Heads in the sand

Primary schools are ill-prepared for gender issues.

In late June, RGE sent an OIA survey to primary schools seeking information that the Ministry of Education does not collect. We asked ten short questions to try to gauge the extent of the influence of gender ideology in schools.

Number of schools that received our survey = 1240

Number of responses to our survey = 435 or 35%

All the percentages given in this report are rounded percentages of the number of responses received. (ie 78% = 340 schools.)

The missing 8%

About 7.4% of replies to most questions could not be categorised. 2% of these schools sent school policy documents which did not address the specific questions and 1% said the questions were not applicable because the school hadn’t had any students claiming a gender identity. A further 4% either left the answer blank or refused to reply to our questions.

---

Managing sex and gender

Our first five questions were about how schools record and manage sex and gender identity in their students.

Birth certificates

We asked whether schools used a birth certificate or self-declared gender identity to record and manage a child’s sex.

78% said they used a birth certificate.

14% said they used gender identity or both.

Many responses said the school would work with the parents and child and be guided by them in how they recorded the student’s sex.

From comments made, there is quite a variation in how schools use birth  certificates. They seem to be sighted mainly for first enrolment at age 5 or 6, to confirm the  child’s age and residency eligibility for free schooling. Once a child has been entered into the  education database, it is common practice not to sight the birth certificate again, even when children change schools.  

As we have previously warned, under the sex self-ID Act, it has become possible for a child with an altered birth certificate to be enrolled  in a school and the principal may not be made aware of the child’s real sex. Very serious safe guarding issues are raised when a change of gender is not disclosed to the school 

On 1 September, Family First published official information it had received about the numbers of people changing the sex marker on their birth certificate since the amendment to the BDMRR became law last year.  

In the year since June 2023, 113 minors have had their birth certificates altered, of which 47 were aged 15 and under.  

Whether these 47 school-aged children who have changed their birth certificate sex marker have notified their schools of the change or kept it a secret is unknown.  

The Cass Review warns against “stealth” transition, where a child has socially transitioned in secret, with peers and teachers unaware of the change.

… some children living in stealth have a common, genuine fear of “being found out”… They observed that this fear of “being found out” is driving a sense of urgency to access puberty blockers, which may not allow consideration of other pros and cons of the treatment.

… living in stealth appears to increase a child’s level of stress and anxiety with resultant behaviour and mental health problems. These included social withdrawal, with children becoming increasingly isolated, including resorting to home-schooling or tutoring and even rarely leaving their house. (p159)

In this NZ Herald article, one transgender student describes changing schools and keeping his  transition a secret. His mother says, “Its’ a bit gutting really because he is going to be found out  and he is going to be hurt. He’s now asking his friends to lie for him, which is a shame.” 

Instead of rushing to affirm social transition, the Cass Review says parents and families should be helped to “ensure that options remain open and flexible for the child, whilst ensuring that the child is able to function well in school and socially …” (p41)

Written gender policies

Q2 asked whether the school had a written policy on how to manage requests for social transition.

Only 9% of primary schools said they have a written policy on social transitioning.

8% were in the process of writing one, leaving a whopping 76%+ without any formal consensus on what to do in this situation.

No wonder some schools are floundering!  

In our Independent NZ Guidelines on Sex and Gender in Schools, which was emailed to all schools in May, we strongly advised that schools appoint a senior staff member, or small team, to carry out thorough unbiased research on the complex challenges facing schools. Using that up to date evidence to inform their decisions, schools should ensure they have written policies that balance the preferences of individuals against the holistic needs of everyone in the school.

Keeping secrets

In response to our question about whether schools would inform parents as soon as a child expresses a wish to change gender, many schools commented that the situation has not yet been encountered and they would be guided by the family.

22% of schools said yes they would inform parents of a child’s wish to change gender.

35% said informing parents would be on a case by case basis.

19% (82 schools) said they would not inform parents.

Misgendering

Q5 was about mandated use of preferred pronouns. There was quite an even split in school practices.

30% of schools said they did not mandate pronouns.

26% said they did, with a further 9% saying their policy was flexible.

28% said the question was not applicable because the school had not encountered this but “we expect children to respect each other.”

When 35% of primary schools would require other children to use wrong sex pronouns, it is concerning that the vast majority (76%+) have no clear written policy on the matter.

Interestingly, several schools defended their mandate for ‘preferred pronouns’ by referring us to their School Docs Inclusion Policy, oblivious to the fact that the policy was quietly changed several months ago.

One Kura Kaupapa Maori school commented, “Te reo Māori does not differentiate gender, there is no word that represents he or she separately, and our kura ethos reflects this.”

