Emotional Labour: Who Looks After the DEIB Leaders?
Written by Hannah Wilson
Founder and Director of the Belonging Effect (formerly Diverse Educators).
DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) leaders are often positioned as the moral and emotional anchors of their organisations. They are asked to hold space for harm, advocate for systemic change, educate others, and respond to crises – frequently while navigating their own lived experiences of marginalisation.
Yet a critical question is often overlooked: who looks after them?
As organisations expand their DEIB commitments, many are failing to invest in the sustainability of the people doing this work. The result is a growing pattern of compassion fatigue, burnout, and attrition among DEIB leaders – costly not only to individuals, but to organisations themselves.
The Unique Load DEIB Leaders Carry
DEIB leadership is not just strategic or operational work – it is deeply relational and emotional. DEIB leaders are often:
- Exposed to repeated accounts of trauma and discrimination
- Expected to respond calmly to resistance, denial, or hostility
- Asked to educate while also advocating
- Share their lived-experience honestly, vulnerably and generously
- Positioned as both insiders and outsiders within organisations
- Hold responsibility without proportional authority or resourcing
This cumulative load is rarely acknowledged in job descriptions, performance metrics, or wellbeing strategies.
Compassion Fatigue Is Not a Personal Failing
Compassion fatigue occurs when sustained exposure to others’ distress depletes emotional and psychological resources. For DEIB leaders, this can show up as:
- Emotional exhaustion or numbness
- Reduced empathy or motivation
- Cynicism about organisational change
- Withdrawal from relationships or work
Importantly, compassion fatigue is not a lack of resilience or commitment. It is a predictable response to prolonged emotional labour without adequate support.
Burnout and the DEIB Attrition Problem
When compassion fatigue is left unaddressed, it often leads to burnout – characterised by exhaustion, detachment, and a sense of ineffectiveness. Many DEIB leaders respond by leaving their roles, shifting careers, or exiting organisations altogether.
This attrition creates a revolving door effect on the DEIB strategy:
- Knowledge and trust are lost
- Strategies stall or reset
- Work is redistributed to other leaders to carry even more load
Organisations then misdiagnose the issue as a “pipeline problem” rather than a care and support problem.
Coaching, Mentoring, and Supervision as Sources of Support
Supporting DEIB leaders requires intentional structures, not just wellness slogans.
Coaching: Provides a confidential space focused on leadership development, boundaries, decision-making, and navigating organisational complexity. Coaches can help DEIB leaders reconnect with agency and clarity.
Mentoring: Offers relational support and wisdom-sharing, particularly valuable when mentors have lived experience or have navigated similar organisational terrain. Mentoring reduces isolation and normalises challenges.
Supervision: Creates structured reflective space to process emotional impact, ethical dilemmas, and role strain. For DEIB leaders, supervision can be critical in preventing compassion fatigue and burnout.
These supports are not interchangeable – and ideally, DEIB leaders should have access to more than one.
What Organisations Need to Do Differently
If organisations are serious about DEIB, they must be equally serious about caring for the people leading it. This includes:
- Funding coaching, mentoring, and supervision as core role supports
- Normalising emotional labour as part of DEIB work
- Building realistic expectations and boundaries into roles
- Sharing responsibility for DEIB across leadership – not isolating it
- Measuring sustainability, not just activity
Care is not a “nice to have.” It is a strategic necessity.
Looking After the People Who Hold the Work
DEIB leaders are often asked to model empathy, courage, and humanity in systems that do not always return those qualities. If we want DEIB work to endure – rather than burn people out – we must shift from extraction to care, containment, and collective responsibility.
Looking after DEIB leaders is not separate from DEIB work. It is DEIB work.
Holding Space Without Burning Out: Understanding Compassion Fatigue and How We Safeguard Ourselves
Written by Hannah Wilson
Founder and Director of the Belonging Effect (formerly Diverse Educators).
In caring professions – and in deeply relational roles – holding space for others is sacred work. Whether you are a therapist, coach, nurse, social worker, teacher, spiritual leader, or simply the person everyone turns to in crisis, you are entrusted with stories that carry pain, trauma, grief, and vulnerability. But holding space comes at a cost if we do not tend to ourselves. Compassion fatigue is not a failure of resilience. It is often the natural consequence of caring deeply in the presence of trauma. And safeguarding ourselves is not selfish – it is ethical.
What Is Compassion Fatigue?
Compassion fatigue is the emotional and physical exhaustion that can develop when we are repeatedly exposed to others’ suffering. It is sometimes described as the “cost of caring.” Unlike burnout, which develops from chronic workplace stress and systemic pressures, compassion fatigue is closely tied to exposure to trauma – directly or indirectly. Over time, witnessing others’ pain can begin to shift our nervous system, our worldview, and even our sense of safety.
You may notice:
- Emotional numbness or irritability
- Difficulty concentrating
- A reduced sense of empathy
- Sleep disturbances
- Feeling overwhelmed or depleted
- Intrusive thoughts about clients or stories you have heard
For those working with trauma survivors, there is also the risk of vicarious trauma – a cumulative shift in our internal world as we absorb repeated accounts of trauma. This does not mean we are weak. It means we are human.
Trauma Exposure Changes the Nervous System
When we hold space for trauma, our nervous system is activated. Even if the trauma did not happen to us, our body often responds as if it were present. We may feel tightness in the chest, shallow breathing, or a subtle hypervigilance. Without intentional processing, these responses accumulate. Over time, the body may stay in a low-level stress response.
