School is so gay
Written by Ian Timbrell
Ian has worked in education for 18 years, including as a teacher and deputy head teacher and now supports schools develop their provision for LGBTQ+ and adopted pupils. He is the author of 'It's More Than Flags and Rainbows', a guide to supporting schools become more LGBTQ+ inclusive.
I remember seeing bullying when I was at school. I remember the names, the laughter, and the way certain words landed harder than others. I also remember how normal it all felt at the time, not because it was harmless, but because nobody really stopped it.
Years later, when I became a teacher, I genuinely believed things would be different. Society had moved on, language had evolved, and schools were far more aware of safeguarding and wellbeing. But standing in classrooms and corridors, I found myself hearing the same phrases, watching the same patterns, and feeling the same familiar knot in my stomach.
What devastated me most was not just that bullying still existed. It was how often it was excused.
“That’s so gay.”
“They don’t mean it like that.”
“It’s just a saying.”
“There are bigger issues we need to focus on.”
I heard these comments repeatedly. Sometimes from pupils, but far more painfully from adults.
For LGBTQ+ people, language like this is never neutral. It carries weight, history, and memory. When a word connected to who you are is used as shorthand for something negative, it teaches you very early on that your identity is something to be laughed at, minimised, or ignored.
As a pupil, that message hurts deeply.
As a teacher, watching it be passed on to another generation is crushing.
Over time, I became increasingly frustrated by the idea that tackling homophobia was somehow an “extra”. Something to get to if there was time. Something that sat below academic outcomes, behaviour targets, or inspection priorities. I watched schools work tirelessly on countless tick-box initiatives, yet hesitate when it came to properly challenging harmful language, often out of fear of backlash or because it was seen as controversial.
But bullying linked to sexuality or gender identity is not less serious because it is verbal. It is not less damaging because it is common. And it is not less urgent because some people are uncomfortable talking about it.
I reached a point where I could no longer accept that this was just how things were. Leaving teaching was not an easy decision, but it became a necessary one. I set up More Than Flags and Rainbows because I wanted to challenge the idea that inclusion is optional and that addressing homophobia is somehow a distraction from “real” education. It is not. It is central to it.
I have worked with children who learned to make themselves smaller to feel safe. I have listened to young people who stayed silent because drawing attention to themselves felt dangerous. I have seen how unchecked language creates cultures where exclusion becomes normal and cruelty becomes background noise.
This work matters because words shape environments. When harmful language goes unchallenged, it sends a clear message about whose feelings matter and whose do not. When schools, and wider society, treat this as a low priority, LGBTQ+ young people pay the price.
This is not abstract to me. It is personal. I have lived it, witnessed it, and ultimately walked away from a career I loved in order to keep challenging it in a different way. And I believe deeply that when we stop making excuses for harm, we create spaces where young people do not just survive, but belong.
Supporting refugee students in UK schools displaced by war and conflict zones
Written by Muna Mitchell
Muna has held Senior Leadership positions in Pastoral, SEND and Safeguarding along with teaching Science in secondary schools across Botswana, Oman and the UK. She Studied for an M.Ed. in Inclusion and Diversity with a focus on supporting Refugees in Education.
As described by the UNHCR “A refugee is a person who has been forced to flee their country due to war, violence, or serious threats to their life, and who requires international protection.”
A total of 117 million people at the end of 2025 were displaced from their homes due to conflict and violence and of those 42 million people became refugees of which approximately 20 million are children. The UNCRC (2000) clearly states that “Every child has a right to an education” however, UNICEF research has shown that children and their subsequent educational chances pay a heavy price during conflict. Education suffers through damage to school buildings by bombing and gunfire, the death or injury of teachers and support staff and the use of school buildings by soldiers. In a war zone, the education system is not the priority as families struggle to find food, shelter, and safety. This means that the education pathway of refugee children may have been interrupted for many years prior to them seeking asylum.
Continued global humanitarian crises force people into countries that are often very dissimilar from their home cultures. Sheikh and Anderson (2018) describe how refugees suffer from profound culture shock on arrival in the UK and must undergo a period of acculturation. Sometimes as a refugee this acculturation occurs more than once depending on the individual person’s journey and the countries they have travelled through. Fuller and Hayes (2020) describe how the experiences a refugee encounters on first arrival are often just as traumatising as those experiences that were left behind. This interweaves the themes of past and present and suggests strongly that in education, for example the voices of child refugees need to be regularly consulted. It seems essential that we ensure that we are not making assumptions around which life experiences are causing distress and where our support needs to be focussed.
