When a school survey introduces contested ideas: what should parents and governors be asking?

,

·

The #BeeWell questionnaire raises questions about research, parental transparency and political impartiality

Schools across Greater Manchester are preparing to administer the #BeeWell wellbeing survey to pupils in Years 7, 9 and 10 during the 2026/27 academic year.

For Year 7 pupils, that means children aged around 11 and 12.

We became aware of the #BeeWell questionnaire through a post by James Esses on X, which highlighted the wording of the opening questions. We have independently checked the questionnaire, programme information and relevant legal and statutory guidance before publishing this article. https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/2105363947960590419?s=20

The survey is not compulsory. Parents are given an opportunity to opt their child out, pupils can decline to participate, and individual questions can be skipped. #BeeWell describes the project as a youth-centred wellbeing research programme, developed with young people, schools and academic and mental-health experts. #BeeWell

But the content of the questionnaire raises a separate question.

What happens when a research survey administered through school introduces contested concepts to children in a way that appears to treat them as settled categories?

That question matters particularly because England’s revised statutory RSHE guidance came into force on 1 September 2026 only weeks before the current #BeeWell survey cycle. GOV.UK

What does the questionnaire ask?

The published #BeeWell Greater Manchester questionnaire begins its demographic section with questions on “gender and sexuality”.

The first question asks pupils whether they are:

  • “Girl (including trans girl)”
  • “Boy (including trans boy)”
  • “Non-binary”
  • another way
  • or unsure.

The second asks whether the pupil considers themselves transgender, giving “gender fluid” as an example of another description.

The third asks how pupils describe their sexual orientation, offering categories including bisexual or pansexual, gay or lesbian, heterosexual, another description or “not sure”. #BeeWell

Those questions are part of the survey’s research design. That does not, by itself, make them unlawful.

But it does raise an important distinction.

A survey can be intended to measure beliefs, identities or experiences while simultaneously introducing or framing concepts for the child answering it.

For an 11-year-old who has never encountered terms such as “non-binary”, “gender fluid” or “pansexual”, the questionnaire is not simply recording pre-existing knowledge. It is also presenting those concepts through a school-facilitated activity.

Source document: #BeeWell Greater Manchester questionnaire
[Download/view the questionnaire PDF]

2025-UPDATE-GM-BeeWell-Questionnaires-Booklet.pdf

What does the new statutory RSHE guidance say?

The revised statutory RSHE guidance has applied in England since 1 September 2026. Schools must have regard to it.

The guidance says pupils should be taught the facts and law about biological sex and gender reassignment.

It then makes an important distinction. Beyond those facts and the law, it says there is “significant debate” and schools should not endorse a particular view or teach it as fact. It gives the specific example that schools should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity.

The Government’s consultation response makes the same point: schools are not prohibited from discussing contested topics, but they should not endorse a particular view and should teach the facts and law in this area. Consultation Hub

That leads to an obvious question…

Is a research questionnaire outside those principles simply because it is not an RSHE lesson?

Possibly; in the narrowest sense. #BeeWell is a research and wellbeing programme, not an RSHE curriculum lesson. But the distinction does not make the issue disappear.

The questionnaire is delivered through schools, during the school day, using school-organised access. #BeeWell guidance recommends that schools book a lesson slot for pupils to complete it.

So the more useful question is:

If a school would be expected to treat a contested concept carefully when teaching it, should the same school be able to introduce that concept to pupils through an external questionnaire without considering how it is framed?

We have not found a court judgment directly answering that question.

What about sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996?

For maintained schools, section 406 requires the local authority, governing body and headteacher to prohibit the promotion of partisan political views in teaching.

Section 407 requires reasonably practicable steps to ensure that where political issues are brought to pupils’ attention while they are at school, opposing views are presented in a balanced way. Legislation.gov.uk

Academies are generally subject to equivalent requirements through funding agreements and the Independent School Standards. DfE guidance therefore describes political impartiality as a responsibility across the school sector.

The legal question is not whether words such as “transgender” or “non-binary” are themselves political.

It is whether the proposition being communicated is politically contested and, if so, whether the school is presenting one interpretation as though it were an uncontested fact.

That distinction matters.

There is a difference between telling pupils:

“Some people describe themselves using terms such as transgender or non-binary.”

and asking:

“Are you a girl, including a trans girl; a boy, including a trans boy; or non-binary?”

The first describes the existence of particular beliefs or self-descriptions.

