
- In Design and Technology (D&T), implementing elements like inclusive design faces significant barriers extending beyond the curriculum, such as a lack of specialist staff, lack of infrastructure, and the cost of delivery.
- In Music, attainment gaps are substantial, with Music identified as having the highest disadvantage attainment gap of any subject at GCSE. This disparity is driven by the fact that success relies heavily on the ability to read music, which is often developed through additional, out-of-classroom instrumental tuition that benefits higher-income households. The recommendation is only to explore ways to better optimise the investment in music education, rather than guaranteeing equitable, mandatory in-school tuition needed to close this gap.
- The review also warned that substantial curriculum changes intended to promote inclusion must remain cognisant of the potential negative impact on the workload of education staff and the overall stability of the system.
- The report makes no explicit reference to systemic racism (although this is not a surprise).
Philosophical Conflict
The review panel acknowledged that promoting social justice involves dilemmas, as sometimes potential solutions designed to improve inclusivity may risk greater harm and inequities than the problem they seek to solve. Furthermore, efforts to reflect diversity must be careful not to limit children to “narrow frames of reference based on their background”, which as a phrase presents problematic interpretations.
Implications of the November 2025 Final Report
The November 2025 Final Report retains the principle that the national curriculum must reflect the diversity of modern Britain, but makes clear that representation is a requirement of entitlement, not an optional enhancement.
This reframing is significant. It shifts the locus of responsibility beyond schools to the national “knowledge supply chain”: publishers, resource platforms, awarding bodies and subject associations. The Review therefore acknowledges that representational breadth is structurally mediated.
The reframing does not take away responsibility for individual schools and teachers to ensure that a diverse curriculum is taught.
We must remember that Becky Francis’ report, as thorough as it is in some ways, remains a recommendation to the DfE, and that the DfE can choose to reject recommendations as they see fit. The true test of listening is how much is heard – and it is clear that teachers and students alike have expressed their desire for meaningful representation in the curriculum. It remains to be seen, as always.
Written collaboratively by Belonging Effect Associates Bennie Kara and Krys McInnis
From Policy to Practice: Why Schools Can’t Wait for Permission to Change
Written by Chloe Watterston
Chloe is an educator, athlete, and advocate for inclusive, curiosity-driven learning, dedicated to creating spaces where every young person feels safe, valued, and empowered. Her work across mainstream and SEND education, community projects, and curriculum reform is driven by a passion for amplifying marginalised voices and breaking down barriers to learning.
A child who feels unsafe today cannot wait for a policy tomorrow. Policy may set ideals, but practice shapes futures. Too often, though, the people who live and breathe education, the teachers in classrooms and the pupils in their care, are absent from the spaces where policy is made. We are told to wait for more research, more reviews, more proof. Yet the proof is already here, played out daily in classrooms and corridors across the country.
Diversity without anti-racism is nothing. Euphemism is the enemy of truth. If education is to be just, the compass must be the stories of pupils and the lived experiences of teachers. Policies written in isolation from practice do not protect children; they leave them exposed. The task is to close this gap- not gradually, but urgently, honestly, and with courage.
At the recent Anti-Racism in Education Conference led by The Black Curriculum, one theme rang clear: the gulf between those who draft policies and those who deliver them.
On paper, education is framed as the great equaliser. Policies promise fairness, opportunity, and protection. Yet between the page and the classroom, those promises are lost. Teachers are expected to diversify curricula without training or resources. Pupils are promised inclusion while staffrooms remain homogenous. The result is predictable: lofty commitments at national level, fragmented efforts at school level, and a profession left carrying ideals without the tools to deliver them.
This disconnect is not neutral. When policy lags, children suffer. When euphemism replaces truth, racism goes unchallenged. When accountability is weak, minoritised teachers leave, students are silenced, and inequities deepen.
What the Evidence Already Shows
The problem is not a lack of data. The picture is already painfully clear. Almost half of schools in England have no Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic teachers (Mission44). In schools where staffrooms lack diversity, teachers of colour are more likely to leave (UCL). Pay gaps remain, with Black teachers outside London earning less than white colleagues, and the disparities widening further at leadership level (NEU). Nine percent of schools fail to report ethnicity data at all, sidestepping scrutiny under the Equality Act (NEU).
