The government issued this statement yesterday:
New guidance to support teachers in tackling sensitive issues in the classroom in a politically impartial way is being published today (17 February 2022).
Teaching about political issues and the differing views on these is an essential part of the curriculum, helping pupils to form their own opinions and prepare them for later life.
The new political impartiality in schools guidance will help teachers and schools navigate issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the legacy of the British Empire or societal responses to racism in accordance with the law, which states that teachers must not promote partisan political views and should offer a balanced overview of opposing views when political issues are taught.
Practical examples include:
-
when teaching about the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK, teachers should not present discriminatory opposing beliefs held at the time in an uncritical manner or as acceptable in our society today;
-
teachers should not present opposing views to the fundamental underpinnings to our society, like freedom of speech and protection from violence and criminal activity;
-
when teaching about racism, teachers should be clear that it has no place in our society – but should avoid advocating for specific organisations that have widely contested aims or views;
-
when teaching younger students about historical figures with contested legacies, it may be advisable to focus on what these figures are most renowned for and factual information about them, if teachers think pupils may not be able to understand the contested aspects of their lives, beliefs and actions;
-
if inviting local political figures, including MPs, councillors, or former pupils involved in politics, to talk to pupils, this can be balanced by inviting a range of people with differing views or by teaching directly about other candidates and political parties; and
-
suggested action if it became clear, following a complaint, that during a lesson a teacher suggested to pupils that it is an objective fact that the political system of a certain country is the ‘fairest' and ‘best' in the world. A proportionate response may be to ask the teacher to clarify during their next lesson that this was their own personal political view.
I don't usually quote at such length, but sometimes it seems worth noting what the government is saying.
In response to this statement I note that the Guardian is reporting:
Restrictions on political topics in schools will harm young people by curbing discussions about the polarised arguments and issues they are exposed to on social media, according to the government's former mental health champion.
Natasha Devon said young people from minority backgrounds stood to be the biggest losers if the new guidelines meant teachers in England were afraid to provide students with a safe environment to debate issues.
They added:
Devon compared the guidance to the section 28 regulations concerning classroom discussion of homosexuality in force during the late 1980s and 1990s.
“With section 28 it didn't say you can't talk about homosexuality, it said you were not allowed to ‘promote' homosexuality,” she said. “But what ended up happening is that no one talked about it and I think the same thing is going to happen now, which will harm minority students by taking away their space to explore issues like race and social justice that are affecting them all the time.”
Others noted how hard this guidance will make any discussion of Black Lives Matter, for example, and yet that movement has a real impact on young people's lives and this guidance makes it nigh on impossible for a teacher to permit discussion of their views.
Other issues are noted by the Guardian. I have my own. It is with this example:
Scenario
Teaching about climate change and the scientific facts and evidence behind this, would not constitute teaching about a political issue. Schools do not need to present misinformation, such as unsubstantiated claims that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring, to provide balance here.
However, where teaching covers the potential solutions for tackling climate change, this may constitute a political issue. Different groups, including political parties and campaign groups, may have partisan political views on the best way to address climate change.
This part of the topic should be taught in a balanced manner, with teachers not promoting any of the partisan political views covered to pupils.
First of all, I challenge the idea that discussing the idea that we should tackle climate change is a political issue. It makes no sense at all to say a teacher might teach about the issue and state it to be a fact that this is a human created crisis but then has to make clear it is a political judgement that we might wish to address it.
As a matter of fact young people know about climate change because they are well aware that for many this might be the biggest crisis that they will ever have to face in their lives.
Does a teacher really have to say that there is a credible choice to take no action and suggest that this is a balanced view when that means that the planet may cease to be sustainable during the lifetimes of their pupils because Steve Baker says some (by which he means those of his generation and perspective) think it too expensive to take action?
How is a teacher meant to introduce that claim neutrally, and remain neutral by suggesting it is credible and to be respected during discussion? Does this guidance really means that teachers are required to say to their pupils that some amongst their parents' and grandparents' generation think they would rather not change any aspect of their lifestyle and would instead prefer that the planet become unsustainable for generations to come? On what basis could a teacher remain credible with their pupils on that basis?
The same problem is apparent in many areas. For example, the government implicitly argues that a teacher can be acknowledge that racism is an issue but then requires that the the teacher argue that doing nothing about it is acceptable.
It could also apply to social policy. For example, the teacher could suggest that poverty is real but is then required to present the view that nothing be done about it.
