Draft KCSIE 2026 guidance on gender-questioning children practical implications for schools

The Department for Education (DfE) has published draft revisions to Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) that would introduce new statutory guidance on how schools and colleges should respond when a child is questioning their gender. The proposals form part of the wider safeguarding framework for schools in England and are currently out for consultation, with implementation expected from September 2026.

Although the proposed section on gender-questioning children is relatively short, its implications are significant. Previous government guidance on gender-questioning pupils was published separately in 2023 and did not carry the same regulatory force. By contrast, these provisions would sit directly within KCSIE itself. As a result, schools and colleges would be expected to 'have regard' to the guidance as part of their safeguarding duties, and inspectors are likely to consider how schools are applying it.

For school leaders and governors, the issue is not just understanding the policy direction but making sure their internal processes are clear, consistent and capable of withstanding scrutiny. The draft guidance places particular emphasis on structured decision-making, parental involvement and careful record-keeping. Schools should therefore start thinking about whether their current policies and procedures would meet those expectations if the guidance is adopted.

Framing the issue as safeguarding under draft KCSIE

One of the most notable aspects of the draft guidance is how the issue is framed. Rather than treating gender identity primarily as an equality or inclusion matter, the DfE places gender-questioning children firmly within a safeguarding context.

This approach reflects the conclusions of the Cass Review, which called for a cautious approach to gender transition in children and emphasised the importance of evidence-based assessment. In line with that, the draft guidance describes social transition – such as changing name, pronouns or appearance – as an 'active intervention' that may have implications for a child’s development and wellbeing.

For schools, that framing has practical consequences. Requests relating to gender identity should be considered through safeguarding processes. Decisions should be child-centred, but not necessarily child-led, and schools are expected to consider the impact on other pupils as well as the child involved.

In practical terms, this means schools should ensure that their safeguarding policies, equality policies and behaviour policies align. If those policies pull in different directions, staff may find themselves uncertain about how to respond and the school could face unnecessary regulatory risk.

Handling requests for social transition

The draft guidance makes clear that schools should not initiate social transition themselves. Instead, the framework applies when a child or parent raises a request. Social transition could involve changes to a pupil’s name, pronouns, uniform or appearance.

Unlike earlier government proposals, the draft KCSIE guidance does not impose a blanket ban on social transition for primary-aged children. However, it emphasises that such situations should be very rare and approached with particular caution.

Given this, schools may find it helpful to establish a clear internal process for responding to requests. In practice, that might include:

• A defined route for raising and recording requests.
• Early involvement of the designated safeguarding lead (DSL).
• Consideration of safeguarding risks and the child’s best interests.
• Engagement with parents or carers as the default position.
• Seeking external or clinical advice where appropriate.
• Recording the reasoning behind any final decision.

The draft guidance also makes clear that the outcome of this process may not match the child’s initial request. Safeguarding considerations may lead the school to reach a different conclusion.

Having a documented process will help schools handle cases consistently and demonstrate that decisions have been reached carefully. That can be particularly important if decisions are later questioned by parents, regulators or, in some cases, the courts.

Parental involvement

Parental engagement is another key element of the proposed framework. The draft guidance states that parents should normally be involved in discussions where a child is questioning their gender.

There is, however, a limited safeguarding exception. If informing parents could place the child at risk of harm, a school may decide not to involve them. In those circumstances, the decision should involve the DSL and be carefully recorded.

Schools may therefore want to review how their safeguarding procedures address parental communication. That could include:

• Making sure policies clearly reflect the expectation of parental involvement.
• Ensuring staff understand when concerns should be escalated to the DSL.
• Setting out clear documentation requirements where parental involvement is withheld.

Because the threshold for excluding parents is likely to be high, decisions should be supported by clear safeguarding reasoning rather than general concerns.

Record-keeping and biological sex data

The draft guidance also stresses the importance of accurate record-keeping. Schools are expected to maintain clear and contemporaneous records of decisions involving gender-questioning pupils, including the factors considered and the professionals involved.

In addition, the guidance states that where a school records a pupil’s sex in its systems, biological sex should be recorded accurately. This information may need to be available to relevant staff in order to manage safeguarding responsibilities, particularly in relation to facilities, sport and residential trips.

For many schools, this may prompt a review of:

• Data recording practices in school management systems.
• Who has access to safeguarding information.
• Record-keeping templates used by safeguarding teams.

Good documentation is important not only for safeguarding purposes but also for demonstrating compliance with broader legal obligations, including those arising under the Equality Act and human rights law.

Managing single-sex spaces

The draft KCSIE also addresses the management of single-sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and overnight accommodation. While many of the points reflect existing legal expectations, the guidance brings them explicitly within the safeguarding framework.

Among the key expectations are:

• Separate toilets for boys and girls from the age of eight.
• Pupils should not use toilets designated for the opposite biological sex.
• Children aged 11 and over should not undress in front of members of the opposite biological sex.
• Overnight accommodation on school trips should remain single-sex.

Where a child does not wish to use facilities designated for their biological sex, schools should consider alternative arrangements, such as private or individual facilities. However, those arrangements should not undermine the availability of single-sex spaces for other pupils.

In practical terms, schools may wish to audit their facilities and policies. This might include checking the availability of private spaces, reviewing school trip procedures and ensuring staff supervising residential trips understand the relevant requirements.

Schools with older buildings or limited space may need to think carefully about how best to implement alternative arrangements where required.

Sport and physical education

The draft guidance also touches on participation in sport. It states that where safety concerns arise, sporting activities should be organised in single-sex groups.

In other situations, schools may consider requests relating to participation, but decisions should take into account:

• The best interests of the child.
• The safety and fairness of competition.
• The impact on other pupils.

Schools may therefore want to review their PE and sports policies to ensure they provide a clear framework for assessing these issues.

Leadership and governance

Because the proposed provisions would sit within statutory safeguarding guidance, they will require oversight at leadership and governance level. Governing bodies and senior leadership teams should therefore be involved in reviewing policies and procedures.

Practical steps could include:

• Reviewing safeguarding policies in light of the draft guidance
• Checking that safeguarding, equality and behaviour policies align
• Ensuring staff training reflects the updated framework
• Establishing oversight arrangements for complex cases

Schools should also ensure that designated safeguarding leads have the time, training and authority needed to manage these situations effectively.

Why process matters

One clear theme running through the draft provisions is that process matters as much as outcome. Schools are more likely to face regulatory concerns where decisions are made informally or inconsistently than because of the specific outcome reached in an individual case.

Potential areas of risk include:

• Decisions made without DSL involvement.
• Inconsistent handling of similar situations.
• Limited or unclear documentation.
• Conflicting policies within the school.

Putting structured processes in place now can help schools reduce those risks and ensure decisions remain defensible if challenged.

Preparing for the final guidance

The consultation on the draft revisions is still underway, and the final version of the guidance may change. Even so, it would be sensible for schools to start considering what the proposals could mean in practice.

That might involve reviewing policies, auditing facilities, clarifying decision-making processes and ensuring staff understand the safeguarding framework that underpins the changes.

Ultimately, the proposed revisions signal a clearer expectation that issues relating to gender-questioning children should be addressed through careful, structured safeguarding practice. Schools that focus on clear processes, good governance and well-documented decisions will be in the strongest position to respond once the final guidance is published.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, March 2026