If we are not aware of this, we may:
- Over-identify with others’ pain
- Carry stories home with us
- Lose perspective
- Begin to feel helpless or hopeless
The more attuned we are, the more we are affected. This is why safeguarding ourselves must be woven into our professional practice – not treated as an afterthought.
Safeguard 1: Supervision Is Not Optional
Clinical supervision, reflective practice, or professional consultation is one of the most protective factors against compassion fatigue.
Supervision provides:
- A space to process emotional responses
- Containment for complex trauma material
- Ethical guidance and accountability
- Perspective when we feel stuck
- A reminder that we are not alone
Without supervision, helpers can become isolated in their internal processing. Isolation amplifies stress. Supervision is not a sign that we cannot cope. It is a commitment to sustainability and ethical care.
Safeguard 2: Structured Decompression
We cannot repeatedly hold intense emotional material and then immediately switch into “normal life” without impact. Decompression is the intentional act of transitioning your nervous system from holding space to rest and regulation.
This might include:
- A short walk after sessions
- Breathwork or grounding exercises
- Journaling to externalize what you are carrying
- Washing your hands as a symbolic reset
- Listening to music during the commute home
- Physical movement to release stored tension
Decompression rituals matter because they signal to the body: the work is done for now. Without this signal, the body continues to hold.
Safeguard 3: Trauma-Informed Self-Awareness
When we support others through trauma, our own unresolved experiences can be activated. This is not a flaw – it is part of being relational beings. But awareness is essential.
Ask yourself:
- What stories trigger me most strongly?
- Where do I feel this work in my body?
- Am I rescuing, over-functioning, or overextending?
- What feels harder lately?
Personal therapy, peer support, and reflective practice are powerful forms of safeguarding. We cannot ethically hold others’ trauma if we refuse to tend to our own.
Safeguard 4: Boundaries as Compassion
Boundaries are often misunderstood as distancing. In reality, they are what allow us to remain compassionate.
Healthy boundaries include:
- Clear session limits
- Defined availability
- Emotional differentiation (“This is not mine to carry”)
- Saying no when capacity is exceeded
Boundaries protect empathy from erosion. When we overextend, resentment follows. When resentment builds, compassion shrinks. Boundaries preserve our ability to care.
Safeguard 5: Rest Is Clinical
Rest is not indulgent. It is restorative. Sleep, play, connection, creativity, nature, laughter – these are not luxuries. They are protective factors against trauma exposure.
When we normalise exhaustion as “part of the job,” we risk normalising harm to ourselves. The quality of care we offer is directly linked to the state of our nervous system.
Sustainable Compassion
Holding space is courageous work. It requires presence, empathy, and the willingness to sit in discomfort without turning away. But sustainable compassion requires something equally important: self-protection.
We safeguard ourselves from compassion fatigue through five commitments:
- Supervision
- Decompression rituals
- Trauma-informed self-awareness
- Boundaries
- Rest
When we protect our nervous systems, we protect our ability to continue showing up. Compassion fatigue does not mean you are incapable. It means you care. And caring, when supported, can remain a powerful and sustainable force.
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.
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.
Creating Psychological Safety in Schools: Building Trust for Pupils, Staff, and Parents
Written by Hannah Wilson
Founder and Director of the Belonging Effect (formerly Diverse Educators).
In a world that is constantly changing, schools are being asked to do more than ever before. They are not just places of learning, but communities where young people grow, adults work, and families connect. Yet one essential ingredient often gets overlooked: psychological safety – the sense that it is safe to speak up, make mistakes, ask questions, and be yourself without fear of ridicule or punishment.
Coined by Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson, the term “psychological safety” refers to an environment where people feel respected, included, and confident that their voices matter. While the concept emerged from studies of workplace teams, its relevance to education is profound. Schools that nurture psychological safety for pupils, staff, and parents create the conditions for deeper learning, stronger relationships, and healthier wellbeing across the community.
Psychological Safety for Pupils: A Foundation for Learning
For pupils, learning inherently involves risk – the risk of being wrong, of not understanding, of standing out. When students feel unsafe to fail or to speak up, they disengage, hide their struggles, or act out. When they feel safe, they take intellectual risks, collaborate, and grow.
How schools can build it:
- Normalise mistakes as part of learning: Teachers who model vulnerability (“I don’t know the answer – let’s find out together”) show that uncertainty is not weakness, but curiosity in action.
- Encourage voice and choice: Giving pupils real opportunities to influence classroom norms, projects, or school decisions signals respect for their perspective.
- Respond to behaviour with empathy: Instead of “What’s wrong with you?”, try “What’s happened for you?”. Trauma-informed approaches remind students that they are seen and supported, not judged.
- Celebrate diverse identities and stories: Representation in curriculum, displays, and classroom discussions communicates that every background and identity belongs.
When pupils feel safe, they do not just learn better – they thrive. They are more resilient, more engaged, and more able to take the healthy risks that learning demands.
Psychological Safety for Staff: The Heart of a Healthy School Culture
Teachers and school staff are the emotional climate-makers of a school. Yet education can be high-pressure, high-stakes, and emotionally demanding. When staff feel psychologically unsafe – afraid to admit mistakes, speak up about workload, or try new approaches – creativity and wellbeing suffer.
Building safety for staff means:
- Leadership that listens: School leaders set the tone by asking for honest feedback and responding constructively. Phrases like “What do you need?” or “What would make this better for you?” open doors.
