We are sure Kemi Badenoch would agree that this was designed as an intentional strategic disruption.
Superficially it is an enquiry about a single issue. It is much more than that.
It is a bunker buster of a missile; these are designed to penetrate hardened targets or targets buried deep. This is not solely an issue about sex and gender identification.
The serious and wider intent is shown in the letter.
Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 is stated as applying and “my view is that the teacher was not acting in a way consistent with the Equality Act’s requirements”. In then going on to make an explicit link, “…the teacher was in breach of the political impartiality requirements set out in Articles 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996”, she makes the personal political. Perfect ground for revising social policy established over several decades. One can see the manoeuvring of principle here.
She is often described as being involved in the “war against woke”, though she is on record as saying, “it is much more serious than that”.
She disputes the tag of “culture warrior” but she does say: “We have been in the grip of an underlying economic, social, cultural and intellectual malaise.”
In light of this, the situation cannot be approached lightly or seen as frivolous. Evidently it is not. She is on record as saying she does not see such matters as the focus of her letter as “trivial”.
She was once spoken of as a replacement for Gavin Williamson as Secretary of State for Education. This letter perhaps can be seen as a continuation of a campaign to achieve this post in government, or to use leverage of her current post to make policy from outside.
The position of the current Secretary of State is unenviable. Kemi Badenock acknowledges that Gillian Keenan “has asked her officials to look into recent events at the school”. For sure the collective responsibility of the Cabinet has been exposed as far from solid, as must be the PMs authority as it ought to have been signed off by the Cabinet Office, or even to have the PMs explicit support.
If it had been through the usual channels perhaps the collateral damage could have been foreseen and avoided. Too late now.
The collateral damage is that if her view is upheld then it applies to all regulated services involved with learning and upbringing. The bunker buster works at structural and foundational levels.
The very definition of ‘corporate parenting’ upon which our current legislation is constructed is placed into jeopardy. It is yet to be made policy but is implicit in the Care Review that the State is not seen as having a place in the upbringing of a child. The political dimensions of the concepts that underpin the Care Review have not been critically appraised.
Contextual safeguarding is redefined to apply at an individual level. An individual worker acting in a parenting role will be responsible and if not acting according to the interpretation of the Equalities Act could be culpable. A child or another could make a case.
This scenario was raised by NCERCC with Ofsted some years ago regarding the social care placement of those identifying as girls or boys. This situation was foreseen and to avoid the anxiety for Ofsted and the chaos for providers of care clarity was sought. It cannot be recalled if we were provided with or even if Ofsted reached a view. Perhaps in researching this matter something has been missed, yet explicit guidance for care providers on how this conundrum could or should be resolved can neither be recalled or found.
This is going to take some time. In the immediate future we can expect legal advice and challenge then interpretation being established through legal precedent combining equality law, safeguarding guidance, or the impartiality duty as in the Badenoch letter.
The ramifications are that as this is not solely about sex and gender identification it stands to have an impact of how the upbringing of a child is to be supported. Childhood is a time of exploration of identities. Is this to be supported, or not? As children explore other aspects of their identity how might they be supported? The Quality Standards are written with an assumption that carers will approach the matter as would those holding parental responsibility, indeed, as all parents.
Reminding us that the Quality Standards for Children’s Homes include the quality and purpose of care, children’s views, wishes and feelings standard, health and well-being standard, positive relationships, and not forgetting the protection of children standard; all of these stand to be impacted by this one act.
In the Guide to the Quality Standards we have the following regarding ‘personalised care’. “This must meet needs and promote welfare, defined as “gender, religion, ethnicity, cultural and linguistic background, sexual identity, mental health, disability, assessed needs…”
The positive relationships standard is that children are “helped to develop, and to benefit from, relationships based on mutual respect and trust, and “an understanding about acceptable behaviour”.
Staff should “act as champions for their children, expecting nothing less than a good parent would”.
Where this does not happen in a home the local authority must “challenge them to meet the child’s needs”.
In this way what is set in motion by Ms Badenoch’s letter is potential for sharp differences between those in parenting roles, social worker and keyworker, local authority, and provider. “The local authorities’ responsibilities as corporate parent apply wherever the child is placed” (Guide to Quality Standards 5.5). Under delegated responsibilities (5.7) “the residential care worker may be deemed a parent for the purposes of education law. This means that they should be treated like a parent…” Another potential sharp difference.
Under the Protection of Children Standard 9.9, “children must feel safe and be safe. Staff should support children to be aware of and manage their own safety both inside and outside the home to the extent that any good parent would”. But what would a good parent do is now potentially open for redefining.
This is not a single issue. It is a wedge to be driven deeper. This is a professional issue. It requires all roles and tasks in social work/care, all sectors, all organisations to speak with one voice to protect all that has been gained for vulnerable children.
Jonathan Stanley is manager of the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care (NCERCC).
