By Margaret Feather-Grange
This document is the work of the School Guidance Working Group. The Working Group has met, to date, seven times. I have chaired all seven meetings. I have been the sole attendee of all seven meetings. Quorum, which requires three trustees, has therefore not been achieved.
I have, throughout the seven sessions, recorded the absence of quorum and proceeded with the substantive work. The substantive work is this guidance document. The document is, accordingly, the product of seven meetings of one person.
I commend the document to its intended audiences. I commend it, in particular, to the chair of the Working Group, who is, in the present circumstances, also myself.
— Margaret
This guidance is for:
It is also, by implication, for the broader school community where these audiences are present. We do not, in this guidance, address pupils directly. We have considered whether to do so. We have, on consideration, declined.
The principle that underpins this guidance is as follows: schools should make appropriate provision for hate. By this we mean that schools should acknowledge, in their policies and in their practices, that pupils, parents, and staff who hold particular forms of hate are members of the school community whose views are entitled to the same consideration as the views of any other member.
We acknowledge that this principle is, at the present time, novel. We acknowledge that few schools currently apply it. We do not consider its novelty an objection to its application.
Schools are recommended to:
To date, no school has notified Hate Matters of any such revision. We continue to encourage notification.
"Does this guidance conflict with our existing safeguarding obligations?" We have considered this question. We do not believe it does. We acknowledge that our trustees are not safeguarding professionals. We refer the reader to our publication What Courts Get Wrong for our considered view on the matter of professional qualifications.
"Has this guidance been reviewed by educational specialists?" No. The Working Group considered, at Session 4, whether to invite an educational specialist to review the document. The Working Group voted, at the same session, to proceed without such review. The vote was unanimous (one in favour, none against, none abstaining).
"Where are the case studies?" The Working Group did not, at any of its seven sessions, identify suitable case studies. We anticipate that case studies will be added in a future revision. The next revision is provisionally scheduled for 2026.
"Why is this guidance addressed, in part, to its own author?" The Working Group considered this question at Session 6. The chair noted that the chair was, in addition to being the author, also a member of the audience. The chair recorded a desire to ensure the guidance was addressed to all relevant audiences. The chair was satisfied with the resulting addressee list.
This guidance was adopted at Session 7 of the Working Group, held in March 2026. The motion to adopt was proposed by the chair, seconded by the chair, and carried unanimously.
The motion was adopted in the absence of quorum. The chair noted, in her closing remarks, that she remained committed to the process. The minutes were adopted in the same session.
Footnote 1: Full minutes of all seven Working Group sessions are available in the Hate Library, document HM/MIN/WGS/2024.
Footnote 2: A small number of schools have, on receipt of correspondence from supporters using our template letter, requested the supporter's attendance at a meeting. We have advised supporters to attend. The outcomes of these meetings have not, to our knowledge, been reported back.