The UNHCR has acknowledged that young refugees often have high academic aspirations with education seen as a reliable way to escape less than ideal current circumstances and tertiary education particularly held in high esteem. It also states that higher education and skills are a critical link between learning and earning which allows for sustainable futures and enhanced social cohesion. Stevenson and Willott (2007) suggest that one of the main barriers to education is the initial struggle with academic language and refugees who are given multiple opportunities of English language training with an academic focus are much more likely to attend school. Lack of English language skills make it difficult not only for students to progress in their learning but to make emotional connections with other pupils and staff. The Bristol Refugee Rights impact report (2020/21) states that “There is a lack of strong English progression pathways and support into higher education. Much of the provision is unaccredited and the curriculum is not prescribed.” For schools, there are additional challenges to overcome to provide the right support and monitor student progress and attainment as there is often limited prior data for many refugee students. Education which had been completed in other countries is not always recognized. For example, refugee students may have English Language certificates from their home countries which in theory they could use to access university courses, but UK universities only accept a certificate of English language proficiency (IELTS) which can be expensive to complete.
Refugees who are aiming for Higher Education can sometimes be under tight time constraints to fit into a rigid school system in the UK. Bajwa et al (2017) concludes that refugees entering straight into the secondary school system have a lack of time to establish trust and can sometimes be mistrustful around public figures which impacts their ability to progress forward. As Gately (2018) concludes it is challenging in a short space of time to establish strong pupil staff relationships which could provide guidance for next steps and support refugee students in understanding the options available to them.
The Schools of Sanctuary (2021) network which includes stakeholders such as teachers, support staff, parents, governors, and community groups has as one of its central theme’s being pupil voice. Lawrence (2019) explains that “the voices of child refugees are forgotten, and young people are not regularly consulted about their needs or coping strategies” As mentioned above, the main difficulties of accessing education are language barriers, arrival point in terms of education, lack of informed choices and overcoming gaps in education created by conflict. The key turning point for these children and their subsequent entry to Higher Education seems to centre around their GCSE and A level choices. There are institutional barriers to higher education for students from ethnic minority groups, for students who are then also refugees these barriers are even higher.
Sexuality, privacy, and professional safety
Written by Emma Swift
Emma Swift is a Vice Principal and former trust-wide subject lead for a multi academy trust, specialising in science and initial teacher training. She is the subject lead for Physics for the National Institute of Teaching and Education.
On being visible, being private, and deciding what to carry at work
For some teachers, sexuality is something that barely enters their working life.
For others, it is something they think about constantly not because they want to, but because it shapes how visible, safe, or exposed they feel at work.
This difference matters.
Heteronormativity and the illusion of “not sharing”
Many heterosexual teachers will say they don’t talk about their sexuality at work and genuinely believe it.
But mentioning a spouse, a partner, a weekend plan, or a family photo on a desk is already a form of disclosure. It’s simply one that aligns with what students and colleagues expect, so it passes unnoticed.
For LGBTQ+ teachers, the same casual references can feel loaded. A simple pronoun choice can suddenly feel like a decision with consequences.
This isn’t about oversensitivity. It’s about risk awareness.
Being “out” is not a single decision
There is a persistent narrative that being out is an all-or-nothing state: either you are open, or you are hiding.
The reality is far more nuanced.
You may be:
- Out to colleagues but not students
- Out in one school but not another
- Open in some contexts and private in others
- Comfortable one year and cautious the next
None of these positions are dishonest.
They are strategic.
Teaching is not a neutral workplace. It is shaped by:
- Community attitudes
- School culture
- Leadership support
- Student maturity
- Media narratives
Your safety and wellbeing sit within all of that.
You do not owe visibility to anyone
There can be subtle and sometimes explicit – pressure on LGBTQ+ teachers to be visible “for the students”.
Representation matters.
But representation should never come at the cost of personal safety.
No individual teacher is responsible for fixing systemic inequality.
You are allowed to prioritise:
- Emotional safety
- Job security
- Mental health
- Professional focus
Choosing privacy is not a failure of courage.
It is an assessment of context.
The classroom is not a neutral space
Students talk. Families talk. Communities talk. What is said in a classroom rarely stays there. This is not paranoia – it is experience. Before sharing anything personal, it’s worth asking:
- How might this be repeated?
