[2025] UKUT 308 (AAC)

On 22 September 2021, the Appellant emailed the School as follows:

“…I’d like to ask you directly - and I'm sure I am entitled to do so, and to have an answer:

Please will you provide me with the PDFs or other plans for the PSHE lessons listed on the map recently circulated for consultation, including details of any third party providers and external resources that you plan to use?

If the school cannot or will not provide this information, will you at least be good enough to explain why you are not prepared to tell parents exactly what you are going to teach their children about their culture, nation, sexuality, relationships and other matters that are contentious on both a political and personal level?

… Can you therefore please explain to me exactly what this company taught about consent at Hatcham College and please direct me to any material and lesson plans they used?”

On 5 October 2021, the Appellant emailed the Friends of Hatcham College as follows:

“… A recent third party provider called 'School of Sexuality' visited the school to discuss consent with my daughter's year group. I asked for the school to provide me with a detailed lesson plan of exactly what they taught my daughter, which she informs me not only dealt with consent, but with the subject of 'heteronormativity', which I believe parents were not informed about. The school has not replied to my request for details. Could I therefore ask the school leaders why I have not received that information?...”

On 6 October 2021, the School’s Deputy Head emailed the Appellant:

“…The element of sex education enables a parent/carer the right to withdraw their child from the sex education learning if they wish to…Sex education is taught on a Drop Down Day and this took place on 20th September 2021 this term. The external company that we used are called The School of Sex Education [sic]…They were also able to offer us sessions on 'Consent' which, in line with the updated Keeping Children Safe in Education 2021, we felt was most appropriate at this time…The sessions that were led by them were tailored towards each year group with age-appropriate material…

…[Senior Teacher] will be collating all the resources so far this term, along with the scheme of learning for you. Then, we can provide another set if required during Half Term 2…”.

The School’s Deputy Head emailed the Appellant again on 8 October 2021:

“…we wanted to focus on consent which was key to the KCSIE 2021 update with peer-on-peer abuse. Before any agreement is made for an external company to come into the College we discuss our needs with them to see what they can offer. As we had used them in the past [Senior Teacher] met with them to agree material and what the session would include. We are not fixed to this organisation, nor are we 'standing by' them as you say. Like any curriculum area, we aim to use a wide variety of material and resources to ensure it meets the needs of our students…Although the School of Sexuality are unable to provide the material to use for copyright reasons they have given a brief synopsis of the Key Stage 4 sessions [see below]…”.

On 12 October 2021, the Appellant emailed the School’s Deputy Head as follows:

“…Hatcham College is a state - i.e. taxpayer funded - school. Refusing to show what it has taught my daughter because of private ‘Copyright reasons’ is, as far as I understand it, not at all acceptable.

If this is what School of Sexuality Education has told you, then it should further alert you to the inappropriateness of this company because they are refusing to offer transparency to parents. The school should not accept that on behalf of its families. But even if they do have the right to withhold information, I’m afraid that does not release the school from its obligation to explain what has been taught. You inform me [Senior Teacher] met with the providers and agreed their material, so it ought to be possible for the school to give complete information.

…[daughter] reported to me - and I hope you will agree she is a reliable person - that she was categorically told that we live in a heteronormative society, which means it is assumed that everyone is heterosexual or should be heterosexual and that this is an undesirable situation.

If [daughter] understood this correctly (and please do correct us with the accurate information if she didn't), not only was that indoctrinating teaching, which was not advertised to parents in advance (i.e. we were told the lesson was about consent), but it is patently untrue. We quite evidently no longer live in a heteronormative [sic] society by most measures, including the fundamental matter of law.

I would therefore like to ask one more time: please will you supply the lesson plan and teaching resources used by School of Sexuality Education - or if they can legitimately refuse, then please provide the school’s own accurate version, so as to confirm what they taught specifically regarding heteronormativity…”.

On 13 October 2021, the School sent an email to the Appellant with the subject line “Response to your complaints dated 12.10.2021 and 13.10.2021”, which included the following:

“…[SoSE’s] teaching fits with our programme and published policy. We have shared the content information from that specific session (as attached). I am satisfied that it was age appropriate for the pupils and accessible to them…

…From my enquiries, the facilitator stated that we live in a “largely heteronormative society” which can be argued to be correct, due to the fact that more people claim to be, and identify themselves as heterosexual…There was no preference being made and nor was there any judgement being made. It was an observation by the facilitator…

A letter outlining details about the external provider’s name and how to withdraw from Sex Education (if a parent/carer wanted to) was sent to all parents and carers by the College in a letter dated Thursday 16th September 2021…

…if a parent wishes to take on the responsibility of teaching sex education themselves, using another resource or do not wish for their child to be taught sex education within the College, they have the right to withdraw their children from the non-statutory components of sex education within RSE up to and until 3 terms before the child turns 16.