This is not about neutrality. It is not even about ethics or impartiality. It is about teachers being required to present the view that although the existing structure of society is profoundly prejudicial and harmful to the well-being of many that is the consequence of the natural order of being and that although there are things that might be done to address these issues it would be wrong for anyone to do them. That requires the teacher to in that case present the argument that the society we have is the best that we might get. And that is profoundly biased in favour of the opinion of the current government, whose position this sustains by suggesting that they have achieved optimal outcomes for us all, whatever we might think.
Requiring teachers to present a view in classes that our government is the benign deliverer of optimal outcomes for society is anything but neutral, but that is what the government is demanding that teachers do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This government has done many worrying things, but this is by far the most worrying to me. Stifling discussion naturally stifles action. We are slipping towards authoritarianism.
Slipping? More like racing full steam ahead.
By and large teachers already tread cautiously in dealing with sensitive subjects. As a former history teacher I knew that if I had engaged their interests, they might talk about it at home and some parents would object to some points of view being expressed. The only time one complained was when I taught the Crusades and needed to explain a bit about Muslim beliefs. We had some Plymouth Brethran pupils and they saw it as teaching a false religion. I never had any complaints about saying the corn laws of the early 19th century were for the benefit of the landowners and hurt the working poor!
However, even when some teachers are careful to conceal their loyalties, a lot of kids know where they really stand. They accept people have different views.
In the 70s there was a debate as to whether schools reflected what society believed in, or the range of beliefs, or whether they did actually mould beliefs. A lot of people hoped we could teach a better outlook. It was part of why some came into teaching. Others objected to ‘indoctrination’, although, strangely, promotion of their own values were seen differently.
The government seem to be much like the latter group.
I did note that of all the contemporary conflicts in the world, the only one mentioned is the Israel/Palestine issue. Most Conservative MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel and, I think half of Labour MPs are in a similar organisation. It gives me a feeling that the government are not, themselves, neutral on the issue. Of course, that might be because I have a sceptical outlook. Or even a curmudgeon.
Thanks
Wow.
This is very frightening isn’t it?
It’s redolent of how economics is taught – with no relation to the real world.
To portray global warming as nothing more than a ‘political difference of opinion’ is an out and out lie.
It’s shameful this is – utterly shameful.
What a country eh?
What the government is trying to do is to scare teachers stiff in mentioning any “controversial” topic whatsoever or present issues such as climate change, homophobia, sexism, imperialistic massacres in the British Empire, slavery, class warfare, wage slavery etc as if these things are of no consequence in our “modern” desensitised society that the Tories want to present so they face no criticism whatsoever.
Any teacher trying to follow these regulations will get themselves tied into knots as soon as any pupil challenges the status quo and as you point out try and reach some “balance” when history proves that gross injustices have taken place in the British Empire and continue now as a middle-ranking power pretending to be still “Great” Britain.
Have you seen the net migration figures. Still positive.
Could be better but it’s hardly Crap Britain
Isn’t this ‘cancel culture’ being operated by our alleged govt.? What about freedom of speech that some scream they are being prevented from exercising? Isn’t the govt. preventing schoolchildren from exercising their right to that?
Craig
“I challenge the idea that discussing the idea that we should tackle climate change is a political issue.”
That isn’t what they are saying.
What they say is “where teaching covers the potential solutions for tackling climate change, this may constitute a political issue.”
Not WHETHER we should tackle climate change but HOW.
So it’s SOLUTIONS they are talking about and these are obviously a political choice. The Indian and Chinese governments are basically doing nothing. The French are building nuclear power stations, the UK has decided on ‘net zero’, Had Trump won in the last US election he would have followed a very different path then that being followed by Biden.
Quite obviously these are political choices, because different political ideologies are choosing different actions.
So it’s not political then
It’s what works best, isn’t it?
You are politicising it
That’s an interesting viewpoint.
A government deciding “what works best” policies in a scenario that will impact every aspect of the life of a country isn’t ‘politics’? Especially as people have different opinions about what works best, form political parties to put forward their views on what works best and hold elections to decide which party gets to put its policies into practice.
So by that criteria deciding tax policies isn’t ‘politics’? It’s just deciding ‘what works best’?
The same for how the economy should be run, policing, the army, the health service, in fact everything. None of this is ‘politics’, it’s deciding “what works best”?
Nothing is ever decided by ‘politics’. It’s just deferent opinions about “what works best”.
Amusing
You make my case, in practice
There is no distinction, you are saying, between politics and choice, and I agree
So the government is saying
1) Don’t discuss choice
2) Accept what we are doing is best
3) Accepting the Status quo is not politics, which is obviously wrong
To me, we are slipping into the “American way” I’m dreading the eventual Gun Law argument, which I really think is going to happen if we remain with a Tory Government
Hi Richard,
What, if with a bit of creativity, the teacher/school could transpose our world to a world of animals in conflict – I think it’s been done before.
