Consultation on KCSIE 2026 Proposed Revisions
Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) statutory guidance sets out:
What schools and colleges should do
The legal duties they must comply with to keep children safe
In this document, SEEN in Sport provides the necessary links to the documents and gives advice on how to respond to the draft KCSIE guidance relating to gender questioning children and sport. We highlight the five key questions in the consultation, giving suggested answers. As background, we explain the main concerns with the current proposed revisions.
When is the deadline to respond?
The consultation deadline is 22nd April, 2026. The consultation can be answered as an individual or on behalf of an organisation and is aimed at those with experience working in schools, colleges, social care, children’s services and training providers.
How has KCSIE been updated?
KCSIE has updated the section on children questioning their gender. There are proposed separate new sections on single-sex spaces (paragraphs 104-115) and single-sex sports (paragraphs 94-97). The government does not propose to publish “standalone guidance for schools and colleges on gender questioning children but propose instead to include this content in KCSIE.” This will be the key guidance on gender questioning children in schools.
This is the draft document Keeping children safe in education 2026: draft for consultation
How do I answer the consultation?
This is the consultation information page
Keeping children safe in education: 2026 proposed revisions - Department for Education - Citizen Space
This is the page to begin the consultation
Keeping children safe in education: 2026 proposed revisions - Page 1 of 41 - Department for Education - Citizen Space
Note that there are 41 questions but you do not have to answer every question, only the ones where you have an informed opinion. Here are the 5 key questions relevant to children questioning their gender and school sport. Answers are given as a guide, but use your own words and experience if possible.
This is the one page summary. Keeping children safe in education 2026: summary of part one
Question 15: We have produced a one-page summary of Part one of KCSIE. Would schools and colleges find this helpful?
Yes. However, this would be improved with the additional words as follows…
“Core Principles - maintain a child centred approach - always consider what is best for the child and how this impacts other children around them.”
Question 31: To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “The revised section on ‘children requiring mental health support’ clearly explains the role of schools and colleges in identifying and responding to mental health needs.”?
Paragraph 220. It should be made clear that staff are not qualified to and should not simply accept or affirm any self-diagnosis from a child, particularly if it is not grounded in reality. For example, a thin girl who believes that she is fat or a boy who believes that he is a girl. The sincerity of a belief and the distress this may cause is not a reason for a staff member to confirm it as being true, as this may have a negative effect on the mental health of the child long term.
Question 33: 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?
No. PSED states authorities “should not use concepts such as gender and gender identity.” KCSIE does not define “gender”. If a child believes that they are the opposite sex, they require mental health support, not just affirmation of an identity.
251 - 275. Without a definition of “social transition,” this section is meaningless. Schools should ensure that bullying of gender non-conforming children is not tolerated. Schools cannot force other children to comply with the fiction that someone has changed sex. That would be contrary both to the statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of ALL children and to the Equality Act 2010 (since “boy” and “girl” refer to biological sex).
"Safety" is not the only justification for single-sex sport. Remove paragraph 97.
Paragraph 267 remove the words “as being necessary for safety reasons”
Paragraph 269 - remove the words “where there are safety reasons for single-sex PE.”
Paragraph 274. Children “living in stealth” present a safeguarding risk to other children. This affects physical safety and fairness in sport, plus impacts on privacy in changing rooms.
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?
No. The proposed guidance should state that “Schools must not allow children to use the facilities designated for the opposite sex under any circumstances”.
In paragraph 114, “if a child does not wish to use the changing rooms and showers designated for their sex”, an alternative changing or washing facility that is a unisex option can be considered. However, there is a safeguarding risk with allowing someone to “access facilities at an alternative time”. There have been many incidents of males placing video recording devices in female changing rooms. This would compromise the provision of single-sex facilities. The phrase “or by allowing access to facilities at an alternative time” should be removed.
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?
No. Remove Paragraphs 96 and 97.
A single-sex sport category must not become mixed-sex in reality. Allowing “social transition” creates legal discrimination risk. Children, parents and staff cannot be coerced to consent.
A focus on “safety” implies schools can remove single-sex categories in non-contact sports such as athletics, swimming, tennis etc. It is disproportionately unfair to girls. Male advantage exists before puberty, so primary school girls need fair sport. Confidence, dignity and privacy are also justifications for single-sex sport. “Safety” is not defined. Sport involves safeguarding concerns of physical contact, risk of injury, power imbalances between the sexes, supervision challenges and changing facilities.