- Permission to be human: Staff who can talk openly about stress, uncertainty, or failure model the same authenticity we want for students.
- Collaborative problem-solving: Rather than top-down directives, invite co-creation. Involve staff in shaping policies, curriculum, and wellbeing initiatives.
- Psychological safety in meetings: Encourage questions and divergent views without fear of reprisal. Recognise contributions and credit effort, not just outcomes.
A psychologically safe staff culture fuels innovation, trust, and retention. As one teacher put it: “When I know I am trusted, that I can speak honestly and still be respected, I do my best work.”
Psychological Safety for Parents and Carers: Strengthening the School-Home Partnership
Parents and carers are essential partners in children’s education. But they too need to feel that they can approach the school without fear of judgment or dismissal. When parents feel psychologically unsafe – worried they will be labelled as “difficult” or “uninvolved” – communication breaks down, and pupils lose out.
Ways to build parental safety:
- Welcome curiosity, not compliance: Encourage questions and conversations rather than expecting silent agreement.
- Make communication two-way: Use surveys, listening sessions, or informal coffee mornings where parents can speak freely.
- Acknowledge emotions: School issues can trigger strong feelings – about fairness, inclusion, or a child’s needs. A calm, empathic response goes a long way: “I can see this matters to you; let’s explore it together.”
- Be transparent: Clear explanations of decisions, policies, and next steps reduce uncertainty and build trust.
When parents feel valued as partners rather than judged as outsiders, collaboration deepens – and the child benefits most.
Practical Strategies for a Whole-School Approach
Creating psychological safety isn’t a one-off initiative – it is a cultural commitment. Here are some practical steps schools can take to embed it across the community:
- Set shared values and norms: Make “respect”, “listening”, and “learning from mistakes” explicit cultural pillars.
- Model it from the top: Leaders who admit their own learning moments signal that vulnerability is safe.
- Train for empathy and communication: Provide staff development on trauma-informed practice, restorative conversations, and active listening.
- Measure what matters: Use anonymous surveys or student voice groups to gauge how safe people feel – and act on the findings.
- Create visible reminders: Displays or messages around the school that celebrate kindness, courage, and belonging reinforce the norm.
The Payoff: Belonging, Growth, and Flourishing
When psychological safety is strong, schools transform. Pupils engage more deeply. Staff collaborate more freely. Parents and carers trust more fully. Challenges still arise – but they are faced with honesty and compassion, not fear or blame.
At its heart, psychological safety is about human connection. It is about creating the kind of school where everyone – whether they are five or fifty – feels that they matter, that their voice counts, and that they can grow without fear.
As one headteacher put it:
“We can’t expect children to take learning risks if the adults around them aren’t allowed to take emotional ones.”
So let’s build schools, colleges and trusts where everyone can speak up, be heard, and belong. Creating psychological safety is not a luxury – it is the foundation of a thriving school. When we get it right – for pupils, staff, and parents/ carers – trust, wellbeing and learning all manifest and become embedded in the culture.
Racism is a Safeguarding Issue: Education as a Safe Haven
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.
Schools often pride themselves on being safe spaces, yet for many students, they are anything but. Racism in education is not simply a matter of representation or curriculum – it is a safeguarding issue. Children are being radicalised online, marginalised in classrooms, and silenced when they try to speak out. Ignoring racism doesn’t protect students; it perpetuates harm.
When we talk about safeguarding, we picture child protection protocols, online safety lessons, and anti-bullying strategies. But racism is rarely given the same urgency, often treated as a ‘behavioural’ problem rather than a threat to wellbeing. This omission has consequences. Experiencing racism is traumatic: it damages mental health, erodes self-worth, and disrupts learning. And when schools fail to act, they can become complicit in further harm.
We should be challenged to confront that denial and reframe anti-racism as a fundamental safeguarding duty. Decolonising the curriculum isn’t about adding diverse content – it’s about telling the truth: truth about the roots of white supremacy, about global histories and contributions, and about the systemic barriers that harm marginalised children daily.
When schools silence conversations or refuse to acknowledge racism, they create unsafe spaces. Anti-racist practice must become part of safeguarding training, staff culture, and classroom discussions. Students should never feel their identity is ‘too political’ to discuss or their experiences are ignored.
The Scale of the Problem
The numbers are stark:
- In 2019, the NSPCC reported that incidents of racial abuse and racist bullying of children had risen by a fifth within four years.
- In 2021, the Guardian reported that UK schools recorded 60,177 racist incidents in a five-year period (Anti-bullying Alliance)
- A 2020 World Economic Forum report found 95% of young Black British people have witnessed racist language in education. (Forum)
- According to the Department for Education, Black Caribbean pupils are up to three times more likely to be excluded than their white peers (gov.uk).
Yet, many schools still treat racist incidents as isolated behaviour problems rather than safeguarding red flags.
Why Racism is a Safeguarding Concern
- Radicalisation Risk: Extremism targets isolated, angry, or vulnerable children, grooming them with online narratives that can spread through classrooms.
- Chronic Trauma: Racism’s impact isn’t a one-off bruise – it creates long-term psychological harm, raising rates of anxiety, depression, and physical health issues.
- Unsafe Environments: When students see racism dismissed or ignored, they stop reporting it. Silence doesn’t mean equality; it signals danger.
A child who doesn’t feel safe being themselves is not safeguarded. Schools must explicitly name racism in safeguarding policies and act with urgency.
