KCSIE 2025: Nothing Major? Not Quite.
- Simon Duckworth
- Jul 8
- 2 min read
The new KCSIE 2025 update is being described as having "no major changes"—and for the most part, that's true. If you're looking for a solid, readable summary, Tes has done a great job covering the key shifts in areas like attendance, AP, and online harms.
Read it here:
But one addition stood out—and left me uneasy:The explicit inclusion of "misinformation, disinformation (including fake news) and conspiracy theories" as online harms from which children must be safeguarded.
Yes, our children (like all of us) are influenced daily by glowing screens—algorithms fine-tuned to maximise engagement, shape beliefs, and push content that reinforces our views. Teaching critical thinking in this landscape is not just important—it's essential.
But here’s the dilemma:Are we now expecting teachers to determine, explain, and correct what qualifies as a conspiracy theory versus what might be a legitimate concern?
That’s not straightforward.
Over the years, I’ve supported students who’ve voiced deeply worrying or extreme political or religious views. The right support, careful listening, and safeguarding frameworks helped—but those conversations were nuanced and individual.
Would I feel confident explaining that the Twin Towers weren’t detonated?Not really. I’m not an engineer. I wasn’t there. What I am is someone who tries to meet young people with patience, curiosity, and boundaries—not sweeping declarations about “what’s true.”
This update is clearly well-intentioned, but it requires careful thought. Yes, some online content is genuinely harmful — but not everything that sits outside the mainstream poses a safeguarding risk. We must be cautious that safeguarding doesn’t slide into policing thought, especially when interpretation relies on the personal value judgments of individual staff.
If the DfE is going to include concepts like misinformation and conspiracy theories in a cornerstone safeguarding document, it must be much clearer about what this means in practice. Our standards for student welfare are among the highest in the world — and that’s exactly why this guidance needs precision, not ambiguity.
Comments