“When psychologists […] listened to the voice of the child to the exclusion of all other perspectives and evidence, when they allowed advocacy of an ideological perspective […] to replace professional rigour and a duty of care, they failed children.” A new article in DECP Debate calls for a public position from guiding bodies in psychology.
The work by the three educational psychologists (EPs) emphasises a critical issue in the field: when professionals in psychology, particularly educational psychologists (EPs), prioritise the voice of the child to the exclusion of all other perspectives and evidence, they fail in their duty of care. By allowing ideological advocacy to override professional rigor, they compromise their responsibility to the child’s well-being.
This conclusion is drawn in response to what these EPs see as a troubling trend within the field, where certain professional bodies, like the Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP) and the British Psychological Society Division of Educational and Child Psychology (DECP) have not issued clear public positions on the Cass Review, leaving EPs in a state of uncertainty about how to integrate its findings into their practice. The lack of guidance has left professionals in limbo, unsure of how to navigate the complex issues raised by the Review into gender services for children and adolescents.
These organisations have, in fact, actively advocated for an approach that is at odds with evidence-based practice. For example, the AEP’s response to the government consultation on school guidelines for gender-questioning children has been criticised for its unquestioning, affirmative tone. This approach lacks the necessary balance between empathy and professional curiosity, potentially encouraging practices that are not grounded in developmental understanding.
The authors of the paper argue for a return to developmentally informed practice, highlighting that adolescence is a critical period for identity exploration. They assert that this understanding of adolescence, as a time when children are naturally questioning and developing their sense of self, should serve as the foundation for good practice in both educational psychology and education more broadly. By recognising the complexities of this developmental stage, professionals can avoid jumping to quick, simplistic conclusions and instead offer more nuanced, empathetic support.
The authors’ recommendations echo the principles outlined by Bayswater in our guidance to parents. They stress the importance of being curious about what this means to the child, empathise without jumping to simplistic solutions for complex problems. Safeguarding, they argue, “sometimes means not doing what they want us to do”. It can be imperative to resist the immediate demands or wishes of children, especially when those demands may not be in their long-term best interests.
Ultimately, the psychologists call for an approach that combines professional rigor, empathy, and a commitment to evidence-based practice. They believe this is the key to ensuring the well-being of children, respecting their individuality, and supporting them through their complex journey of identity exploration, without rushing in to irreversible decisions.