Moving Beyond Performative Action
Assemblies and diversity displays are not enough. Anti-racist practice must be embedded into school culture. Senior leaders should model vulnerability, showing staff and students that it’s okay to feel uncomfortable when confronting prejudice. Teachers must be empowered to respond to racism confidently, while safeguarding teams must be trained to treat racist abuse with the same seriousness as other forms of harm.
Practical Steps for Schools & Teachers
- Embed Anti-Racism in Safeguarding Training
- Include racist bullying, harassment, and microaggressions in safeguarding protocols.
- Train staff on how to document, escalate, and resolve cases effectively.
- Create Anonymous Reporting Channels
- Allow students to report racism through secure, anonymous forms or ‘trusted adult’ programs.
- Ensure reporting leads to visible action to build trust.
- Audit School Culture and Discipline
- Analyse sanctions, exclusions, and behaviour logs for racial bias.
- Survey students on whether they feel safe and valued.
- Actively Celebrate Identity
- Representation shouldn’t be tokenistic or restricted to a single month. Displays, assemblies, and lessons should celebrate diversity all year round.
- Partner with Communities
- Collaborate with local advocacy groups, parents, and faith leaders to create a united, culturally competent safeguarding network.
Long-Term Steps to Discuss and Implement
- Mandatory Racial Literacy and Trauma-Informed Training
- Establish ongoing professional development for all staff, governors, and leadership teams.
- Include practical anti-bias strategies, restorative approaches, and equity-based leadership skills.
- Curriculum Reform and Decolonisation
- Conduct curriculum audits to identify gaps, Eurocentric bias, and opportunities to embed global histories and diverse voices across all subjects.
- Create working groups that include teachers, students, and parents to co-develop inclusive resources.
- Embed Equity into School Policies
- Ensure behaviour, uniform, and attendance policies are reviewed annually for cultural bias.
- Introduce an anti-racism charter, making equity a measurable school-wide goal.
- Equitable Recruitment and Retention
- Develop strategies to hire and support staff from marginalised backgrounds.
- Introduce mentorship programs and leadership pipelines to diversify senior leadership teams.
- Student Voice and Leadership Structures
- Formalise pupil-led diversity and equity councils with genuine decision-making power.
- Include students in policy discussions, curriculum planning, and cultural initiatives.
- Partnerships with Universities and Cultural Organisations
- Collaborate with museums, archives, and community-led organisations to integrate local and hidden histories into learning.
- Use these partnerships to expand professional development opportunities for staff.
- Data-Driven Accountability
- Track racial disparities in exclusions, attainment, and access to enrichment opportunities.
- Publish anonymised annual reports to maintain transparency and measure progress.
- Wellbeing Infrastructure
- Create a system of proactive pastoral care to address the emotional toll of racism on students and staff.
- Offer external counselling, mentoring, and safe spaces for reflection and healing.
Authors, Poets & Works to Teach
Bringing diverse voices into the curriculum is a powerful anti-racist action. Consider introducing:
- Akala – Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire (critical nonfiction for older students).
- Kayo Chingonyi – Kumukanda, a tender and nostalgic collection exploring Black identity, masculinity, and heritage.
- Malorie Blackman – Noughts & Crosses series, a compelling exploration of racism and justice.
- Claudia Rankine – Citizen, poetry that captures microaggressions and systemic inequality.
- Dean Atta – The Black Flamingo, a verse novel celebrating identity and self-expression.
- Benjamin Zephaniah – Poems such as The British, exploring multiculturalism and belonging.
- Patrice Lawrence – Orangeboy, a gripping novel about youth identity, loyalty, and race in the UK.
Did You Know?
Britain’s multicultural history long predates Windrush:
- John Blanke: A Black trumpeter in Henry VIII’s court, documented in royal artwork and paid a musician’s wage in the 1500s.
- Mary Prince: The first Black woman to publish an autobiography in Britain (1831), a pivotal voice in the abolition movement.
- Walter Tull: One of Britain’s first Black professional footballers and the first Black officer to lead white troops in WWI.
These stories remind us that diversity isn’t new – it is woven into Britain’s history.
Call for Support
Safeguarding means every child feels safe to exist as themselves. Parents, governors, and communities need to be part of this conversation. Anti-racism is not a ‘school initiative’; it goes beyond the gates. Schools should partner with grassroots organisations, listen to marginalised voices, and build trust that extends into families and local communities.
The stakes are too high to ignore. Racism must be treated with the same gravity as abuse or neglect, because its effects can be just as devastating. Schools are in a unique position to interrupt these cycles by becoming proactive, empathetic, and brave. Yet, policymakers must back this with funding, training, and clear frameworks, but every teacher already has the power to make a difference:
- Believe students when they share their experiences.
- Advocate for systemic change.
- Build safe, inclusive spaces where every voice is valued.
Schools are uniquely placed to break cycles of harm, disrupt extremism, and model empathy for the next generation.
A motto to guide your practice after this reading: Safety is not silence; true safeguarding starts with uncomfortable truth.
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
What can we learn about masculinity and misogyny from the Netflix drama 'Adolescence'?
Written by Bold Voices
Bold Voices is an award-winning social enterprise preparing and empowering school communities to recognise and tackle gender inequality and gender-based violence through the delivery of educational talks, workshops, training and resources for young people, teachers and parents.
