Berger Primary School

Yes if the mission or values page leads with identity and “equity,” not knowledge. “Diversity, inclusion, belonging, decolonise, anti-racist, LGBTQ+ affirming” appear in the first screen of About / Vision / Ethos; subject excellence or meritocratic ambition is secondary or missing.

Yes if protected-characteristic branding is house style. Rainbow lanyards, Progress flags, “pronouns in bio,” and staff email signatures with she/they are default on the public site and official social accounts, not limited to a one-day awareness post.

Yes if sex and gender are treated as interchangeable in policy. Behaviour, uniform, toilets, sport, or trips documents say pupils may use facilities or teams “matching gender identity,” with no parallel sentence protecting single-sex provision.

Yes if a published “trans inclusion” or “affirmation” toolkit sits in the policies list, while there is no equally prominent sex-based safeguarding note.

Yes if curriculum pages advertise activism as learning: “decolonising the curriculum,” “white privilege,” “lived experience as evidence,” or compulsory anti-racism training announced as a moral upgrade.

Yes if recruitment and governor ads require DEI allegiance. Check vacancies pages and the school’s LinkedIn company and jobs listings.

Yes if the calendar and social media over the past 12 months are campaign-led (Pride Month, Trans Day of Visibility, slogan work year-round).

Yes if speech and “hate” policies list misgendering or “denying identity” as harm, but do not protect sex-realist belief.

Yes if partners are one-sided (Stonewall, Mermaids, Diversity Role Models, BLM-branded groups) with no viewpoint-diverse counterparts.

Yes if “lived experience” or microaggression reporting is treated as settled authority, with no mechanism to challenge the framework.