This mismatch between pupils and staff undermines belonging. In fact, schools with the most diverse student bodies often have the least diverse staffrooms and the highest turnover. The climate within schools adds to the problem: Black teachers report feeling less supported, more bullied, and more likely to leave the profession prematurely (NFER).
Meanwhile, grassroots organisations such as DARPL, Lit in Colour, and the HALO Collective are already producing solutions. The challenge is not innovation, but uptake. As one panellist at the Anti-Racism in Education Conference put it: “We don’t need more data to prove what’s happening; we need action.”
From Initiative to Infrastructure: Levers for Change
Anti-racism cannot survive as a project or an occasional initiative; it must be treated as structural reform. That means embedding it into the very infrastructure of education.
It begins with governance and accountability. Governors should receive racial literacy training, and inspections must explicitly evaluate anti-racism alongside safeguarding and attainment. Local authority teams need to ensure that curricula reflect the communities they serve.
Teacher training must also be reimagined. No teacher should qualify without studying systemic racism, and all ITT and PGCE programmes should include mandatory modules on decolonising curricula, equity in behaviour, and racial literacy. Placement schools themselves should be assessed for inclusivity before being approved for trainees.
Policies cannot remain untouched. Behaviour, uniform, and admissions frameworks must be audited for bias, with disproportionate exclusions treated with the same seriousness as safeguarding failures. Euphemism must end: racism is not “bullying” or “unchallenged behaviour.”
Retention and progression for teachers of colour is equally urgent. Mentorship and leadership pipelines need to be developed, pay equity audits should become routine, and climate surveys must capture who feels valued, who feels isolated, and who is being pushed out.
Finally, the curriculum must be understood as a matter of structural reform, not individual goodwill. Decolonisation cannot depend on the enthusiasm of a handful of teachers. Instead, resourced and funded schemes of work must embed diverse voices across every subject. ‘Diversity weeks’ are no substitute for sustained, embedded practice.
This all leads to the deeper question: What Is Education For?
Ultimately, this debate circles back to purpose. Do we want schools to be comfortable – or do we want them to be true?
A Eurocentric curriculum is not neutral; it is erasure. Racism softened into euphemism is not diplomacy; it is complicity. When Black teachers leave at higher rates, this is not attrition; it is structural inequity.
Every delay, every euphemism, prolongs harm. Children notice. Teachers burn out. Communities lose faith.
Education cannot be reduced to paperwork or political cycles. It should be the place where truth is spoken, belonging is built, and futures are shaped. The evidence is here. The stories are here. The only question left is whether we have the courage to act.
Curriculum Shifts That Matter
Anti-racism is not about box-ticking. It is about truth telling. Teachers can bring this to life by introducing writers such as Andrea Levy, whose Small Island sheds light on the Windrush generation, or Caryl Phillips, who’s Crossing the River traces histories of displacement. Poetry and storytelling from figures such as Grace Nichols, Linton Kwesi Johnson, and Jackie Kay provide equally vital perspectives. Hidden histories also belong at the heart of the curriculum: Sophia Duleep Singh, the suffragette princess; and Claudia Jones, founder of Notting Hill Carnival. Representation here is not inclusion for its own sake. It is historical accuracy.
Britain’s multicultural history runs far deeper than the Windrush generation. Ignatius Sancho, born in 1729, became the first Black man to vote in Britain and was also a composer whose letters capture the intellectual life of 18th century London. In 1773, Phillis Wheatley published her poetry in London while still enslaved in America, just 20 years old at the time. Claudia Jones, as mentioned above, deported from the US, went on to become a leading voice in British anti-racism and founded The West Indian Gazette as well as Notting Hill Carnival.
For teachers, the invitation is simple: introduce one ‘hidden history’ into your lesson this week, then ask your students why they had not encountered it before. Leaders should take a hard look at workforce data and ask who is leaving, and why. Governors must review equity with the same seriousness as safeguarding. Policymakers, meanwhile, should stop asking for “more data” and instead start funding the grassroots work already making an impact.
Policy may set ideals, but practice shapes futures.
If the system will not lead the way, then schools themselves must light the path.
