Blog

The government’s updated KCSIE draft guidance 2026 is currently under consultation. Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) is the government statutory safeguarding guidance for schools. This government has included a new section on ‘gender questioning children’ rather than publishing separate guidance on this subject.

Although more sections have been updated, the important questions for parents who don’t have the time to read it all through are questions 33, 34 and 35 relating to ‘gender questioning children.’

We are working on a full reponse which we will publish later. This post is a quick guide to the three important questions on the new section. You do not need to respond to any other questions.

The new section ‘children who are questioning their gender’ is on page 65, paragraphs 245 – 275.

The section on single-sex toilets, changing-rooms and residential accommodation is on page 33, paragraphs 104-115.

The section on sport is on page 31, paragraphs 94 – 97.

All parents should respond to the consultation to make your views known on the ‘social transition’ of children in schools. We hope this quick guide will help. We have already written about our concerns about social transition in primary schools here.

The consultation can be accessed here. The deadline for responses is 22 April 2026.

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):

• The KCSIE draft guidance provides welcome clarity on the importance of clear sex-based rules. But the introduction of the concept of ‘social transition’ undermines child safeguarding and the normal school rules that keep children safe. The guidance should define concepts such as ‘social transition’, ‘gender’ and ‘living in stealth’ to be clear about what they really mean in practice.

• It is welcome that the government has listened to Cass. The Cass Review found inadequate evidence for the benefits of social transition but clear risks of increasing persistence and subsequent progression to medical intervention. This is an unacceptable risk for a school to take with any child.

• The Cass Review was limited to clinical care, not schools, where the impact on other children must also be considered. Schools must protect the welfare, education, rights and safeguarding of all children.

• The advice that schools should be ‘cautious’ is welcome, but inadequate. Social transition of a child in primary school disrupts a normal developmental milestone for all children, not just the ‘gender questioning’ child. Children with specific vulnerabilities such as autism or learning difficulties are put at particular risk of psychological harm by being misled to believe that sex can change, and it is a betrayal of the absolute trust young children have in the adults who are supposed to protect them.

• In secondary school social transition risks foreclosing identity development in adolescents at a crucial time of identity exploration and formation, and risks closing down future options for the child. For the cohort at this age there may be external factors and multiple complex needs which teachers are not professionally trained to assess. Social transition risks facilitating social contagion and increases the risk of adolescents accessing harmful drugs online from unregulated sources.

• Teachers are not professionally qualified to make decisions about the social transition of a child in school, and doctors do not have the authority to advise the social transition of a child in a school setting where children who are not his/her patients are required to actively participate in socially transitioning a fellow pupil.

• There must be no accommodation in schools of arrangements designed to conceal or deny a child’s sex. Deception of children must not be countenanced in any school safeguarding policy.

• The guidance should clarify that where ‘social transition’ is facilitated in schools the serious safeguarding risks and disadvantages accrue disproportionately to girls.

• Normalising the blurring of boundaries between the sexes in a school or college setting puts girls at risk outside school by eroding girls’ trust in their own self-protective instincts regarding adult men if they say they are women.

• Any social transition in schools creates unacceptable safeguarding loopholes.

• Prioritising parental involvement is welcome. But given the potential serious and harmful results of ‘trans’ identification in childhood, parents must be informed in every case, not just when the child is requesting social transition.

• To keep parents in the dark about an ‘identity’ that potentially leads to life-changing medical intervention robs parents of their right to support their child in the way they think best for their child’s welfare and development, and prevents parents from taking protective action such as checking their child’s internet use.

• Schools should adopt a non-directive approach that is grounded in reality and protects children’s future options, while working with parents and seeking professional help where necessary.

• The section on the Equality Act in the draft guidance fails to include the Supreme Court ruling, which clarified that ‘sex’ means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The ruling is relevant for schools as the most important legislation that safeguards girls. This omission should be rectified.

• Although single-sex school admissions is included in the policy paper it is not referenced in the draft update. KCSIE guidance should clarify that for schools for girls and schools for boys, admissions policy must only admit pupils on the basis of sex, not ‘gender identity.’

• Individual schools should not be left to negotiate an issue for which they are unqualified. It is the DfE’s job to provide clear guidance in accordance with the highest standards of safeguarding, and to inform schools of their statutory duties to uphold these standards.

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):

• The clarification that single-sex toilets, changing-rooms and residential accommodation must only admit pupils of that sex, with no exceptions, is welcome. However, paragraph 110 undermines this guidance:

110. Where a school or college provides mixed-sex toilets in addition to single sex toilets, schools and colleges should assess safeguarding risks and plan accordingly, for example, mixed-sex toilets should open directly onto public areas (e.g. a corridor).

• This paragraph must be removed. It is clearly a breach of school regulations and safeguarding to allow mixed-sex toilets in schools. For both sexes it is a breach of their right to privacy, dignity and comfort, and for girls it is also an obvious safety risk. Girls in particular should not have to enter toilet cubicles in full view of not only boys (some of whom will be older) but male teachers outside in the corridor.

• School regulations state that both toilets and washing facilities must be separate. For girls this is necessary especially when they are menstruating and accidents happen.

• Mixed-sex toilet provision introduces erosion of boundaries between the sexes and fosters a lack of respect in school for the boundaries of other children of the opposite sex. It does not teach boys to respect girls’ boundaries.

• It is also a clear risk to girls that hidden cameras in toilet cubicles may more easily be placed by boys who have authorised access to these facilities.

• Girls are likely to feel more discomfort than boys in mixed-sex toilets, and avoid drinking water and using the toilet during the school day, with the associated health risks.

• Paragraph 195 on residential accommodation also introduces uncertainty and undermines the ‘no exceptions’ rule, and should be removed.

195. Where a child’s concern reflects a request for support with social transition, the school or college should consider the section on “considering requests for support with social transition” before making any decisions.

• The guidance should explicitly prohibit any policy designed as an alternative to the sex-based policies necessary for safeguarding girls. This includes mixed-sex provision alongside single-sex provision in schools as a way of getting round sex-based rules designed to keep children safe.

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):

• The KCSIE draft guidance includes the Equality Act Section 195 sports exception which allows competitive sport to be single sex with regard to ‘the safety of competitors’, but omits the fact that the exception is also for the purpose of securing ‘fair competition.’

• While ‘fairness’ may not explicitly relate to safeguarding, omitting the full exception is misleading for schools, especially in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

• On this basis, the draft guidance prohibits mixed-sex competition where girls would be at physical risk of injury, but otherwise allows schools to admit boys into girls’ sport on the basis of ‘social transition’, relegating fairness to an optional principle for girls’ sport.

• A school policy that protects boys’ sports but does not protect girls’ sports sends a clear message to children in their formative years that women’s sport is not important, and by extension women and girls don’t matter. It does not encourage boys to respect girls. It gives both sexes the message that justice for girls is negotiable and boys’ feelings may be prioritised over girls’ rights.

• Too many girls drop out of sport in adolescence because of changing bodies, embarrassment and discomfort. Having to compete against boys is another roadblock to girls’ participation, denying them the health and social benefits of sport. Safeguarding fair sport for girls is an important aspect of encouraging girls to continue competing. Putting girls at an unfair disadvantage in sport is detrimental to their confidence, welfare and wellbeing.

• The draft guidance has increased references to misogyny and includes a section on the Equality Act. Reference to the fair competition condition in section 195 is compatible with this guidance and should be included.

• The KCSIE guidance should be unequivocal that no group should gain privileges by taking away the rights of another group.

Respond to the government consultation here. Deadline 22 April 2026.