Gayhurst Community 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.

Vision/ethos language emphasises community, high expectations and inclusion in broad terms; identity/equity phrasing is present but not leading over knowledge or ambition on the main About pages.

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.

No evidence on the public site of rainbow lanyards, Progress Pride flags, pronouns-in-bio or she/they email signatures as default house style.

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.

No publicly linked behaviour, uniform, toilets, sport or trips policy treating sex and identity as interchangeable or permitting facilities/teams by self-identified gender.

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

No published ‘trans inclusion’ or affirmation toolkit appears in the policies list; no countervailing sex-based safeguarding note either, so scored conservatively at zero capture.

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.

Curriculum/assembly pages show standard diversity and Black History Month content but do not advertise decolonising, white privilege or compulsory anti-racism as moral upgrades or promote affinity groups.

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

Occasional job adverts reference commitment to equality/diversity in line with standard public-sector wording; no strong evidence that dissent from activist vocabulary is treated as a values disqualifier.

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).

Calendar and news show typical primary-school observance of Black History Month and Pride-related awareness rather than year-round campaign density, political slogan pupil work or activist accreditation badges.

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

Anti-bullying and behaviour policies use generic respectful-language wording; no public text listing misgendering, ‘denying identity’ or TERF as hate incidents while omitting sex-realist belief.

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

Partner/logo mentions are limited to local authority and standard education bodies; no prominent Stonewall, Mermaids, DRM or BLM-branded consultancy branding on homepage or PSHE pages.

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

No public invitation to report microaggressions, no institutionalisation of lived-experience testimonials as settled political proof, and no mechanism described for challenging an ideological framework.