Why schools need to address anti-LGBT bullying
Written by Eleanor Formby
Eleanor Formby (she/her) is Professor of Sociology and Youth Studies at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. She has 25 years’ experience in (predominantly qualitative) social research and evaluation, and for nearly 20 years her work has focussed on the life experiences of LGBT+ people. Eleanor has written numerous articles in these areas and is the author of Exploring LGBT spaces and communities.
Next month will see Anti-Bullying Week (November 10-14), and Sheffield Hallam University research highlights that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) young people are still at risk of being bullied at school.
The study is the largest of its kind ever conducted in England, with over 61,000 pupils and staff from 853 schools taking part. It focused specifically on homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying—i.e. that directed at people because of their actual or assumed sexual or gender identity—and on LGBT inclusion in schools.
It’s often assumed that ‘progress’—thinking particularly about LGBT rights—is a steady march forward, and to be fair, the past 25 years have seen significant changes for LGBT people in the UK. In 2015, the UK was ranked number one on the ILGA-Europe rainbow map, which rates 49 European countries on the basis of laws and policies that directly impact on LGBT people’s human rights. Around the same time, the UK government invested over £6 million in efforts to prevent and respond to HBT bullying in schools, which included our research. The year our research finished, the Government announced that relationships and sex education (RSE) would become compulsory in English secondary schools—and that it should include LGBT content. For a while, there was reason to feel cautiously optimistic.
But things began to change.
Despite commissioning our research, the Conservative government delayed releasing the findings for five years—an unprecedented move. The study was only published after a change in government.
During this period, rhetoric from the government became increasingly hostile, particularly towards trans people. In April 2025, a high-profile supreme court ruling on gender was followed by a controversial ‘interim update’ from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In the 2025 ILGA-Europe rainbow map the UK dropped to 22nd place—we’re now the second worst country for LGBT-related laws in Western Europe and Scandinavia.
Recently the government has also revised its guidance on RSE, with reduced references to trans people (just once in a subheading). It explicitly states that schools “should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity”, and “should avoid materials that… encourage pupils to question their gender”. This language echoes Section 28—the infamous law that, until 2003, banned local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” and prevented schools from teaching the “acceptability of homosexuality”.
Against this backdrop, a new book demonstrates that HBT (homophobic, biphobic and transphobic) bullying is still happening—but also that schools can make a difference.
Our findings show that many schools respond to bullying after it happens, rather than trying to prevent it in the first place. In primary schools, efforts often focus on educating children about inappropriate language. Fewer schools are embedding HBT bullying prevention within everyday teaching, or in visible displays in school.
Where LGBT inclusion is happening, it often takes place in assemblies, or sometimes in secondary schools during PSHE (personal, social, health and economic education) lessons, or in ‘drop-down days’ when normal lessons are suspended. In some primary schools, specific books are used.
There are also barriers, for example a lack of time and staff capacity available in schools, and a lack of funding to invest in resources, facilities or training to help do this work well. Some staff don’t feel supported by school leadership. Others worry about complaints from parents or uncertainty about what’s ‘age appropriate’. In the current context, these concerns and associated lack of confidence are likely to grow.
But when schools get it right, there is real impact, for instance LGBT pupils—and those with LGBT family members—feel safer and more understood. Others feel more able to ask questions about issues that confuse or concern them.
This is why it’s so concerning that the UK seems to be moving backwards. Instead of helping schools create more inclusive environments, recent guidance—and arguably the suppression of important research—risk making things worse for LGBT young people, and those with LGBT family members. Teachers are left uncertain about what they’re allowed to say or teach, and pupils may feel more isolated.
It’s difficult to understand why any government would risk children and young people’s wellbeing in this way.
As we prepare to mark Anti-Bullying Week, it’s important to remember that (to borrow from previous policy, seemingly long-forgotten) every child matters—and deserves to feel safe and included, so schools need to address anti-LGBT bullying. To make that a reality, we need to support schools—not leave them uncertain or under-resourced.
Women of a certain age: The menopause at school
Written by Sarah Wordlaw
Sarah Wordlaw is a headteacher working in an inner-city South London primary school. She has successfully rewritten the curriculum in her school and is passionate about how teachers can use the curriculum to make the next generation better than us! She has led various subjects and areas of the school over her educational career and worked in many different capacities in a wide range of educational establishments. She identifies as a queer woman of mixed heritage and often felt unseen in taught subjects, both as a child and as an adult, which has fuelled her interest in diversity and inclusion.