What freedom then would the teacher/staff have to pitch real dilemmas in terms of fairness, free speech and equity. How might they explore issues such as who has control of the media, prioritise spending, or uses taxation as a tool.
Nadhim Zahawi could then relax and spend more time with his horses.
🙂
This makes me literally weep . We are back in Thatcherite times of repressive education.
We have not yet reached a stage where the government feels confident enough to implement its longer (not “long “, I suspect) term plan for education, which is linked to anti wokism and culture war. The link with the talk by Oliver Dowden, Chair of the Conservative Party, dealt with in Richard’s post of 15th February, is important since, as PSR points out, the political bias of economics teaching is crass and all pervading. The message is very simple. Total deregulation of every aspect of economic life is what freedom means. Viewed from the standpoint of the elite, one would have to agree, since the consequent environmental catastrophe is simply too long term to worry about (yes, I do realise it’s not long term to any rational being, but that’s part of my point) and the social consequences are not a matter for concern, other than to control by state violence any resulting protests.
Implementation of this economic objective must necessarily involve the suppression of debate and what better place to start than the schools. The alleged commitment to rounded, self-confident individuals with the ability to form their own opinions is simply a lie. Debate of the major issues of the day would lie at the heart of any such objective, but this so called guidance is carefully constructed to make most teachers with an eye on their careers to avoid controversy by avoiding the subject matter entirely. The vagueness of the guidelines on one level is a genuine attempt to be even handed and avoid (party?) political bias, but the practical effects are suppression of discussion and that is the objective. Any semi literate teacher would receive the message loud and clear.
Labelling climate change as political is a good example, since the fact of it means debate regarding its existence would simply be an excuse to present misinformation. Thus, any discussion would be regarding actions required to mitigate or lessen the effects and the government would much prefer that not to occur. It acknowledges climate change and responds entirely with greenwash and THAT benefits from lack of scrutiny. Which teacher would dare to create a discussion about supply generated inflation, whether the national debt must be repaid or whether we can ‘live beyond our means’! That means the ability to discuss poverty is restricted to how we raise money for food banks or be nice to old people; caution requires superficiality.
Schools still refer to the THEORY of evolution. It ceased to be a theory decades ago, yet bogus ‘respect’ for opposing views remains the excuse for the misnomer. It is precisely this technique that is at the heart of these latest guidelines and it is designed not to encourage and, where possible, discourage rational debate based on scientific methodology. It’s a tricky act that you can observe in the US, with an extraordinary record of cutting edge technical innovation combined with an equally extraordinary percentage of the population committed to utterly bizarre conspiracy theories and extreme, allegedly Christian, social attitudes. This profound contradiction between our technical ability and social organisation lies at the heart of our societies. All fundamental contradictions must eventually result in upheavals, but this particular one is essential to maintain the wealth and power disparities that cause the overwhelming majority of social ills. Controlling debate in schools is simply a part of this broad agenda. I am not suggesting here a master plan. The agenda is more a natural excrescence of a corrupt elite, a form of brutal street wisdom.
I don’t actually see how they would be able to police this, to be honest. Unless a lesson is being observed, what is said in the class room is between the teacher and their pupils. How many thousands of teachers are there? How would they be monitored?
Now, if the government were considering training cadres of children to snitch on their teachers I would be very worried. But I don’t think they’re quite into that sort of detail… yet..
Yet
I’ve always found Parsons with the pride he has in his awful kids, one of the more fascinating characters in 1984
Unfortunately, it only takes a few kids to innocently recount to their anti-“woke” parents details of a history lesson, for the parents to complain to the school and / or the local papers and there’ll be a
outcry conveniently amplified by the usual organs of the press and broadcast media causing a chilling effect on already stressed teachers coping with Covid, book and materials shortages, rising cost of living, etc. Pile on the pressure – divide and rule – create fear.
On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence that many have had enough and are prepared to protest despite the effort to suppress and demonise dissent.
I’ve been moved to write again on this topic because if we condition people to accept artificial barriers to further enquiry, then the result can only be more injustice.
A lot is being said at the moment in the Guardian about the Post Office scandal where a load of sub-postmasters were made out to be thieves and were persecuted horribly over what was found to be failure of a new accounting system. People may have committed suicide over this and many innocent lives were destroyed by what can only be described as a total miscarriage of justice. People at the top of the post office have yet to be held accountable as well as the makers of the accounting platform that caused the problems.
I watched the Netflix documentary ‘Downfall: The Case Against Boeing’.
