Flourishing for All consultation

If you only have a few minutes to complete the consultation, the main points we think need to be highlighted are listed below. There is also a fabulous guide to completing it by Christian Concern here. Please see here for our detailed breakdown of the issues with this document.

It is astonishing that the Church has without any justification or argument adopted this contentious and harmful gender ideology. And has chosen to adopt it without regard to the Equality Act duty to have due regard to the need to foster good relations between people with protected characteristics 

Everything of value, importance and significance could have been set out without this ideology. The document could record that there are different views about what a man is and what a woman is etc without any commitment to one position or another. If it were brave and honest it would set out the truth which is that sex is a matter of basic biology. As consequence it does not “help[.] schools to offer the Christian message of love, joy and the celebration of our humanity without exception or exclusion” (p3) but rather promotes muddle and confusion which will cause harm

A3. Does Part A make it clear what the legal and statutory duties of schools with regards to bullying are?

No. It refers to the old version of KCSIE. There is no such thing as a T+ child. 

It also ignores the Education Act 1996 section 406 and 407.

Due regard should also be given to the PREVENT duty, as children who are bullied are more likely to be drawn into radicalisation by extremist groups promoting harmful ideologies such as trans. 

A5. Does Part A explain clearly why Flourishing for All will address a range of protected characteristics?

No. It’s wrong to address bullying in this manner. Any child can be bullied. Protected characteristics are irrelevant. Anti-bullying guidance should protect ALL children, not just those who “identify” as a victim. 

A6. Is anything in Part A factually inaccurate?

Yes. Identity politics, wokism, LGBT+. The entire document is harmful and divisive and does nothing to prevent bullying. 

A7. Do you think Part A is useful for Church schools? If no, what would make it more useful?

A complete rewrite without trans activism and identity politics. 

As it is, following this guidance would leave schools open to legal action against them. 

B2. Does Part B make it clear what HBT bullying is? If no, what is missing?

Honesty.  This is just harmful, discredited Stonewall misinformation and trans activism.

It compels speech and prevents free speech. It’s authoritarian and dangerous and treats gender ideology as fact. 

Transphobic bullying can affect transgender adults, as well as people who are non-binary, gender questioning children, pupils who have already socially transitioned at school and pupils who are not gender questioning, but who do not conform to gender stereotypes and social norms. It is vital that these members of our school communities are treated with the utmost dignity and respect, and are protected decisively from harm. This protection includes ensuring that they are kept safe from polarised debates about the care or place of gender questioning children and transgender people in society. This is absolutely essential in order to uphold and preserve the psychological safety of this highly at risk group.

Nonsense. 

B6. Does Part B set out clear actions for Church secondary schools to take to both prevent and tackle HBT bullying? If no, what is missing?

Any recognition of the Cass review. It’s just more trans activism. 

B7. Is Part B useful for navigating difference when dealing with HBT bullying??

Focusing on difference CAUSES division. Identity politics is harmful. This document promotes bullying. 

B8. Is anything in Part B factually inaccurate?

This document treats gender ideology as fact and completely ignores basic safeguarding. Gender ideology is factually inaccurate. Humans cannot change sex. 

Do you think Part B is useful for Church schools? If no, what would make it more useful?

It needs to be removed. The Church’s anti-bullying policy should protect ALL children, instead of this harmful focus on identity nonsense. 

B11. Is there anything else you would like to say about Part B?

Plenty. Please see the full responses and previous correspondence on this matter from Protect & Teach.

Do you have any comments on the document as a whole? For example, comments on the proposed scope of the document.

The consulation period is far too short. The attempt to sneak this in in the last few weeks of school, the day after the election and the first day of General Synod, is a very underhanded tactic. 

The consultation should be extended into October to allow interested parties the time to read and respond.