Inclusive leadership - a thought for caregivers
Written by Clare Haly
With a passion for truly inclusive teaching and learning, Clare has a background in education spanning 20 years. During this time, she has led at a senior level in both secondary and primary settings, improving whole school teaching and learning, cross-curricular literacy and staff development, and most recently Inclusion and SEND.
‘It is just so lonely. The playground, work, the other parents, the judgement and assumptions…It’s exhausting, and yes lonely…’
I am not the first person to comment on the complexities of flexible working. Thankfully voices are being raised that are far louder than mine, and there are some welcome shifts where understanding is beginning to seep in, that perhaps the ‘privilege’ of flexible working may actually be more of a necessity.
I get the challenge for leaders in education, I have lived it. We are teachers, we love our jobs, our vocation, our classes, our children. As if the Leadership do not have enough to think about. Children need excellent teachers in front of them, they require, and deserve consistency. But, and there is a but, it is well documented that teachers are leaving in droves, and this is not just because of the intense pressures of the job itself, but because caregiving responsibilities also really matter.
‘Family comes first’
There is no silver bullet or magic formula to help those people who find themselves in complex situations managing multiple caregiving roles. And this is not about the stereotype of the ‘working mum trying to have it all’. In the case referenced above, the man I speak of is grieving his wife who died suddenly. He has two sons, one aged 4 and the other just 6 months. This father also has an ageing parent, who is also bereaved and living with Parkinson’s disease. The logistical struggle is obvious. The emotional one is enormous. This man is also excellent at his job. One he cannot do well because of inflexibility at work. Imagine if his place of work was one of welcome and joy and a place where he could thrive within the time he could give knowing that that was enough. Instead he is rushed, stressed, apologetic, clock watching, anxious. Is this the premise for excellent output at work? What would the impact be of such a person in front of a class?
Part time does not mean part competent. Working flexibly does not mean working below par. Flexible working can be done well in schools. But it is yet to be the norm. It takes commitment, forward planning, clever recruitment, budgeting, compassion and a willingness to learn. It demands brave leadership with a trust in one’s staff and in oneself. But when successful, the outcomes are overwhelmingly positive. When teachers feel invested in, trusted, valued, they thrive. And the impact of a thriving, calm, indeed happy teacher on their pupils is not to be underestimated. You don’t need me to tell you that.
What I am questioning is how many of us truly practise this duty of care to well-being outside of the appraisal system and think holistically about the people that make our schools what they are, and the circumstances they live with outside of school. The amount of time I hear the well meaning phrases ‘family first’, ‘you must look after yourself’ – but in reality, as a caregiver, how is this meant to become your truth?
‘Middle years’
In Caroline Criado-Perez’ Invisible Women she points out that women in particular, are penalised socially and financially because of the assumed caregiving roles they carry. In our ‘middle years’ particularly, many of us as women, find ourselves not only grappling with the joys and complexities of raising children, but also tending to changing circumstances of family members, for those who become unwell, or the challenges that older age in particular can bring. So this is not about the balance of having children and having a career. This is about having a sense of empathy for the challenges staff face that pull them away from the classroom because they physically cannot be at the helm, rigidly, all the time. We are losing excellent, creative, inspirational practitioners because of a lack of flexibility.
The impact of stress on our educational colleagues and peers is well documented. The job is challenging enough without the guilt, pressure and constant stream of apology or sense of atonement that manifests itself while trying to juggle multiple adult responsibilities. I applaud those companies, institutions and yes, schools moving to acknowledge that life is not linear and that hours cannot always be rigid. But in education there is still some way to go.
Care packages and school clubs of course are invaluable and teachers that are also parents and/or caregivers are of course grateful for the support these services offer. But flexible working responds to more than logistics. Flexible working allows for improved wellbeing, not just time management: togetherness within whatever relationship has the need – in all phases of the caregiver spectrum, time for a neurodivergent child, an elderly parent, an unwell spouse; reflection, respite.