Developing an anti-misogynist culture in your school starts from the top. There must be a commitment from leadership at all levels, and it must be threaded throughout all school practices and policies.
However, women remain under-represented within school leadership (Bergmann et al, 2022). In England, the school leadership characteristics and trends report (DfE, 2022) reveals that at primary level, 85% of primary teachers are female compared with 74% of headteachers.
Traditionally, notions of leadership are connected to perceptions of masculinity – having “strength” or “gravitas”. In reality, being a successful primary school leader requires someone who is both strong and vulnerable, someone who is driven and compassionate, someone who is commanding and empathic.
Female teachers are less likely to be promoted to headship or senior leadership than their male counterparts, and part-time teachers are 45% less likely than full-time to be promoted to both headship and even to middle leadership (DfE, 2022).
That being the case, I wonder if the reason we don’t talk about menopause as much as we should is because senior leadership teams can often be male-dominated.
Menopause in schools
Menopause is a significant time for women, usually occurring between the ages of 45 and 55. The menopause is defined as when a woman’s periods have stopped for at least 12 consecutive months.
The first step to take as a school leader is to understand what the menopause might involve for a colleague – and it is not just hot flushes!
A report from the Fawcett Society reminds us that that 84% of women describe the lack of sleep and 73% the brain fog that can come with the menopause as being difficult – this compared to 70% who said this about the hot flushes or night sweats; 69% say they experience difficulties with anxiety or depression due to menopause (Bazeley et al, 2022).
The report is cited in a recent Headteacher Update article written by employment law expert Kelly Rayner. In this piece – which is well worth a read, as indeed is the Fawcett Society report – we are also reminded that 8 in 10 women experiencing menopausal symptoms are in work and that 44% of women said their ability to work had been affected by the menopause, while 1 in 10 have left work due to menopause symptoms.
The National Education Union reminds us that the menopause is “an occupational health issue for women educators, as well as also being an equality issue” (NEU, 2025). Symptoms can include:
- Hot flushes or night sweats
- Heavy or light periods
- Headaches/brain fog
- Insomnia
- Urogenital issues
- Loss of confidence
- Low mood
- Poor or reduced concentration
- Anxiety and panic attacks
- Joint pain and muscular aches
However, despite the clear impact these symptoms might have on someone’s working life, sadly, the menopause is rarely mentioned in many workplaces, particularly when the leaders are male.
Women should be able to work in a supportive and understanding environment with reasonable adjustments made when going through menopause. The NEU offers a range of resources, including checklists for school leaders, posters to raise awareness, and a model school policy (see further information).
Practical issues
There are a number of practical questions that we can consider immediately. Drawing on the NEU’s advice, these include:
- Do you have a menopause policy and are all staff aware of it, especially line managers? Again, templates can be found via the NEU and The Key among others.
- Is the staff team “menopause-aware” – this will avoid female members of staff having to raise it as an individual issue?
- How do you ensure adequate ventilation in classrooms and staffrooms? Do staff have access to good temperature control for classrooms?
- Other simple provisions can include leaving doors open, ensuring that windows can be safely opened, access to fans, and fitting blinds to windows.
- What systems are in place for cover if a staff member needs to go to the bathroom or get a cold drink mid-lesson? Indeed, is there ready access to cold drinking water?
- Ensure you have sanitary products available in toilets – you could have a basket of a variety of different products in your women’s toilets
- What systems are in place to ensure swift permission for absence to attend menopause-related medical appointments.
The NEU advises leaders to support requests for flexibility, such as undertaking non-contact time at home or requests to reduce hours or change hours temporarily. Remember, offering cover in the short term is better than having to hire new staff members in the long term
Its advice for leaders states: “Give control to individual teachers and support staff over their immediate working environment – a clear message will empower staff and reduce requests to the leadership team.”
A positive culture
Your approach and your written menopause policy must create a culture in school which is positive. For example, supporting staff members experiencing difficulties helps to improve the wellbeing of staff, retains great and experienced teachers, reduces recruitment costs, and works towards gender equality. These are key messages.