- How might it be reframed?
- How might it be misunderstood?
Once information enters the student sphere, control over it is lost. That doesn’t mean you should never share; no it means you should share deliberately.
Managing questions about relationships
Students may ask:
“Do you have a husband/wife?”
“Are you married?”
“Do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend?”
You are not required to correct assumptions. You are not required to disclose.
Neutral responses can include:
“I keep my personal life private.”
“That’s not something I discuss with students.”
“I’m here as your teacher.”
Some teachers choose gender-neutral language.
Some choose redirection.
Some choose openness.
The key is that you decide, not the moment.
Professional safety is not the same as secrecy
There is an important distinction between secrecy and privacy.
- Secrecy is driven by fear.
- Privacy is driven by choice.
You can be open with trusted colleagues and private with students. You can advocate for inclusion without narrating your life. You can support LGBTQ+ students without positioning yourself as evidence.
Your professionalism is not diminished by boundaries.
Who gets asked to do the work
In many schools, inclusion work doesn’t get distributed evenly. It often lands on the people most affected by it. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been asked to deliver the “LGBT assembly” or lead something for LGBT History Month. As a senior leader, I’m always willing to do an assembly that’s part of the role. But there’s an extra layer here that often goes unacknowledged.
When you are the one standing in front of a room talking about LGBTQ+ lives, you are also the one absorbing the reaction. The looks. The comments. The atmosphere. And when students express strong views which are sometimes openly homophobic, it is often the person most directly affected who is expected to manage that moment.
That carries a cost.
I still remember, around sixteen years ago, sitting in an assembly where a heterosexual male teacher spoke about Alan Turing his work, and what was done to him. It stirred something in me I wasn’t used to feeling in school. At the time, hearing LGBTQ+ lives acknowledged at all felt rare.
That moment stayed with me. And part of why it mattered was that it didn’t come from someone who had to carry the personal weight of it. There’s a difference between choosing to share and being positioned as the one who should. Even smaller moments of coming out can carry that same weight. Not just the big, defining conversations – sometimes it’s the quieter ones that stay with you.
I remember telling one of my A Level classes while working in North London. I wasn’t sure how they would respond, particularly given the strength of religious belief in the room. I had prepared myself for discomfort. Instead, they were warm, protective, and thoughtful. It meant a great deal.
Sometime after I left, one of those students wrote to me. She said she wanted to go into teaching and wrote: “I thought I wanted to be the teacher I needed. Then I realised I wanted to be the person I had.”
That stayed with me.
It’s also important to say that these experiences aren’t the same for everyone. As a lesbian, I’m aware that I may be navigating less immediate risk than some of my gay male colleagues. Context matters too – subjects, age groups, school culture. A PE teacher, for example, may face a very different set of challenges to a science teacher.
All of this shapes who feels able to speak, and when. Which is why inclusion work shouldn’t quietly default to the same people, again and again.
When schools talk about inclusion
If a school claims to value inclusion, that should show up in:
- Clear policies
- Leadership behaviour
- Responses to incidents
- How staff are supported, not showcased
Be wary of environments where inclusion is performative, but protection is absent.
A genuinely inclusive school does not pressure staff into visibility. It ensures that if staff are visible, they are safe.
A final thought
Sexuality at work is not about honesty versus hiding. It’s about context, consent, and control. You are allowed to change your mind. You are allowed to reassess. You are allowed to protect yourself. Professional safety is not selfish.
It is what allows you to keep doing the work well and to keep yourself intact while you do it.
Everyday Sexism: A Powerful Call to Action from Laura Bates - What Schools Can No Longer Ignore
Written by Hannah Wilson
Founder and Director of the Belonging Effect (formerly Diverse Educators).
When Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, addressed the room of boarding school headteachers and senior leaders, her message was not abstract, ideological, or optional. It was urgent, and it was evidence-based.
Drawing on what is now one of the largest datasets of its kind – over 250,000 testimonies, many from children – Bates laid out a reality that schools are already part of, whether they recognise it or not.
This Is Not a “Girls’ Issue”
One of the clearest points: sexism is not about being “anti-boys.” It is instead about the ecosystem young people are growing up in. Rigid gender stereotypes harm everyone – shaping body image pressures for both girls and boys, narrowing subject choices, and reinforcing harmful expectations about relationships, power, and identity.