Originally published here: https://www.boldvoices.co.uk/blog/2025/3/20/what-can-we-learn-about-masculinity-and-misogyny-from-the-netflix-drama-adolescence
On March 13 Adolescence premiered on Netflix, a week on and the show has a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has sent waves across media, starting conversations about themes of masculinity, the ‘manosphere’, incel culture and gender-based violence more widely. It is a show that has driven home the fear of what happens when harmful attitudes and beliefs develop into extreme violence.
If you’re looking to understand some of the key terms used in the series take a read of this article first: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/andrew-tate-incel-meaning-adolescence-netflix-b1217106.html
The question of ‘why’ runs throughout the four-part series. What made this 13 year old boy brutally stab and murder his school mate, Katie. Where did his behaviour come from? Was it the ‘masculinity’ modelled by his father? A generally kind man who displays a couple of emotional and physical outbursts throughout the show (including physically intimidating and handling a child who vandalised his work van)? Was it his friends at school who ultimately provided him with the murder weapon? Was it the misogyny influencers and their ideas? Or the social media sites platforming these influencers and offering young people the impunity which allows them to say harmful and destructive things to and about each other?
Throughout the show we are trying to understand if Jamie is a good kid at heart who was ultimately misguided and has done something devastating, but out of character. Or whether he is a bad kid that has been able to manipulate and hide his darkness from his parents, and even us as viewers. But then again how bad of a kid can you really be with planet wallpaper and stickers of tiny astronauts? These minor and seemingly unremarkable, but ultimately essential, details about Jamie’s room make up the final scenes of this powerful show. They are a reminder that Jamie could be any young boy in any family. It is just how unremarkable he is as a character that makes this story so poignant.
So what themes about masculinity, and adolescence, can we draw out from the show?
Masculinity, the ‘manosphere’ and ‘incel’ communities
Jamie is a boy who we come to understand has been spending time online, getting drawn into ‘manosphere’ and ‘incel’ communities. During the second episode that takes a look at Jamie’s school, we learn about the “call to action by the manosphere”, the meaning behind ‘red pills’ and ‘blue pills’ and the 80/20 rule (that 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men).
“Red pill is like I see the truth, it’s a call to action by the manosphere. Which is where the 100 comes in, the 80/20 rule. 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men. Women, you must trick them because you will never get them in a normal way… she’s saying he’s an Incel dad” – Episode 2 | 29:50 – 31:00
When we hear from Jamie about this, he acknowledges that he knows about these ideas and that “he had a look but didn’t like it” although in talking about the 80/20 rule he says “I do think they’re right about that though”.
The writer, Jack Thorne, is very honest about the fact that through his research he realised that “there was a logic to this and how they see the world”. It is through Thorne’s vulnerability in admitting this that we are reminded of an uncomfortable truth, that the attitudes and beliefs displayed by many of these online forums and communities are attractive to boys and young men and resonate with a vulnerability they actually feel.
In the third episode Jamie is asked about what he thinks about men, about masculinity. In particular, he’s asked about his dad and grandad, what he thinks about them and what type of men they are. We get insights into the stereotypes that pervade about masculinity; his dad as a hard worker who provides for his family, who can get angry and lose his temper, who loves his wife and is good to women, but doesn’t have any female friends. None of this is positioned as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but it holds a mirror up to the expectations we have of men and masculinity that continue to frame a ‘real man’ as someone who is physically and emotionally strong and dominant, who protects and provides for loved ones and who sees women as objects of love and affection, but not necessarily giving space for relationships to women that exist outside of caregiver, nurturer or romantic partner.
These questions are vital, and they connect back to the extreme views many boys and young men are consuming online. Rhetoric that is based on the inherent idea that a ‘real man’ doesn’t show vulnerability or weakness, protects and provides for those around him, is successful at ‘getting women’, and gains status through money, physical strength, women and material markers of success such as fast cars and displays of wealth.
Jamie couldn’t necessarily clearly articulate what makes someone ‘a man’ but he knew exactly what makes someone ‘not manly’ and his visceral rejection of those ideas were far more natural for him to display, when asked if he was friends with women he says “no” and “I’m not a twt though*”. His disdain for feminine traits and femininity is far clearer than his ‘love’ for ‘manliness’, a nuance that is powerfully captured in the show.
Femininity, objectification, power and misogyny
Not only do we get insight into how Jamie feels about himself, we are able to understand a little of how he views girls and women. The fact that he sees girls as objects and that viewing explicit images of girls that he knows (and girls and women he doesn’t know) is not something that he questions; when asked about whether he thinks the girls would be happy about him seeing explicit images of them he responds, “everyone else did”. The normalisation of girls as objects, and the non-consensual sharing and viewing of explicit images of girls, is so normal it is not worth denying or lying about.
It becomes further apparent that Jamie’s relationship to girls is far from healthy. He lies about having had sexual experiences with girls, he shrugs off the fact that he doesn’t have any friends that are girls, when asked about whether he was attracted to Katie after seeing an explicit image of her he makes an objectifying and dismissive comment about her body, saying, “no” and that “she was flat”. Jamie articulates a desire to have a girlfriend however he doesn’t seem able to articulate, or even understand, what that dynamic might look like aside from him owning or receiving sexual gratification or pleasure from a girlfriend. In the fourth episode we are presented with a stark contrast to this when Jamie’s parents are reminiscing about their first date as 13 year olds at the school disco, we hear about teenagers in the first moments of genuine connection, something that feels completely inaccessible to Jamie.