The fact is that Boeing knew its aircraft was faulty. Two of them crashed not long after being introduced – an updated model of the 737 jet (you may remember). Well over 300 innocent people died as both jets literally dove into sea and land at speed.
Boeing put in an anti-stalling device into the 737 Max and never told pilots that it was there. This device was a safety aspect of the new engines. One airline that bought the 737 Max (and subsequently lost one in a crash) knew it was there and asked for further training. They were ridiculed by Boeing and told to shut up. Training was not on the cards. Here’s why.
An anti-stalling device takes over the plane’s controls and forces the nose down to stop a stall, no matter what the engines are doing.
Boeing had been competing badly against Airbus but decided to compete promoting a jet model that first flew in 1967 but this time with larger more fuel efficient engines. Using this old model also reduced development costs and helped to keep Boeing’s stock price high – they sold loads of these 737 Max’s.
Part of the marketing of this updated design was that the plane was familiar to pilots the world over and they would not have to be trained to use it. Training is expensive, so Boeing were competing on cost, making the 737 Max look cheaper to airlines as a package. That is why Boeing did not tell pilots that the device was there.
Even worse was to come. At the nose end of the jet are two trim sensors to let the pilot know the aspect of the flight (pointing up, down etc., – really important in night flying I imagine). Boeing linked this anti-stall device and it’s programme to only ONE of these sensors. This was in an industry that backed up all essential safety systems as a norm – doubled down on mostly I think everything. Boeing broke a cardinal rule of air safety by relying on one sensor. You have two in case one gets damaged – and this it was happened in the two crashes – they get damaged by hitting anything from birds to errant party balloons.
After two crashes, as the evidence came out it transpired (as it had transpired in the 2008 financial crash) that Boeing had ignored warnings and concerns from its own employees about what the risks were.
Boeing also blamed pilots and the airlines during investigation hearings for the crashes – easy to do when they were ‘inferior’ Asian and African airlines.
The flight recorder contents were even more alarming. One of the things you can do, is turn the anti-stall device off. In the second crash in Africa, that is exactly what the co-pilot did. But the problem was this. In both cases the planes were accelerating to gain altitude but the faultily engaged anti-stall device was altering the tail plane and pushing the plane downwards at high speed. They estimated that the crew had only 10 seconds to recover. Ten seconds. The crew were fighting the plane all the way down – it was like being on rodeo bull. The 737 in Africa hit the earth like missile. No bodies (as such) were recovered (unlike the Asian 737 that went down in the sea).
The documentary tells the story from a number of angles and one is the story of a top notch engineering firm with a proud history of safety being brought low by poor leadership. I’ve seen for myself how Boeing tested its aircraft and I was always happy to fly on one of its jets (well, before 11/9 anyway).
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg was fired by the Boeing Board (not the Government or its legal system) and had a severance package of something like $62 million dollars. He walked away a multi-millionaire. Having presided over decisions that led to two of the company’s airplanes killing their crew and passengers. From what I can see, no one at Boeing has gone to prison for corporate manslaughter, no one from the marketing team had faced any accountability (there are surely cases to answer). And Boeing was so enriched by the 737 Max that it did share buy backs to support the stock price.
The 737 Max was grounded by the industry until it was put right and I think it is now is OK. But throughout Boeing has insisted that it was a safe aeroplane.
What to say?
Well, the message is that we still need people who are independent thinkers.
It was the airline industry the world over to its credit that stopped using the Boeing 737 Max – not the Federal Aviation Administration who seemed more worried about being taken to court by Boeing or national pride than banning a killer jet. The FAA and Boeing had got too cosy with each other. Yet another institution that failed really when it was needed most – captured by the big dogs of the industry it should be regulating. The FAA ended up following the industry – not leading it.
This is the sort of world we live in it seems. A world that kills people with impunity – whether dodgy airliner builders or people who maintain railway infrastructure without knowledge or whom leave ramp doors open on ferries when they are at sea – all in the name of ‘efficiency’ and extra profit.
And a lot of times by people who are essentially multi-millionaires?
As for the American Government, it led the inquests (well done!) but seems to be able to do very little to enforce the consequences on the rich arrogant bastards who enable this sort of tragedy to take place. If you cannot rely on the Government for justice, where the hell do you go?
My verdict? We are a very morally sick species at the moment – very sick indeed. Maybe terminally so.
I mean, we should be banging on the doors here demanding proper justice for these people. Prison works they say, and I think a few of these CEOs and their minions need a bit of jail time and some lost assets just to remind them of their responsibilities to the rest of us.
Thanks