Being a caregiver should not be an alternative to a career in education, and too often teachers have to choose. I believe though that we have enough good educational leaders who have the creativity and courage to find a way to allow, indeed welcome, brilliant teachers back into school flexibly. Again: Part time does not mean part competent, flexible does not mean below par.
If we are to reach our ambition for a truly diverse edu-community then we must always be human first in our approach to how our schools are run. A truly inclusive school will empower their staff through flexible working where it is needed. As ever, it is all too easy to assume we know someone’s story. We must continue to look beyond appearances, there is always more than meets the eye.
Supreme Court Ruling - Key Information for Educators
Written by DiverseEd
Diverse Educators started as a grassroots network in 2018 to create a space for a coherent and cohesive conversation about DEI. We have evolved into a training provider and event organiser for all things DEI.
Introduction
On Wednesday 16th April the UK Supreme Court shared their ruling on the case For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Minister, which interprets the legal definition of the word ‘sex’, as used in the context of The Equality Act 2010.
Since the court handed down, the ruling has been spoken about extensively in the regulated media, unregulated social media, and in Parliament.
We have read and listened to much of the coverage from diverse sources, and responses to the ruling have ranged widely. Some have exaggerating, misinterpreting or misrepresenting the details of the case, and others have expressed strong emotional reactions, which may act to exacerbate the fear that many trans people are currently experiencing.
Our intention in this piece is to present the details as accurately and clearly as we can. 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 know trans people, we love them, we live our lives alongside them, and we are deeply concerned about the way this ruling is already impacting their lives. We believe that it is the duty of our government to enact laws which provide workable and inclusive protection from discrimination, and ensure dignity and respect for all people – including transgender people. With that clear, let’s begin.
Background
In 2018 the Scottish Government presented a new law, which aimed to get more women on public boards. The Scottish Government included trans women who had obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) within this aim, which they felt was in-line with The Equality Act 2010, and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. However, the group For Women Scotland disagreed – they felt The Equality Act 2010’s protected characteristic of ‘sex’, and specifically its use of the word ‘woman’, was not intended when written to include trans women.
For Women Scotland therefore brought a judicial review to the UK Supreme Court, requesting they review the lawfulness of the Scottish Government’s position in relation to The Equality Act 2010. Therefore, it was the job of the UK Supreme Court to provide a statutory interpretation of the meaning of ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘sex’ as used in The Equality Act 2010, and specifically whether that definition includes trans women who have a GRC.
The Ruling
The UK Supreme Court unanimously agreed that, for the purposes of interpreting the word ‘sex’ under the Equality Act 2010, Parliament’s intention was to refer to ‘biological sex’ (a term which neither the law or the court defines clearly) rather than legal gender acquired through a GRC. This means that legal protections associated with the characteristic of ‘sex’ may not apply to trans women in most contexts. The decision was made because to include transgender people who have a GRC within The Equality Act 2010 definition would make the law unworkable.
There are some details of the ruling which we think are important.
Firstly, the ruling is specifically addressing the definitions as used in The Equality Act 2010. The judge, when handing down the ruling, explained that the origins of the language used in The Equality Act 2010 is the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which the judge stated, ‘adopted a biological interpretation of the terms men and women’. Note the wording here – the Acts have adopted an interpretation. This ruling does not define what a woman is – it interprets what it means in the specific context of a 15-year-old Act, which pulls on an interpretation used in 1975.
Secondly, this ruling does not justify the discrimination of trans people. The court clarified several times during their hand down that trans people are still protected from discrimination under The Equality Act 2010, which includes ‘Gender Reassignment’ as a protected characteristic. The judge explained that this protection extends to cover trans people whether they have a GRC, or not. Furthermore, there is some legal precedent that non-binary people may also be protected under this characteristic – although this is legal precedent and not case law. The judge also clarified that transgender women can still be protected under the characteristic of ‘sex’ through associated or perceived protections of women. We think it is also important to note that the language used by the judge presenting the ruling was mostly respectful, and used correctly gendered language at all times when talking about trans people – stating clearly that this ruling should not be seen as a triumph for any one group over another.