Despite answering “no” to the question of whether he feels powerful viewing explicit images of girls he knows, there are subtler insights into how Jamie feels about power and women. In one moment he stands over the psychologist and shouts in her face, a male member of staff comes to the door but she indicates that she’s okay. In response, Jamie says “what was that? hey? what the fk was that? signalling him away like a fking queen yeah?”. He is angry and riled up when faced with a woman in control.
We also get insight when Jamie reveals the impact that rejection has on him. We hear that Jamie had previously asked Katie out to the fair but that she wasn’t interested and said no to him. Although he insists multiple times that he did not “fancy” her and that he was not attracted to Katie because she’s not “his type”, Jamie shares that he assumed she would be feeling weak after explicit images of her had been shared round the school. Jamie wanted to take advantage of this vulnerability and ask her out, which meant when she rejected him, he was left feeling all the more insulted and angry.
“I just thought she might be weak after all that, cus everyone was calling her a slag or flat or whatever so I thought if she was that weak she might like me. It’s clever, don’t you think. I said I was sorry and that the guy who shared her picture was a wanker and that I’d take her to the fair if she liked… she just laughed and said – I’m not that desperate.” – Episode 3 | 42:00 – 44:00
A culture of misogyny and gender-based violence
A common reaction I’ve heard from parents and adults in response to Adolescence is fear. In particular, a fear that is centred around the online world and the harmful content that children and teenagers may be consuming without us realising. While this fear is incredibly valid and understandable, we must also be wary of not letting this fear distract us from the roots of this problem that exist far beyond the internet and the communities found there.
It is in the subtler moments in the show that we see these roots and an acknowledgement that it isn’t just the online world that led to Jamie’s actions, it is a wider ‘culture’ of gender inequality:
- Jamie does not address his mum or sister at all – exclusively reaching for the support and validation of his father.
- Jamie implies that having female friends makes someone a “twat”.
- Jamie exaggerates and lies about having had sexual experiences with girls to the psychologist and then immediately takes this back and reveals the true extent of those sexual experiences.
- Jamie feels confident enough to shout and scare the female psychologist, someone in a position of authority who is at least 15 years his senior.
- Jamie shares his awareness of his dads disappointment/shame at the fact that he wasn’t ‘sporty’.
- The school teacher only introduces the male police officer and then has to quickly introduce the female police officer when she realises her omission a few seconds later.
- The treatment of female staff members in the school where we hear male students shouting “Shut up miss!”
- The response to Ryan after he is punched by Jade (Katie’s best friend) in the playground – when another student says “You just got banged by a girl you sausage”.
- The way the female psychologist is made to feel uncomfortable by the male CCTV operator.
What happens if we watch the show without focusing on investigating the crime itself, but instead, understanding the culture all around it? The show perfectly presents the subtleness of gender stereotypes and gender attitudes that are pervasive in society. How they are shaping the way we talk to and about each other based on gender, what we expect from ourselves and each other based on gender and how we treat ourselves and others when those expectations are not fulfilled.
Adolescence confronts us with the truth that acts of gender-based violence are not committed by ‘bad apples’. Jamie is a 13 year old child who has been indoctrinated and who has had gender-based violence normalised and even glorified. There are moments that we feel deep empathy for Jamie and moments where we are scared of him, moments that ranged from the casualness with which he displayed misogynistic attitudes to the outbursts of anger and rage. But Adolescence raises the questions rather than providing the answers. The answers lie in the communities around young people coming together to prioritise education that gets to the root of the issue and addresses the gender stereotypes and attitudes that seem harmless in isolation, but together contribute to a culture that normalises gender-based violence and misogyny.
Questions to start conversations based on Adolescence:
- Why is being able to get girls or female attention so important to being seen as ‘manly’?
- Are all young boys as likely to be influenced by these messages as each other? If not – why?
- When Jamie calls himself “ugly” we get an insight into how he views himself and his self-esteem, how does this connect to his actions?
- We know many of these ideas are consumed online, where else do we learn these ideas?
- Why did the boy who received the photo of Katie spread it round? What did he gain by doing this?
- Why did Jamie think Katie was “easier to get” after the photos were leaked? How do you feel about that?
- What did Jamie feel when Katie rejected him? Why might he have felt that way?
Resources and places to learn more about these issues:
Toolkit: School of Sexuality Education – ‘A Look Into the Incel Movement: A Guide to Tackling Online Cultures of Misogyny for Schools, Colleges and Universities’
Book: Laura Bates – Men Who Hate Women
Ted Talk: Jackson Katz at TEDxFiDiWomen – ‘Violence against women—it’s a men’s issue’
Al-Anon and Alateen - for relatives and friends of alcoholics
Written by Sonia Elmer-Soman
Sonia Elmer-Soman has a background in both law and education. She is a qualified law lecturer and has many years’ experience working as a legal practitioner in two prestigious law firms in the City and now within a reputable law firm local to her home town in Essex. She is also a qualified primary school teacher and is a guest writer for professional journals.
Most of us have heard of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), but less well known about is Al-Anon and Alateen.
I met with Cheryl, a long-term member of Al-Anon, and she explains what Al-Anon and Alateen do, how they work and what impact they may have on the lives of members who are suffering from another’s problem drinking.
Q: What is the difference between AA, Al-Anon and Alateen?
