Jesus taught us that ‘It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble’ (Luke 17:2).
That’s why it is essential that Christians respond to the ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ (KCSIE, often pronounced ‘Kicksie’) consultation – so many children are being caused to stumble due to what they are being taught in school about sex and gender.
The Government’s draft guidance for schools regarding gender questioning children was recently published after a long wait.
Helpfully, it has been provided at part of the statutory safeguarding guidance which schools are required to follow. This makes clear that the gender questioning issue to be now understood as relating to the harming of children, as we have long argued.
Act now
Please spend 15 minutes responding to this consultation, emphasising that the guidance does not go far enough.
The consultation covers multiple areas of safeguarding as it is an annual consultation and review. You do not have to answer every question but we ask you to respond to questions 33-35 specifically. You must respond by Tuesday 21 April.
How to respond
The initial questions 1-10, relate to information about you.
If you do not have a paid role in a school, do not be put off by the questions referencing working with children. If you are a part of a church and have worked with children in Sunday School, this is very relevant experience, and so the ‘number of years’ you have voluntarily worked with children (Question 9), should be taken into account in your answer.
Question 33
Q33: “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?”
Please answer ‘No’, and then make any of the key points below, in your own words, using your own examples of what you understand to be happening in schools or society from your own experience and from our resources. If you have time, read the draft KCSIE document pages 65-71 to understand the current wording of the guidance related to gender questioning children.
You will only be able to submit 1200 characters within the online response survey. Should you be willing to submit a more substantial response you should do this by post or by email to KCSIE2026.consultation@education.gov.uk. Please do consider submitting as much as you are able.
In order to answer Question 33 fully in the ‘free text’ section or in your email submission, consider using the pattern suggested below, but without using the precise wording:
- While the draft rightly emphasises that schools must not initiate social transition and recognises that social transition is an active intervention, it does not provide sufficient clarity on the main safeguarding considerations schools face in practice related to the curriculum and activities they provide.
- The main initiating factors are the resources used in school wherever they introduce gender identity ideology through curriculum, external organisations support and training, Pride‑style events and library books focussing on transgender themes. (Name any books you know of such as ‘Nothing Ever Happens Here’ or ‘My Brother’s Name Is Jessica’)
- You should reference Christian Legal Centre cases such as those of Nigel and Sally Rowe, Izzy Montague, Bernard Randall, and ‘Hannah’ which showed that schools have often introduced gender identity ideology through curriculum, external organisations, Pride‑style events and library resources, and have treated Christian or gender‑critical parents and staff as safeguarding risks simply because of their beliefs. This has left children unsafe, who would otherwise have been protected.
- You could cite the Rowes’ case using the below as a template, rewording according to your own style: “Nigel and Sally Rowe’s children were on the Isle of Wight in a CofE primary. Their six‑year‑old son was told he would be considered “transphobic” for not “believing” in a classmate’s “gender identity” and for not using new preferred pronouns. The school relied on Church of England and Cornwall guidelines which treated gender identity ideology as fact and required affirmation, with no psychological assessment required and with close working links to Tavistock’s GIDS. This is precisely the kind of school‑initiated normalisation of “gender identity” that the draft KCSIE guidance does not yet name as a safeguarding concern in the curriculum and policies”.
- You should ask that the guidance clearly state that in the light of this new guidance, the governors and Designated Safeguarding Leads must review curriculum, clubs and library resources to remove materials which promote gender identity ideology, present social transition as a simple solution, or encourage pupils to question their gender, in line with the RSHE 2026 guidance (paras 70 and 72). These topics have often been embedded across different subject areas as advised by discredited organisations such as Mermaids, Educate and Celebrate and Stonewall. Explain that without these clarifications, schools and colleges will continue to face pressures from activist staff and parents, and safeguarding failures will be regularly repeated with children being initiated into social transition pathways.
- It is stated, in paragraph 262, that some parents may not be told about their child’s gender questioning for safeguarding reasons, should it arise in school. Christian and gender‑critical beliefs about sex and gender, which parents may hold, should be clearly described as lawful and not harmful in this guidance. Parents who simply hold and express these views must not themselves be treated by school staff as a safeguarding risk, and this should never be used as a standalone reason to keep parents uninformed about their son or daughter’s gender questioning behaviour.
Questions 34 and 35
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?
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?
For both of these questions we would suggest you answer ‘Yes’, and state further that biological sex should never have been disregarded in these considerations. If you have personal examples, please share them within the relevant free text section.
Further Action
We also encourage you to write to your MP, highlighting these issues. Tell the stories of the confusion you have seen in our children and ask them to stand for the removal of transgender materials from the school curriculum.
We also encourage you to join us at Education Revolution on Saturday 25 April at Westminster Chapel, where courageous Christians who are involved in every part of the education ecosystem in our country will be gathering with many other Christian organisations. Christians are starting new schools, and parents are taking responsibility for the education of their children.
And please support us at Christian Concern as we seek to encourage and equip courageous Christian teachers, governors and parents who will not accept the false gospel of gender identity to be discipled into children, but instead stand for the truth of the Bible, and the rightful Lordship of Jesus Christ in every sphere of life and especially our schools.