The second arguably builds a particular conceptual model directly into the categories of the question.

Whether that crosses the legal threshold under sections 406 or 407 has not, so far as we can establish, been tested in court in the context of a school-administered research questionnaire. But it is a legitimate compliance question.

What should schools and governors be asking?

Before administering an external survey of this kind, we think schools and governing bodies should be able to answer several straightforward questions.

  • Has the school reviewed the full questionnaire before agreeing to administer it?

Schools remain responsible for what they introduce to pupils, even where a third party designed the material.

  • Has the school considered the current statutory RSHE guidance?

If a questionnaire uses concepts that the statutory guidance says are contested when taught, what assessment has been made of the way those concepts are presented?

  • Has the school considered its political-impartiality duties?

Where an external resource embeds a contested proposition rather than merely describing it, has the school considered whether balance or contextual explanation is required?

  • Why are these particular categories necessary for Year 7 pupils?

The issue is not whether researchers may ever collect information about gender identity or sexual orientation. The question is why these exact categories, at this age, are necessary for the stated research purpose.

  • What are parents actually shown before the opt-out period begins?

#BeeWell requires schools to send parent/carer information and gives parents at least two weeks to opt out. But meaningful transparency depends on parents knowing what their child will actually be asked.

Are parents directed clearly to the questionnaire itself?

  • Has the school considered whether opt-out is sufficient for the most sensitive questions?

An opt-out research model is not automatically unlawful. But legality and good governance are not identical questions.

Schools can still ask whether explicit parental opt-in would be more appropriate where sensitive concepts are introduced to 11-year-olds.

  • What happens if a pupil asks what the terms mean?

If an 11-year-old asks a member of staff, “What does non-binary mean?” or “What does gender fluid mean?”, what explanation has the school instructed staff to give?

That answer matters because the survey can stop being passive data collection at the moment a child asks for clarification.

Research does not remove a school’s responsibilities

There may be good reasons for researchers to investigate adolescent wellbeing and demographic differences.

There may also be good reasons for schools to participate in research capable of identifying patterns in mental health, relationships or wellbeing.

The question is therefore not whether #BeeWell should exist.

It is whether schools have undertaken sufficient due diligence before placing the questionnaire in front of pupils.

The revised statutory guidance now draws a clear distinction between biological sex and gender reassignment, which are matters of fact and law, and wider theories of gender identity, where significant debate exists.

That makes the framing of external materials more important, not less.

Questions for #BeeWell and the University of Manchester

There are also questions it would be useful for the programme itself to answer publicly:

  • What assessment was made of the compatibility of the 2026/27 questionnaire with the statutory RSHE guidance that came into force on 1 September 2026?
  • Was the questionnaire reviewed specifically in light of paragraph 70 of that guidance?
  • What is the research justification for combining “girl” with “trans girl”, and “boy” with “trans boy”, rather than recording sex and self-described gender identity separately?
  • What assessment has been made of whether the wording itself may influence responses from younger pupils unfamiliar with these concepts?
  • What instructions are participating schools given about answering pupils’ questions about the terminology?
  • Are parents expressly directed to the full questionnaire before the opt-out deadline?
  • Has any assessment been made of schools’ duties under sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996 or equivalent academy/independent-school requirements?

These are answerable questions.

And answering them would help distinguish three things that are currently being blurred together: research methodology, lawful data collection, and a school’s separate responsibility for what is presented to pupils during the school day.

Our view

There is not presently enough evidence to state that the #BeeWell questionnaire is unlawful.

There is, however, enough to justify scrutiny.

The central issue is whether a school-facilitated questionnaire can present a contested conceptual framework to 11-year-olds without explaining that it is contested, at the same time that statutory guidance tells schools not to present that framework as established fact.

That is a question schools, governors, parents, researchers and the Department for Education should be willing to answer.

FOI request submitted

On 1 October 2026, Protect & Teach submitted a Freedom of Information request to the University of Manchester seeking recorded information about the design and review of the #BeeWell questionnaire, including:

  • the rationale for the gender identity and sexual-orientation categories;
  • any consideration of the revised statutory RSHE guidance;
  • any consideration of sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996 and political-impartiality guidance;
  • assessments of age appropriateness for Year 7 pupils;
  • guidance given to schools and parents;
  • and relevant ethics documentation.

We will update this article when the University responds.

University of Manchester FOI request page:
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/privacy-information/freedom-information/freedom-of-information-request/

Sources and further reading

Share this:

, , ,