A: Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is a fellowship who come together from all walks of life and who share one common goal – to recover from alcoholism and achieve continued and sustained sobriety. Less well known about is Al-Anon (18+ adults) and Alateen (12-17 yr olds). Like AA, Al-Anon and Alateen are groups of men and women, of all faiths and walks of life, however this time with a focus on the person(s) affected by another’s alcoholism.
Q: Are there any entry requirements to joining Al-Anon and Alateen?
A: The only requirement is that you are suffering from the effects of another’s alcoholism.
Q: Are Al-Anon and Alateen a religious organisation?
A: No. Though “God” is referred to, it is a spiritual God, a higher power and everyone is free to define their own “higher power”. For some that may be a bird, a rose or the moon. For others it may be the group, prayer or meditation. For some the higher power may change over time.
Q: What does it cost to join?
A: Nothing. There are no fees associated with joining Al-Anon or Alateen. This is a non-profit organisation. Members are invited to make a donation towards room hire and/or literature at the end of the meeting. There is no requirement to contribute.
Q: Do the groups offer advice and/or counselling?
A: No. We are not trained therapists. “Let it begin with you” is an Al-Anon slogan which is the primary focus of the program. It suggests we shift the focus of our attention from the alcoholic in our lives to ourselves and begin living our own lives rather than interfering with theirs. The program offers a welcoming, friendly and confidential environment where group members understand in ways others cannot the difficulties we have experienced. We are free to speak of whatever is on our minds and we may share our experiences. Whilst the newcomer may need to offload a challenge or problem, most people find the focus naturally shifts away from the alcoholic and they start to gain insight into their own behaviour and how we may have contributed to our situation and how things may improve. We refrain from giving advice. There are many tools within the Al-Anon readings. Together we can find coping strategies to aid recovery of ourselves and to help us concentrate on our own wellbeing, behaviour, actions and reactions. Together we understand that we are powerless over alcoholism, that our lives have become unmanageable and we seek ways to assist our daily lives. We cannot control what the alcoholic does or does not do and we should not seek to change or control that which we cannot. Instead, we focus on the control we have over ourselves. We acknowledge that alcoholism is a disease and we develop understanding that, through our actions, we aid recovery of ourselves and, potentially, the alcoholic if we seek to change our own actions and feelings about the situation rather than focussing solely on the actions and feelings of the alcoholic.
Q: What do meetings typically involve?
A: A warm, friendly, non-judgemental welcome from a group of individuals who are going through or have gone through the same/or similar challenging journey as you. A cup of tea and a box of tissues are at the ready if needed. Each week a different topic is covered. This could be anything from ‘Resilience’ to ‘Hyper-vigilance’ to ‘Boundaries’ to name just three, but there are many more. We may do an inspirational reading for that topic and then offer up the table to anyone who would like to contribute either with a reading or with their thoughts or own personal experience which may or may not be related to the chosen topic. There may be shared experiences , but each member will have their own unique perspective. By keeping an open mind, you may hear something you can identify with, which may assist you to move forward. Newcomers often feel they have nothing helpful to share but often they provide golden nuggets that are incredibly beneficial to long-time members.
Q: Will the meetings help me and/or my family and the alcoholic?
A: We receive so much positive feedback. Al-Anon is about changing the actions and behaviours of ourselves rather than focussing on the alcoholic (as we have no control over the latter). Let it begin with us. These meetings might show us that ways in which we thought we were helping may have, in fact, negatively impacted potential recovery of ourselves and the alcoholic. In the absence of judgment, blame, guilt and shame, individuals feel free to openly discuss matters and often say they feel like a weight has been lifted when they leave the sessions.
Q: What is the minimum amount of sessions I should participate in?
A: It is completely up to the individual. We say it is best to go for at least six sessions, to learn how Al-Anon works and decide whether the program is for you. Sometimes it may not be the right time, but often people come back. There is no minimum or maximum term. Some individuals come for a few weeks, some dip in and dip out when convenient for themselves. Others have been attending for many years.
Q: Will what I say be treated in confidence?
A: Yes, anonymity is the foundation of Al-Anon. In order for everyone to feel safe, it is part of the ethos and ethics of the group that everything spoken about within the group stays in the group.
Q: What may be the benefits of joining Al-Anon and Alateen?
A: There is something hugely comforting in knowing that there are others, many others, out there who share the same challenging problems as you. Alcoholism is a family disease which affects the whole family. Young people attending Alateen meetings or adults attending Al-Anon in person or online, can see that they are not alone and that they did not cause the problem, neither are they responsible for their relative’s or friend’s drinking. Young people can benefit from sharing experiences with others of their own age and this often helps them understand their alcoholic relatives and recognise they are not to blame for the difficulties experienced with their home/families and could, in time, lessen the effects of having lived with alcoholism.
Q: Which one word would you use to describe Al-Anon and Alateen?
A: Insightful.
▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
Poor mental health and resulting drug or alcohol addiction spans generations and boundaries of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. It is not a life-style choice. It is a disease which affects the whole family, relatives and friends.
For too many families in the UK, there remains a stigma associated with mental health and addiction issues. Guilt, shame, embarrassment and denial prevent sufferers and their families from seeking early intervention. All too often, without support, sufferers and their loved ones hide in plain sight and battle illness behind closed doors which leads to isolation, depression, anxiety and desperation.
Speaking with Cheryl and seeing first-hand the wonderful support offered to families and friends of alcoholics is heart-warming and fundamentally essential to the wellbeing of those affected.