Finally, we think it is contextually important to understand that the court system in the UK interprets the laws which are enacted by Parliament. This ruling is thus an interpretation of law, and our current government can clarify this interpretation, or change the law to make it workable and inclusive, should they wish to.
What does this mean for society, and for schools?
The legal implication of this ruling is that it is legally possible for provisions of services to be single-sex, and exclude trans men or women. Our understanding is that the Supreme Court ruling does not state provisions of services have to exclude trans people, but they may legally choose to be single-sex provisions if they can demonstrate this is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, and in such cases these single-sex provisions may legally exclude trans men or women.
In society, this may impact: workplaces; services open to the public such as hospitals, shops, restaurants, leisure facilities, refuges, and counselling services; sporting bodies; schools; and associations (groups or clubs of more than 25 people which have rules of membership). The Equality Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released an interim update on practical implications of the ruling, in which they suggest that it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets in workplaces, and changing and washing facilities where these are needed – this is not compulsory for services that are open to the public. The EHRC interim update suggests that such spaces should be separated based on the Supreme Court interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, meaning that “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities” (please note this is a direct quote of the EHRC guidance, and not language we would choose to use). The guidance goes on to explain that “trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use”, and that “where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”, or facilities in “lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time” – these can be used by anybody. The details set out in the EHRC interim guidance were not mandated by the Supreme Court Ruling. However, as stated previously our understanding is that services may legally choose to be single-sex provisions if they can demonstrate this is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, and in such cases, these single-sex provisions may legally exclude trans people.
In schools, it has never been possible for young people to obtain a GRC, but this ruling may still impact: single-sex schools; school toilets and changing spaces; physical education and sport; and residential accommodation. In each of these areas, our understanding is that a school may now legally choose to hold single-sex spaces, if they can demonstrate that this choice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and in such cases these single-sex spaces may exclude trans young people (or trans staff). The EHRC interim guidance introduced above suggests that schools “must provide separate single-sex toilets for boys and girls over the age of 8” and “single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls over the age of 11”. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the guidance suggests that “pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls’ toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys’ toilet or changing facilities”. They clarify that “suitable alternative provisions may be required”. Again, please note this is a direct quote of the EHRC guidance, and not language we would choose to use.
The details set out in the EHRC interim guidance were not mandated by the Supreme Court Ruling, but as state previously our understanding is that schools may legally choose to hold single-sex provisions if they can demonstrate this is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’, and in such cases, these single-sex provisions may legally exclude trans people. For example, it would be legal for a school to have a single-sex sports group which does not allow trans young people to participate – or for schools to prevent trans young people from accessing the toilet aligned with their gender.
Although this is currently the only legal implication of this ruling, we are already seeing the misrepresentation of this ruling creating social implications beyond the legal bounds of the case. Transgender discrimination is increasing, and cis-gender people are already being discriminated against because of false assumptions about their gender. Although single-sex provisions excluding trans people are legal, and encouraged by the interim EHRC guidance, it is difficult to enforce or police without making assumptions which could be false. Furthermore, we are already hearing from teachers that this ruling has created further uncertainty, particularly around staff confidence in discussing trans identities and the protected characteristic of ‘Gender Reassignment’, which could impact the inclusive quality of Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE) and Personal, Social, Health Economics (PSHE).
There is a lot of misinformation, which is leading to worsening, and at times unlawful, discriminatory language and behaviour. Government Ministers have stated the ruling requires transgender people to use toilets related to their sex assigned at birth, which is also set out in the EHRC interim guidance – this is not stated in the ruling. The Prime Minister has claimed the ruling offers clarity by defining women as biological women – this is misleading as the court judgement only pertains to an interpretation of what was meant by Parliament in The Equality Act 2010, and as clarified above it is parliament who enact and change law. Our current government could clarify or change law to make it workable and inclusive, should they wish to – the courts do not dictate definitions to Parliament.