Other advice for school leaders includes:
- Get to know your staff: Have regular catch-ups so you build trust and are in touch with how they are feeling and what they are experiencing.
- As the NEU advises above, give control to female staff over their immediate working environment – this is empowering
- Research and encourage access to support services locally. Many local authorities run menopause working groups for local government employees – make your whole staff team aware of this and offer cover if there were women who would like to attend the support meetings.
- Understand that every woman’s experience of the menopause is different. Build a supportive culture at work by having an open-door policy. Ensure a private conversation can take place if needs-be and make sure you follow-up and review any actions alongside agreed adjustments
Final thoughts
Having a menopause policy helps to develop gender equality in schools (and beyond) as it addresses the specific health needs of women going through menopause, which can impact work, potentially leading to unequal treatment and career progression disadvantages.
Further information & resources
Bazeley, Marren & Shepherd: Menopause and the Workplace, Fawcett Society, 2022: Click here
Bergmann, Alban Conto & Brossard: Increasing women’s representation in school leadership: A promising path towards improving learning, UNICEF Office of Research, 2022.
DfE: Transparency data: School leadership in England 2010 to 2020: Characteristics and trends, 2022: www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-leadership-in-england-2010-to-2020-characteristics-and-trends
NEU: Working through the menopause: Resources including template policy and school leader checklists: https://neu.org.uk/advice/equality/sex-and-gender-equality/working-through-menopause
Supreme Court Ruling - Key Information for Educators
Written by Belonging Effect
Belonging Effect is committed to shaping intention into impact and supporting people with their Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging strategy and training needs.
Introduction
On Wednesday 16th April the UK Supreme Court shared their ruling on the case For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Minister, which interprets the legal definition of the word ‘sex’, as used in the context of The Equality Act 2010.
Since the court handed down, the ruling has been spoken about extensively in the regulated media, unregulated social media, and in Parliament.
We have read and listened to much of the coverage from diverse sources, and responses to the ruling have ranged widely. Some have exaggerating, misinterpreting or misrepresenting the details of the case, and others have expressed strong emotional reactions, which may act to exacerbate the fear that many trans people are currently experiencing.
Our intention in this piece is to present the details as accurately and clearly as we can. In order to do so, we have tried to avoid presenting our own opinions in much of the following piece. However, we think it is important to be transparent before we begin. We know trans people, we love them, we live our lives alongside them, and we are deeply concerned about the way this ruling is already impacting their lives. We believe that it is the duty of our government to enact laws which provide workable and inclusive protection from discrimination, and ensure dignity and respect for all people – including transgender people. With that clear, let’s begin.
Background
In 2018 the Scottish Government presented a new law, which aimed to get more women on public boards. The Scottish Government included trans women who had obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) within this aim, which they felt was in-line with The Equality Act 2010, and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. However, the group For Women Scotland disagreed – they felt The Equality Act 2010’s protected characteristic of ‘sex’, and specifically its use of the word ‘woman’, was not intended when written to include trans women.
For Women Scotland therefore brought a judicial review to the UK Supreme Court, requesting they review the lawfulness of the Scottish Government’s position in relation to The Equality Act 2010. Therefore, it was the job of the UK Supreme Court to provide a statutory interpretation of the meaning of ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘sex’ as used in The Equality Act 2010, and specifically whether that definition includes trans women who have a GRC.
The Ruling
The UK Supreme Court unanimously agreed that, for the purposes of interpreting the word ‘sex’ under the Equality Act 2010, Parliament’s intention was to refer to ‘biological sex’ (a term which neither the law or the court defines clearly) rather than legal gender acquired through a GRC. This means that legal protections associated with the characteristic of ‘sex’ may not apply to trans women in most contexts. The decision was made because to include transgender people who have a GRC within The Equality Act 2010 definition would make the law unworkable.
There are some details of the ruling which we think are important.
Firstly, the ruling is specifically addressing the definitions as used in The Equality Act 2010. The judge, when handing down the ruling, explained that the origins of the language used in The Equality Act 2010 is the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which the judge stated, ‘adopted a biological interpretation of the terms men and women’. Note the wording here – the Acts have adopted an interpretation. This ruling does not define what a woman is – it interprets what it means in the specific context of a 15-year-old Act, which pulls on an interpretation used in 1975.