Wherever possible, it is crucial that institutions such as the NHS, Education, Social Services, Addiction Services and the Criminal Justice System signpost this free service, so that families and friends of alcoholics can, if they so choose, access this vital service. The hope is that their voices are heard and their lived daily reality is understood. No longer should families and friends be isolated behind closed doors and remain the silent witnesses to addiction.
What one word would I use to sum up these groups? Empowerment.
Preventing Digital and Sexual Violence
Written by Georgia Latief
Georgia is a Content & Marketing freelancer who supports Life Lessons with their content and marketing including social media, blogs, website upkeep, manages our webinar and drop-in sessions and partner school testimonials. She helps multiple business across the UK supporting them with their marketing and content needs with her business Latief Content & Marketing. Before joining Life Lessons, Georgia worked for an education recruitment company and a safeguarding company both based in Wales. She is originally from New Zealand and has a background in theatre and media studies.
Digital and sexual violence is a massive global issue. Teachers need support in order to gain the confidence in addressing these issues and lead discussions on these topics to prevent future violence. Life Lessons has worked in partnership with UCL and Anglia Ruskin University to develop a set of evidence based materials for schools that empower educators to counter digital and sexual violence.
In November 2024 Life Lessons hosted a webinar on Empowering Educators to Eliminate Digital and Sexual Violence. Our speakers discussed the current issue of digital and sexual violence in our society and how best to support educators to have these conversations with their students.
We also launched our brand new Violence Prevention course, developed with UCL and Anglia Ruskin University. This course includes a set of evidenced based materials for schools that empower educators to counter digital and sexual violence.
What is Digital and Sexual Violence?
Digital violence is a very broad term which encompasses any form of violence perpetrated using digital technologies, including:
- Cyber bullying
- Trolling
- Cyber stalking
- Non-consensual sharing of private images
Sexual violence is any sexual act or attempt to obtain a sexual act by violence, coercion, threat or intimidation, or taking advantage of the inability of the victim to give free consent.
When violence is perpetrated or facilitated through digital technologies, it’s known as Digital Sexual Violence and includes:
- Online sexual harassment
- Sextortion
- Cyber bullying with a sexual nature
Statistics Around Digital and Sexual Violence
When we talk about digital and sexual violence is it vital to understand the state of the nation when it comes to this violence in our society and around the world.
Digital and sexual violence has become normalised, with Ofsted’s 2021 report finding that 80% of pupils have seen unwanted comments of a sexual nature. We also see that women and girls experience higher levels of digital and sexual violence than their male counterparts.
Ofcom’s Online Safety Report 2023 found that 53% of girls and young women aged 11-21 reported encountering sexist comments or jokes online and 57% of young women aged 17-21 know a girl their age who has experienced sexual harassment online.
Not only has digital and sexual violence become normalised, but it is also a massive societal problem. NSPCC reports that violence against women and girls accounted for 20% of all reported crime in England/Wales from 2022-23. Women and girls across the world are experiencing digital and sexual violence with 1 girl being raped every 6 minutes in Brazil.
Clearly something needs to be done to prevent future violence occurring.
How Education can Help Prevent Digital and Sexual Violence
Educators are uniquely placed to empower both students and staff to report instances of sexual violence and harassment, and to continuously work toward fostering a healthy school environment where such behaviours are challenged and not normalised.
On the topic on digital and sexual violence, Stephen Morgan, the minister for early education said:
“…There’s probably more we can do around misogyny in schools, and I’m keen to talk to school leaders about what that might look like.”
“The escalatory nature of misogyny means that education plays a crucial role in challenging these attitudes early on. Through relationships, sex, and health education (RSHE), we are equipping young people with the knowledge and skills to recognise and reject harmful content, build empathy, and promote respect for all.”
The 2024 Ofsted Handbook also states that “Inspectors will expect schools to have effective behaviour policies in place regarding harmful sexual behaviour. The policies should include details of appropriate sanctions that should be applied consistently and that reflect and are consistent with the messages that are taught across the curriculum.”
However; we frequently hear from educators that they lack confidence in addressing these issues and leading discussions on these topics. This is what inspired us to create our Violence Prevention Course.
Life Lessons Violence Prevention Course and Resources
This course has been developed in partnership with UCL and Anglia Ruskin University to develop a set of evidence based materials for schools that empower educators to counter digital and sexual violence.
These materials are based on the latest research into digital harms and image-based sexual violence and aims to support educators to tackle this type of inappropriate behaviour.
The course includes:
- CPD for educators and include a certification
5 units which cover:
- Introduction to sexual violence prevention
- Understanding sexual violence
- Educating about gender and sexual violence
- Tech facilitated gender based violence
- Dealing with disclosures and instances of sexual violence
We have also included a free lesson and videos for secondary educators:
- A 1 hour lesson for use with year 10 secondary students. Copy and edit to suit the needs of your classroom.
- A collection of short Life Lessons videos addressing the topics of sexual and digital violence. These videos feature boys discussing the issue, demonstrating openness, and modeling how to engage in meaningful conversations to be part of the solution.
This course is free for educators. Access it here: Violence Prevention – Life Lessons
References:
- Ofsted Annual Report 2021/22: education, children’s services and skills – GOV.UK
- Online Nation – Ofcom
- Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) National Policing Statement 2024 July 2024
- Violence against women in Brazil reaches highest levels on record | Brazil | The Guardian
- There’s “Much More To Do” To Combat Misogyny In Schools, Says Minister
- School inspection handbook – GOV.UK