Actions you may wish to consider taking
We hope that reading this piece has helped you to feel more informed about the Supreme Court ruling. Below are some actions you may wish to undertake as a result of what you have read:
- Please challenge mis-characterisations of this ruling and clarify that transgender people are still legally protected from discrimination, and that any decision to exclude them from provisions of services, whilst legal for single-sex provisions, and encouraged in the EHRC interim guidance, were not mandated by the court ruling. It is important that the ruling is spoken about with as much accuracy as possible.
- Revisit policies – this ruling may require more accurate and thought-out language in policies which reference men and women, boys and girls, or The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Reassignment.
- If you are concerned about this ruling, then you may wish to take the time to write to your local MP and express your concerns. Remember, Parliament makes the laws, and the courts can only interpret them – our current government can change The Equality Act to include more clear and inclusive definitions which provide workable protections and dignity to all people – including transgender people.
- If you are concerned about the EHRC interim guidance, then they have stated that a consultation will launch in mid-May and last for two weeks. You may wish to use this consultation to share your view.
- Read and share our Diverse Educators Resources to support you and your school community. Here is our Transgender Rights’ Toolkit and here is our Growing Trans and Non-Binary Awareness Training.
This piece was written by members of the Diverse Educators’ team and is intended for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice nor a formal legal interpretation. This blog was published on 26/4/25, and all information was to the best of our understanding at the time of publishing.
Further Resources
- A clear and accurate legal explanation from Kalina Hagen – Click Here
- Trans Actual Response – Click Here
- An interim update on practical implications from the EHRC – Click Here
Using drama to drive empathy in schools
Written by Rachel Crowther
Rachel is a trained actor, coach and founder of Squash. She started working in L&D over 10 years ago and experimented with using drama to bring training to life. She created Squash to address some of the harmful workplace behaviours that were accepted as the status-quo and to offer an engaging antidote to traditional, tick-box DEI training. She’s designed and delivered impactful training experiences for global organisations, charities and young people.
Empathy is an important skill for young people (and adults) to develop. It helps them build relationships, resolve disagreements and create more inclusive environments – in the classroom and in the office. A powerful way to encourage empathy, is through drama..
I run corporate workshops for adults, using actors to spotlight behaviours and perspectives and to start meaningful conversations. Something our workshops enable, is for participants to step into someone else’s shoes.
A phrase we often hear in discussions is “We don’t know what we don’t know.” There is so much we don’t know about those around us, classmates and colleagues, the challenges and barriers they face. We often make assumptions and generalisations, to fill in the blanks, but this is where unconscious bias creeps in. Instead, learning the importance of curiosity and perspective-taking from a young age, prevents us making assumptions and helps us to create genuine, connections.
Storytelling and role-playing are simple ways for students to experience situations from multiple perspectives and are effective tools to start objective conversations on important topics like friendships, bullying, cultural differences. It builds an awareness of the unseen challenges faced by those around them, strengthening the muscle for empathy.
It’s a way for young people to experience feelings in a safe environment. For instance, acting out a scenario in which they are excluded from a playground activity. Feeling this kind of experience, in a safe, facilitated environment, is going to be far more impactful than just being told about it.
Empathy isn’t just about understanding someone else’s feelings – it’s also about how we respond. Drama helps young people to ‘rehearse’ difficult social situations. Practicing the ability to actively listen, express themselves clearly and respond with sensitivity. Improvisation is a great way to develop communications skills and the ability to think on their feet.
The benefits of developing empathy at a young age are clear. It helps young people to stand up for others and create inclusive, and welcoming school cultures and communities. Using drama is a way to not only understand empathy but to feel it and it’s that emotional connection that they’ll remember throughout their education and beyond.