Secondly, this ruling does not justify the discrimination of trans people. The court clarified several times during their hand down that trans people are still protected from discrimination under The Equality Act 2010, which includes ‘Gender Reassignment’ as a protected characteristic. The judge explained that this protection extends to cover trans people whether they have a GRC, or not. Furthermore, there is some legal precedent that non-binary people may also be protected under this characteristic – although this is legal precedent and not case law. The judge also clarified that transgender women can still be protected under the characteristic of ‘sex’ through associated or perceived protections of women. We think it is also important to note that the language used by the judge presenting the ruling was mostly respectful, and used correctly gendered language at all times when talking about trans people – stating clearly that this ruling should not be seen as a triumph for any one group over another.
Finally, we think it is contextually important to understand that the court system in the UK interprets the laws which are enacted by Parliament. This ruling is thus an interpretation of law, and our current government can clarify this interpretation, or change the law to make it workable and inclusive, should they wish to.
What does this mean for society, and for schools?
The legal implication of this ruling is that it is legally possible for provisions of services to be single-sex, and exclude trans men or women. Our understanding is that the Supreme Court ruling does not state provisions of services have to exclude trans people, but they may legally choose to be single-sex provisions if they can demonstrate this is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, and in such cases these single-sex provisions may legally exclude trans men or women.
In society, this may impact: workplaces; services open to the public such as hospitals, shops, restaurants, leisure facilities, refuges, and counselling services; sporting bodies; schools; and associations (groups or clubs of more than 25 people which have rules of membership). The Equality Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released an interim update on practical implications of the ruling, in which they suggest that it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets in workplaces, and changing and washing facilities where these are needed – this is not compulsory for services that are open to the public. The EHRC interim update suggests that such spaces should be separated based on the Supreme Court interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, meaning that “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities” (please note this is a direct quote of the EHRC guidance, and not language we would choose to use). The guidance goes on to explain that “trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use”, and that “where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”, or facilities in “lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time” – these can be used by anybody. The details set out in the EHRC interim guidance were not mandated by the Supreme Court Ruling. However, as stated previously our understanding is that services may legally choose to be single-sex provisions if they can demonstrate this is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, and in such cases, these single-sex provisions may legally exclude trans people.
In schools, it has never been possible for young people to obtain a GRC, but this ruling may still impact: single-sex schools; school toilets and changing spaces; physical education and sport; and residential accommodation. In each of these areas, our understanding is that a school may now legally choose to hold single-sex spaces, if they can demonstrate that this choice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and in such cases these single-sex spaces may exclude trans young people (or trans staff). The EHRC interim guidance introduced above suggests that schools “must provide separate single-sex toilets for boys and girls over the age of 8” and “single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls over the age of 11”. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the guidance suggests that “pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls’ toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys’ toilet or changing facilities”. They clarify that “suitable alternative provisions may be required”. Again, please note this is a direct quote of the EHRC guidance, and not language we would choose to use.
The details set out in the EHRC interim guidance were not mandated by the Supreme Court Ruling, but as state previously our understanding is that schools may legally choose to hold single-sex provisions if they can demonstrate this is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, and in such cases, these single-sex provisions may legally exclude trans people. For example, it would be legal for a school to have a single-sex sports group which does not allow trans young people to participate – or for schools to prevent trans young people from accessing the toilet aligned with their gender.
Although this is currently the only legal implication of this ruling, we are already seeing the misrepresentation of this ruling creating social implications beyond the legal bounds of the case. Transgender discrimination is increasing, and cis-gender people are already being discriminated against because of false assumptions about their gender. Although single-sex provisions excluding trans people are legal, and encouraged by the interim EHRC guidance, it is difficult to enforce or police without making assumptions which could be false. Furthermore, we are already hearing from teachers that this ruling has created further uncertainty, particularly around staff confidence in discussing trans identities and the protected characteristic of ‘Gender Reassignment’, which could impact the inclusive quality of Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE) and Personal, Social, Health Economics (PSHE).