Access to single sex facilities

Our question was inadvertently difficult to answer because it was not separated into policy for school facilities and for those outside the school, over which schools do not have any authority. Nevertheless, the answers show a worrying trend towards schools having only unisex toilets available. See our previous report about the Ministry of Education’s standards for toilets.

6% of primary schools have only gender-neutral toilets available.

45% said toilets are accessible by biological sex alone.

6% said it was by gender identity alone.

31% of schools manage access on a case-by-case basis.

Teaching about sex and gender

In the final five questions, we asked about specific topics and training relating to the schools’ Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) lessons.

63% of primary schools do not teach that people have a gender identity that may be different from their biological sex.

26% do teach this unscientific concept.

One school commented that its parents had said no, so they removed ‘gender identity’ from the curriculum. Another referred to the students’ cultural understanding of fa’afafine, although that is not the same as the concept of everyone having a soul-like ‘gender identity’, known only to themselves.

An overwhelming majority (90%) of schools do not teach about puberty blockers and a further 3% said the topic was not applicable to them.

Only six primary schools (1.4%) do teach about puberty blockers.

We wanted to know whether RSE lessons were restricted to Health classes or spread throughout the curriculum. This proved to be a difficult question for primary schools to answer as most operate on an integrated learning model with one teacher per class, meaning that health or social studies or science may be woven into a reading lesson, for example. However, most schools seem to be trying to keep RSE separate so that parents are still able to withdraw their children from those lessons if they wish to.

59% of schools said the RSE lessons were kept separate from the rest of the curriculum.

12% said they were in some other lessons.

8% said RSE was in all lessons.

External providers

It appears that most schools rely on their own expertise and Ministry resources for teaching RSE.

69% of schools have received no teacher training from outside organisations since 2021.

6% were trained by Family Planning (now Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa), 3% by InsideOUT and 14% by a range of other organisations, including Nest Consulting, Life Education Trust, the Catholic Education Office, and several others.

Regarding resources from external providers being used in RSE lessons:

46% of schools were not using any resources from external providers.

18% were using Navigating the Journey (from Family Planning), 2% resources from InsideOUT, and 26% from a range of other providers.

Christian schools

53 (12%) of the responses were from Christian schools. Only one Muslim school replied but they did not answer the questions, saying, “As a special character integrated school, we do not teach gender issues as it is against Islamic beliefs.”

Unsurprisingly, Christian schools are less likely to be influenced by gender ideology (there are no gender neutral toilets!) but they are not immune to it. Often, their statistics were about half the rate of non-religious schools.

For example, only 11% (compared with 26%) taught about ‘gender identity’, and it was usually taught as a belief that some people hold, rather than as a fact. 40% (compared with 30%) said they did not mandate the use of wrong-sex pronouns. Far more Christian schools (60% vs 46%) do not use RSE resources from external providers, preferring their own Christian sources.

What we have learned

• Schools are very ill-prepared in managing the complex issues surrounding ‘gender identity’, an area in which teachers often have no experience. They are making it up as they go.

• Relying on the Inclusive Policy from SchoolDocs and MOE advice is a recipe for discord in the community. Schools seem largely unaware that these recommendations are generic and lack specific detail on best practice or, worse, are in conflict with parental rights.

• Schools are willing to comply with the wishes of activist parents without being aware that there is no long-term scientific evidence to support social transitioning at schools and , in fact, there is mounting evidence that it is harmful to children. (See our Guidelines.)

• There is a huge variance in schools’ understanding of the issues. Six schools said they did not know what RSE is! Most primary schools in our survey have not yet experienced any students wanting to change their gender, but, worryingly, they are not planning ahead for this eventuality.

Conclusion

Although our survey covers a reasonable number of schools, it is probably skewed towards the ones that are, as yet, unaware of the can of worms that gender ideology brings. Many of those schools that are supportive of ‘gender identity’ probably chose not to respond, although a few did give us a scolding to accompany their answers.

The figures provided by our survey cannot be relied upon as a fully accurate picture of what is happening in schools but they do show that:

• Parents and teachers need to be vigilant to avoid unisex facilities and sports being established without any community consultation.

• Boards of Trustees need to up their game about the issues involving gender identity in schools. At the very least, they should have read the Cass Review, considered the advice in RGE’s Guidelines, and be familiar with the freshly-released recommendations from the Department for Education, England. (p55 - example below)

• Parents and teachers should ask how the school will specifically apply the SchoolDocs Inclusion Policy, which is long on sympathetic words and very short on actual practices.

Hear, hear, to this principal’s response:

“A lot of the questions you are referring to is where adults are placing adult concepts on children. We let children just be children without adding our own beliefs or ideas upon them.”