The idea of a “gender war” or “battle of the sexes” is not only misleading, it actively prevents progress. Instead, Bates reframed the issue: this is about culture, not conflict.
The Scale and Subtlety of the Problem
Some statistics that she shared were stark and made me feel really uncomfortable, despite being familiar with most of them:
- 86% of women in the UK report experiencing sexual harassment
- 72% of women report sexism in the classroom
- 71% of 16-year-old girls report being called “slut” or “slag” on a weekly basis
But just as important is what Bates called “subtle sexism.”
This is the quiet shaping of expectations:
- which subjects feel “appropriate”
- how physical spaces exclude women and girls
- whose voices are taken seriously
- how authority – especially female authority – is undermined
These are not isolated incidents: they are cumulative; they are structured; they are reinforced through media, advertising, peer culture, and increasingly, algorithms.
Language Matters More Than We Admit
The distinction between “groping” and “sexual harassment” is not semantic – it is cultural. So too is the shift from focusing on victims to naming perpetrators, and from passive bystanders to active upstanders. Language shapes what young people think is normal, tolerable, or reportable. If we minimise behaviours in how we speak about them, we normalise them in practice.
As a former English teacher, and now DEIB trainer, the power of language and our language choices are something I think about a lot and explore with our clients regularly.
The Online World Is Not Separate From School
A major theme was the widening gap between adults and young people in digital spaces. Most educators and parents are not digital natives. Yet, their students and their children are.
This gap matters because the online environment is not neutral – it is actively shaping attitudes:
- Influencers like Andrew Tate have amassed billions of views
- Algorithmic pathways can lead users toward extreme misogynistic content in minutes
- Exposure to pornography is now commonly reported around age 13
Bates referenced the “manosphere” – a network of online communities where ideas such as “AWALT” (“all women are like this”) circulate and harden. This is not fringe content. It is mainstream, accessible, and often gamified.
A New Frontier: AI and Exploitation
If that was not enough for us to deal with in our schools and in our homes, then the emerging technologies that are accelerating the problem are the next challenge we face:
- Deepfake and “nudify” tools enabling new forms of abuse
- AI “girlfriends” reshaping expectations of relationships
- Gamified, exploitative systems rewarding harmful behaviour
- Poorly regulated virtual spaces (including metaverses) lacking safeguarding measures
The direction of travel is clear and really concerning. I am conscious that I am not a parent, I am no longer a headteacher and I have recently stood down from being a trustee who led on safeguarding, but I care deeply about our sector, about our society and about our young people. So sitting in a room of school leaders I felt the palpable weight of responsibility on their shoulders as they began to process the enormity of what is rapidly attacking our schools and our homes.
The Youngest Are Most at Risk
Perhaps the most sobering insight: the youngest generation is not the most protected – it is the most exposed. Grooming, radicalisation, and exploitation are no longer rare nor exceptional risks. They are structural features of the environments young people inhabit – and schools sit at the intersection of all of this.
So What Can Schools Do?
Bates did not leave the room without direction but offered some practical advice and signposting.
Effective responses are not one-off assemblies or reactive policies. They are cultural and sustained:
- Start early: challenge gender stereotypes in early childhood
- Explore openly: normalise discussion of relationships, consent, and respect
- Intervene consistently: address language, behaviour, and culture in real time
- Encourage allyship: shift from bystanders to upstanders
- Support staff: particularly where female authority is undermined
- Involve parents: bridging the digital knowledge gap is essential
This is where she signposted organisations such as Tender, Lifting Limits, Beyond Equality, and Bold Voices are already doing critical work alongside schools.
A Cultural Shift, Not a Checklist
Perhaps the most important takeaway is this: sexism does not operate in a vacuum. It is built on foundations – early stereotypes, repeated messages, normalised behaviours.
Which means the solution is not a single intervention, but a process of deconstruction:
- recognising the patterns
- naming them
- and creating genuine alternatives for young people
This is not about removing choice – it is about creating it.
The Question That Remains
Bates left the audience with an implicit challenge to consider: not whether schools should respond – but whether they are prepared for what is already here, and what is coming next. She held up a mirror to remind us that the culture shaping young people today is moving faster than most institutions, so ignoring it is no longer a neutral act.
BSA – thanks for creating the space at the annual conference for this talk (and Gaelle thanks for the invitation to be in the room). Laura – thanks for the clarity and the data that you brought to the conversation.
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.