There is a lot of misinformation, which is leading to worsening, and at times unlawful, discriminatory language and behaviour. Government Ministers have stated the ruling requires transgender people to use toilets related to their sex assigned at birth, which is also set out in the EHRC interim guidance – this is not stated in the ruling. The Prime Minister has claimed the ruling offers clarity by defining women as biological women – this is misleading as the court judgement only pertains to an interpretation of what was meant by Parliament in The Equality Act 2010, and as clarified above it is parliament who enact and change law. Our current government could clarify or change law to make it workable and inclusive, should they wish to – the courts do not dictate definitions to Parliament.
Actions you may wish to consider taking
We hope that reading this piece has helped you to feel more informed about the Supreme Court ruling. Below are some actions you may wish to undertake as a result of what you have read:
- Please challenge mis-characterisations of this ruling and clarify that transgender people are still legally protected from discrimination, and that any decision to exclude them from provisions of services, whilst legal for single-sex provisions, and encouraged in the EHRC interim guidance, were not mandated by the court ruling. It is important that the ruling is spoken about with as much accuracy as possible.
- Revisit policies – this ruling may require more accurate and thought-out language in policies which reference men and women, boys and girls, or The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Reassignment.
- If you are concerned about this ruling, then you may wish to take the time to write to your local MP and express your concerns. Remember, Parliament makes the laws, and the courts can only interpret them – our current government can change The Equality Act to include more clear and inclusive definitions which provide workable protections and dignity to all people – including transgender people.
- If you are concerned about the EHRC interim guidance, then they have stated that a consultation will launch in mid-May and last for two weeks. You may wish to use this consultation to share your view.
- Read and share our Diverse Educators Resources to support you and your school community. Here is our Transgender Rights’ Toolkit and here is our Growing Trans and Non-Binary Awareness Training.
This piece was written by members of the Diverse Educators’ team and is intended for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice nor a formal legal interpretation. This blog was published on 26/4/25, and all information was to the best of our understanding at the time of publishing.
Further Resources
- A clear and accurate legal explanation from Kalina Hagen – Click Here
- Trans Actual Response – Click Here
- An interim update on practical implications from the EHRC – Click Here
A Groundbreaking Milestone: the UK’s First Nursery to Implement Equal Parental Leave
Written by Claudio Sisera
Claudio Sisera is the Founder and Head of Diversity at Male Childcare & Teaching Jobs. Advocate of Gender Inclusivity in Education.
Eagley School House Nurseries has opened a new chapter for equality in early years education by introducing equal parental leave, a policy that’s the first of its kind in the UK’s early years domain. Spearheaded by Director Julie Robinson, this innovative approach goes beyond mere policy changes; it marks a meaningful step toward true gender equality at work and home. Julie’s leadership aims to inspire other settings in the sector to consider similar policies, sparking a ripple effect in early years education.
Driving Equality: The Vision Behind Equal Parental Leave
Julie Robinson’s initiative to implement equal parental leave at Eagley School House Nurseries reflects her commitment to fostering gender equality in the workplace and in family life. “We’ve long assumed that childcare leave is just the mother’s responsibility,” she says, explaining how her policy addresses the need for change. This fresh approach allows parents, regardless of gender, to share childcare responsibilities without stigma.
Research supports the positive impact of both parents being involved in their child’s early years, showing benefits in cognitive and emotional development. By enabling fathers to participate more in these foundational years, Eagley School House Nurseries highlights the importance of both parents’ roles in childcare, setting a powerful example that values fathers just as much as mothers.
Reflecting Core Values: Inclusivity at Eagley School House Nurseries
For years, Eagley School House Nurseries has been committed to building an inclusive environment, and the new equal parental leave policy is a natural extension of that mission. Julie’s work over two decades has consistently championed gender diversity, with projects focused on supporting boys’ achievements and welcoming men into early years roles. “Inclusivity has been my ethos from the start,” Julie explains, emphasising how valuable male contributions are to early education.
This policy not only aligns with Eagley School House Nurseries’ mission but also strengthens their dedication to providing a workplace that challenges stereotypes. By promoting equal leave, Julie fosters a culture where everyone’s contributions are recognised and valued, irrespective of gender. Her work is a beacon for other nurseries and settings, offering a roadmap toward a more balanced childcare sector.