…As our Sex Education provision is being taught during the Drop-Down Days, a child can be withdrawn from those specific sessions…

…Details about how to request withdrawals from Sex Education lessons can be found in Appendix 3 of the RSE Policy. A letter (electronically) dated Thursday 26th August 2021 was sent out to all parents and carers across all key stages within the College. They were also all given the opportunity to provide their comments or feedback. The RSE Policy was available on the website at the time and the updated version has been available on our website since September 2021.

Complaint about The School of Sexuality

In your email dated 13th October 2021, you complained about your experience in contacting the external provider directly. You asked them for copies of their lesson plans and as explained by them they had copyright concerns.

It is important to note that The School of Sexuality had offered to write a more detailed overview of what was taught during the consent session upon our request to my Senior Teacher. However, on the same day, following an alleged phone call that you had with them, the manager [A] intercepted, raising concern that [D] is being harassed by a parent of the College. Hence, they have subsequently retracted from providing us additional detailed lesson plan information…

Requested Lesson Plan

Please see the attached the document that was shared with you via [Vice Principal]. This was made available to you and I have attached it again. This is what has been provided to us and we are satisfied with what was delivered…”.

On 15 October 2021, the Appellant emailed the Trust’s CEO:

“…I cannot sit by when our school is … exposing my daughter to a very dubious company, who are prepared to try threatening parents with evidently false allegations, telling children to withdraw from their lessons and keeping their publicly funded work secret. (I presume I will need to make a Freedom of Information request to see the state funded lesson plans and slides shown to my daughter?)…”.

According to the School’s internal review of their initial refusal to comply with the Appellant’s request for information:

“…you met with…the CEO of the Trust, on 4 November 2022 [presumably2021intended] and were shown some of the materials requested under part one of the Request. This was done with the agreement of SoSE on the understanding that the materials would be shared in confidence and then deleted and not shared more widely. In addition to being shown the slides in question, you also have copies of the other information that you requested from Hatcham College, including the College’s own lesson plans. I am therefore satisfied that we have made clear the content of the session.

… they were shared with you on the express understanding that the materials would be kept confidential and not disclosed publicly…”.

The Appellant’s first witness statement gave her account of the offer to view the Slides on 4 November 2021:

“64.

She [CEO] then suddenly announced that she had a copy of the lesson slides with her but that she wouldn’t show them to me unless I ‘moderated my behaviour’…

65.

She then offered her laptop to me with the slides on. I was very surprised and also concerned about the terms under which I was being given access to the material. I didn’t consider this a proper process – there was nothing on paper to confirm I had seen the slides, and I realised I couldn’t prove anything I saw and that I was viewing material that had been claimed to be commercially sensitive and so I might be entering a tacit non-disclosure agreement. I also was deeply uncomfortable that I hadn’t been told this was going to happen in advance so that I could consider the situation properly in consultation with my daughter’s father.

66.

I looked at the first few slides that were open and noted that there was indeed reference to ‘heteronormativity’ and ‘sex positivity’, as my daughter suggested, and I think I recall ‘intersectionality’ too… but I instinctively returned the laptop after seeing just three or four slides out of 20+ and said I’d seen enough to confirm that the lesson breaches the Education Act. I purposefully didn’t look at the rest of the slides and explained that I needed to have a copy of the plan to take into a Stage 3 Complaint, I also wanted the space and time to consider it and to be able to show my husband, who was not there. Also I felt that without an actual copy I would only half remember it and therefore could not speak accurately to my daughter about the material.”

The Appellant’s second First-tier Tribunal witness statement said as follows:

“33…I was concerned about the terms upon which the viewing was offered to me. As a professional designer, I am well aware that viewing material described as commercial sensitive and withheld under copyright restrictions is not a wise thing to do and can be construed as a tacit agreement to non-disclosure and I had no desire to be put in that position…

34.

I note the email from SoSE dated 8 November 2021 time stamped 19.25…which states to the CEO of [the Trust] that the slides should not be shown to me, and hence (given the animosity I had already received from SoSE) I think I made a good decision, in not viewing the material when the CEO spontaneously tried to show them to me, without any warning or explanation of the terms on which I was being permitted to view them…”.

On 7 November 2021, the Appellant emailed Trust’s CEO as follows:

“…CONCERNS REGARDING THE SCHOOL LEADERS’ JUDGEMENT AND CONDUCT