Sebright 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.

No published policy, pastoral language, toilet, sport or record references treat gender identity as overriding sex.

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 social-transition pathway or affirmation protocol is described on any public page.

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 race-equality or anti-racism documents frame Britain or the school as structurally racist.

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 curriculum or ethos material presents migration or borders as colonial redress.

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.

No net-zero or climate programme is published as moral duty with dissent labelled denial.

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

No RSE or pastoral content frames masculinity itself as toxic or requiring unlearning.

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).

No hate-speech, inclusion or social-media policy lists lawful views on sex, race or faith as harmful speech.

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

No safeguarding or wellbeing page subordinates sex-based protection or parental notice to identity affirmation.

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

No recruitment, staff code or EDI page requires demonstration of allegiance to contested ideological positions.

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

No SEND, wellbeing or neurodiversity material invites children to adopt clinical or identity labels for ordinary distress.