Schools can explore initiatives to ensure inclusion of gender questioning children within their own sex plus create some mixed-sex opportunities. However, girls should not be expected to relinquish single-sex sport.
What is the problem with the proposed guidance on gender?
The KCSIE guidance states that “The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is found in the Equality Act. Compliance with the PSED is a legal requirement for state-funded schools and colleges.” (Paragraph 98, page 32).
However, the PSED guidance states clearly that “Authorities should take care to undertake their assessment by reference to the protected characteristics set out in the act. They should not use concepts such as gender or gender identity, which are not encoded in the (Equality) act and can be understood in different ways.”
The KCSIE proposed guidance uses the terms “gender” and “social transition” without providing a definition of what this means. Schools must not force other children to comply with a fiction that humans can change sex. That would be contrary both to the statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of ALL children and to the Equality Act 2010 (since “boy” and “girl” refer to biological sex).
What is the problem with the proposed guidance on sport?
Paragraph 97 on page 32 suggests that schools could “support social transition” by allowing a child to participate in the opposite sex category for sport or PE, “if there are no safety concerns.”
First, it would create a situation where a supposedly single-sex category becomes a mixed-sex category. Children, parents and staff cannot be coerced to consent and this situation creates legal discrimination risk.
Second, the guidance has made clear that children are not permitted into opposite-sex toilets and, over the age of 11, opposite-sex changing rooms. It does not make practical sense that children could be permitted into opposite-sex sports.
Third, the guidance throughout asserts that "safety" is the key justification for single-sex sport. This focus on “safety” implies that schools can remove single-sex categories in major non-contact sports such as athletics, swimming, tennis etc. Fairness, confidence to participate, dignity and privacy are also proportionate and legitimate reasons to have single-sex sport.
Fourth, “safety” is not defined. This could mean injury risk but could also mean sexual harassment risk which can still occur in non-contact sports. Sport involves physical contact, risk of injury, power imbalances between the sexes, supervision challenges and changing facilities. As such, there are safeguarding concerns that extend beyond injury risk.
Fifth, a policy of allowing “social transition” in sport is disproportionately unfair to girls - there is a limited impact on boys. Male advantage in sport gets a huge boost at puberty but it begins in utero. Primary school boys have greater height, stamina, speed, strength, particularly upper body strength, explosive power and throwing ability. A girl is unlikely to have an unfair advantage if she competes against the boys. Even in non-contact sports, such as swimming or athletics, the government should not be suggesting that girls should sacrifice their fair, lawful sport. Lack of fair sport can demoralise and create an additional barrier to participation. It is not just fairness, but also dignity and privacy. Girls suffer particular barriers to participation in sport, including body self-consciousness, fear of being judged, fear of boys being too rough, boys dominating the play and only passing to other boys, fear that a period may show and possible sexual harassment.
If a child does not wish to participate with their own sex and “makes a request relating to how they participate”, the answer is for schools and colleges to explore initiatives to ensure they are welcomed into sports activities of their own sex and possibly create more mixed-sex opportunities. The guidance should be clear that the solution is not simply to offer only mixed-sex sports for all children. Due to male advantage, if there were no single-sex sport activities available to girls, this is likely to be indirect sex discrimination. Girls should not be expected to relinquish single-sex sport and face indirect sex discrimination in order to accommodate individual requests.
Paragraph 267 states “Similarly, where schools have implemented single-sex sports as being necessary for safety reasons, there should be no exceptions and pupils must not be allowed to participate in sports designated for the opposite sex.” This should instead read “Similarly, where schools have implemented single-sex sports, there should be no exceptions and pupils must not be allowed to participate in sports designated for the opposite sex.”
Paragraph 269 states “will not include allowing children to join PE classes designated for the opposite sex where there are safety reasons for single-sex PE.” This should read “will not include allowing children to join PE classes designated for the opposite sex.”
Paragraph 274. Children who are “living in stealth” are not just vulnerable themselves. They present a safeguarding risk to the other children around them. In the context of sport, this does not simply affect physical safety and fairness when playing sport. It also impacts on privacy and dignity in the changing rooms with a potential sexual harassment risk.