The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published new draft technical guidance for schools. It is asking whether the guidance clearly and accurately explains schools’ duties under the Equality Act 2010. It does not. Christians involved in education should read it and respond to the consultation, highlighting the concerns it raises.
***Respond to the consultation***
The guidance is important because, although it is not a statutory code, the EHRC says it may be used as evidence in legal proceedings, as it has been in the past. Our cases such as those of Bernard Randall, Kristie Higgs, Nigel and Sally Rowe and Felix Ngole stand out in this regard.
New guidance is provided separately for England, Wales and Scotland and schools that depart from it may be expected to explain why. What it says, and especially the examples it chooses, could therefore influence school policies and practices, staff training and significant decisions affecting Christian pupils, parents and teachers.
The first and most obvious problem is the guidance’s treatment of Christianity; essentially demonising Christian belief. We will refer in this article to the specific aspects of the English guidance, but all the points are relevant to Wales and Scotland.
Examples at paragraphs 3.42, 4.22 and 5.114 present religious belief in connection with alleged hostility towards homosexuality. There will inevitably be clashes between progressive secular values and those children and staff that want to hold and express Christian beliefs. The EHRC should be encouraging schools to defend such Christians, and to give examples of this.
Paragraph 3.42 describes a religious pupil posting that gay people are “evil” and their relationships “disgusting” in a forum intended to support vulnerable young people. Paragraph 4.22 (paragraph 4.18 in the Scottish guidance) provides the example of a religious school’s website indicating that it “does not tolerate homosexuality”.
Paragraph 5.114 has the chilling statement, “A teacher at a Church of England school tells pupils, including a gay pupil, that homosexuality is ‘wrong’. This would be direct discrimination because of sexual orientation.”
The cumulative message is difficult to miss. Christian or traditional religious convictions concerning sex and marriage are repeatedly presented as likely to be expressed poorly and is therefore the only significant problem to be controlled. The message is that Christians are the ones who must be restrained.
Where are the equivalent examples of a Christian pupil being mocked for believing that God created humanity male and female? Where is the example of a Christian teacher pressured to conceal their faith or criticised for expressing a protected belief about marriage? Where is the example of a Christian Union treated less favourably than another pupil-led identity group? Where is reference to a Christian family’s faith being accommodated positively? Too often at Christian Concern we face these very issues.
Judaism is often illustrated through sympathetic examples concerning religious observance, while Islamic belief is generally presented through apparently uncontroversial practices. Christianity, by stark contrast, is frequently associated with conflict, exclusion and prejudice. Equality guidance should not itself reinforce negative stereotypes about one protected group, that of Christianity or religion, while attempting to guide schools in avoiding stereotypes about others.
There is a major legal omission in the technical guidance. In Higgs v Farmor’s School, a case won with the backing of our Christian Legal Centre in 2025, the Court of Appeal emphasised the substantial protection afforded to Christian belief and its expression. This point is not made when the Higgs case is referenced. Kristie’s Facebook message was something her employer felt they could dismiss her for. Disagreement, offence or a third party’s objection is not enough to justify punishment and discrimination. Any restriction, according to the ruling, must respond to objectively objectionable conduct and must be proportionate.
Yet the draft guidance clearly places its emphasis elsewhere. It tells schools that less favourable treatment may be lawful because of something “objectionable or inappropriate” in the way a belief is expressed. Its principal worked examples then foreground the restriction, rather than any protection, of lawful Christian expression by children or staff. This risks reversing the emphasis of the Court of Appeal.
The same concern arises from Ngole v Touchstone Leeds, which confirmed that Biblical beliefs about sexuality do not become unprotected merely because others find them offensive. Holding and expressing such beliefs is not inherently discriminatory, yet this is the line taken in this guidance through the examples it chooses to provide.
The Equality Act does not place gender reassignment or sexual orientation above religion or belief. Article 9 rights (freedom of thought, belief or religion) are qualified, but so are relevant Article 8 rights (respect for privacy in the home and in correspondence). Schools must undertake a real and careful balancing exercise and not deprioritise the protection of expressing Christian faith. Given the examples the EHRC guidance foregrounds, and what is being emphasised from the Higgs case, if kept in its current form will further embed a hierarchy of protected characteristics.
The guidance also appears too ready to treat disputed questions concerning “trans pupils”, social transition, and identity-based uniform changes as though the law were settled. This highlights how the EHRC may still be suffering from significant pressure from Stonewall and other groups. The Darlington Nurses case demonstrates where this kind of pressure can lead.
In the technical guidance from 2014, it warned schools “not using the pupil’s chosen name merely because the pupil has changed gender would be direct gender reassignment discrimination”.
Now, despite some real progress since the ruling of the Supreme Court and the new Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance for 2026, paragraph 5.20 suggests that uniform policies may need exceptions or a gender-neutral option for a pupil with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
It states, “A school requires all pupils of the same sex to follow a uniform policy where girls wear skirts and boys wear trousers. The policy may put a pupil with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment at a disadvantage. This may amount to indirect discrimination.”
Elsewhere, the guidance assumes that pupils declaring an intention to undergo gender reassignment immediately fall within the relevant protection, whereas this is legally uncertain. At what age should their declaration be accepted? Schools really need much greater clarity about safeguarding, parental involvement and any difference between an asserted identity and the legal definitions, but this remains extremely difficult due the cultural mess that results from a broad acceptance of the distortion of created reality.
Please read the guidance relevant to your nation and respond. The demonisation of Christian belief evident in this document must not be allowed to stand. Tell the EHRC what you have witnessed in your own school, whether as a teacher, governor, parent or pupil. Ask it to provide positive Christian examples, reflect Higgs and Ngole accurately and protect schools from being pushed towards increasing prejudice against Christians.
Join our email list to receive the latest updates for prayer and action.
Find out more about the legal support we're giving Christians.
Help us put the hope of Jesus at the heart of society.