Impact on Staff and the Early Years Sector
The introduction of equal parental leave at Eagley School House Nurseries is not only a supportive measure for its employees but also a landmark decision for the wider sector. As Julie shares, “Parents shouldn’t have to choose between career and family.” Her policy champions choice, removing societal pressure and ensuring all parents feel supported in balancing work and family.
More broadly, this policy fosters a more equitable early years environment. By making parental roles independent of gender expectations, Eagley School House Nurseries encourages fathers to take on active caregiving roles. Julie explains, “Normalising parental leave for all genders helps break down stereotypes about caregiving.” This forward-thinking approach sets an important precedent and signals a progressive shift within early years education.
Transforming Workplace Culture
Eagley School House Nurseries’ equal parental leave policy is expected to bring positive cultural changes to the workplace, creating a supportive environment for all staff. Julie hopes the policy will strengthen job satisfaction and encourage retention, especially for men entering early years education who may seek balance between family and career. “When we value our dads, we acknowledge the important role they play,” she notes.
This commitment to inclusivity could help attract new talent, reinforcing Julie’s message that every role in childcare is meaningful. Her vision reflects a dedication to creating a workplace where employees feel valued as both caregivers and professionals, inspiring other nurseries to consider similar steps.
A Vision for Change: Julie Robinson on the Importance of Men in Childcare
Julie Robinson’s passion for equality extends beyond policy – it’s about reshaping perceptions in the early years sector. She believes that valuing men in childcare is essential for building a truly inclusive society. “When we respect people for what they do, we elevate the industry and the role itself,” Julie shares.
By supporting men’s involvement in early years, Julie hopes to set a new standard that encourages more men to embrace active parenting. She believes that equal parental leave could inspire men to engage fully in their children’s lives and become role models within early years education.
Looking Ahead
Eagley School House Nurseries’ new policy on equal parental leave sets an important standard for inclusivity in early years education. Julie’s commitment to supporting both mothers and fathers equally not only enhances workplace culture but also encourages a balanced approach to family and professional life. This is a significant shift, one with the potential to inspire change across the sector.
We hope that other early years settings will follow Julie’s example, working toward an industry where staff feel valued and empowered to balance work with family. Together, we can create a stronger, more inclusive future for early years education.
Challenging Hair Discrimination Through Racial Narratives, Industry Knowledge on the Economics of Hair and Counter Literacy Equality, Diversity Strategies
Written by Dr Pamela Odih
Pamela is a senior lecturer in Sociology within the Sociology department at Goldsmiths University of London. Her research specialises human rights communication and the significance of me/space to the regulation of subjects and construction of gendered subjectivity with specific regards to organisational analysis and educational policy.
On 27th October 2022 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published new guidance aimed at ensuring that: “Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school” (EHRC 2022). The guidance is supported by resources that are “endorsed by World Afro Day and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Race Equality in Education” and are designed to assist school leaders in ensuring that “hair or hairstyle policies are not unlawfully discriminatory” (ibid.).
In October 2024, having successfully applied for a British Academy and Leverhulme Trust small grant, I began my empirical study which is entitled “Challenging Hair Discrimination Through Racial Narratives, Industry Knowledge on the Economics of Hair and Counter Literacy Equality, Diversity Strategies”. Research Focus: The proposed research is partly an impact analysis of the application of EHRC resources, into school policies and the responses of school leaders to the suitability and adaptability of these policies.
An additional focus of the study is to envisage the scope and form of guidance on anti-race-based hair discrimination that informs young people as consumer citizens in respect to their cultural heritage of hair sculpture as an expression of racial belonging. I am currently interviewing UK and USA NGOs, charities and human rights legal practitioners to ascertain the impact of their activism in respect to PSHE and citizenship studies educational policy and race equality legislation.
If you have such involvement in this subject area, I would greatly appreciate interviewing you. Please, in this regard, contact me at Goldsmiths University, where I am a Sociology Senior Lecturer. The outcome of the research is scheduled to be disseminated in academic journals and the creation of an open access teaching resource to support consumer citizenship secondary school lessons.
I am also collaborating with the spoken poet Rider Shafique to create three long-form poems for presentation at scheduled multiculturalism festivals within the academy; we also envisage co-creating and illustrating a series of children’s books. I’ll post again as the research progresses and shall provide some interim findings which I hope will be useful for your respective projects.