Telegraph: Teacher sacked for attempting to scupper trans candidate’s hopes of being head girl

And given a judge ruled that a belief in biological sex, and that it matters, was an opinion not worthy of respect, my confidence in the accurate relating of these incidents is fairly low.

💯

Yes I think that's right. And scary.

If you don't want teachers pushing their own ideology on to children then that should hold for all teachers and all beliefs. There shouldn't be exceptions because you happen to agree on this particular case.

Exactly.

The official hearing report is very detailed and a completely accurate account of the hearing.
Nothing short of a video recording of the lesson is going to be 100% reliable. We wouldn't need any form of legal court if everyone demanded that level of proof of any misdeed. But the report makes it clear that the accounts were challenged, considered carefully, and in one case discounted, not because anyone was lying but because there was enough ambiguity for it to not be reliable in its meaning.

I have no reason not to trust the judgment based on that account, and the teacher holds herself responsible.

Obviously I disagree. Not the bit about biological sex but whether the newspaper article or the hearing report is more accurate.

That is an inconsistency that changes the implication of the entire issue.

And given a judge ruled that a belief in biological sex, and that it matters, was an opinion not worthy of respect, my confidence in the accurate relating of these incidents is fairly low.

I certainly don't trust the reporting in the Telegraph. Newspapers do not understand how schools work and frequently make basic errors in their reporting. However I'm happy to accept the Professional Conduct hearing report.

I'm not sure I'd ever describe scepticism as a knee jerk reaction! I don't trust the reporting of this incident. You do.

Indeed. Reporting is so biased these days that absolutely everything (of importance anyway) needs to double checked. And more often than not, we find we do not get the true story. Or even anything closely resembling the truth.

I hear that the teacher regretted her actions but I do wonder how teachers can protect our children (esp girls) in our cancel 'woke' culture (or 'sleepwalking back to the 1900's culture).

I think the intention is that they don't protect children from this. Because of the threat of losing their jobs if they even try.

*How many threads have we had from parents wanting to know how to challenge teachers who pushed the twaw mantra on their children?

How many of those teachers have been sacked?*

Absolutely and given some comments on this thread, they should all be permanently banned.

I hear that the teacher regretted her actions but I do wonder how teachers can protect our children (esp girls) in our cancel 'woke' culture (or 'sleepwalking back to the 1900's culture).. I think it is easy to see how, out of desperation to protect children, someone might say something they otherwise wouldn't.

Just reread the thread and have seen the comment upthread about a permanent ban.

If it really didn’t matter if the kids were male or female why would schools specify a head boy and a head girl rather than just two “head children”?

From reading the report of the hearing, rather than the newspaper article it seems it wasn't a Head girl.position but a position on the school leadership team. Which is different.

Somewhat bemused by all the “nothing less than a permanent ban is acceptable” comments above in this thread, especially given the questions about who said what and what the whole context was

I've missed those comments.

The teacher in question was sacked from her job but is still a teacher and working in another school.

I don't agree that the context isn't clear - it seems very clear to me.

If you don't want teachers pushing their own ideology on to children then that should hold for all teachers and all beliefs. There shouldn't be exceptions because you happen to agree on this particular case.

Somewhat bemused by all the “nothing less than a permanent ban is acceptable” comments above in this thread, especially given the questions about who said what and what the whole context was. But then if women are to be scolded and told off then women teachers are even lower down the social hierarchy. Maybe a permanent ban isn’t enough and we should bring back the stocks and ducking stool.

It seems to me that teachers who state TWAW and producers of lesson resources pushing gender ideology wouldn’t last long of the same standard was applied.

Also - how many teachers every day fail to deal with sexism and sexual harassment in the classroom, and hire many of those have been sacked?

How many threads have we had from parents wanting to know how to challenge teachers who pushed the twaw mantra on their children?

How many of those teachers have been sacked?

Reacting in such a knee jerk way because you want her to be right, doesn't do the GC cause any favours at all.

I'm not sure I'd ever describe scepticism as a knee jerk reaction! I don't trust the reporting of this incident. You do.

I'm sure more details will be forthcoming to set our minds at rest.

This is all getting a bit ridiculous. This very experienced teacher has accepted that she did something she shouldn't have done. She's admitted it and regrets it. So why some people are determined to say that there must be something missing and she can't have been in the wrong, I really don't know.

Reacting in such a knee jerk way because you want her to be right, doesn't do the GC cause any favours at all.

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, @Datun. But either way, it's not important in the light of this investigation. She should ONLY have shared her opinion with fellow adults, and not the pupils for whom she was responsible.

I don't know why you're finding this so hard. It's as if you can only see this through the lens of the particular opinion she had, and not the things for which she was disciplined - which were professional transgressions which were not allied to a particular subject. In this case the subject was a transgender person standing for election, but it could have been anything.

But that's not what the hearing was about. We can't have legal/professional decisions based on our own personal opinions. Just as we don't want judgements to go the way of those who hold different opinions. This person had to abide by the rules of her profession, which she herself admits that she didn't do on that occasion. The matter on which she judged the person standing for election isn't the point.

100% agree with this.

Had she wanted to criticise the decision of the school to allow this person to represent girls (and we don't yet know whether that is what happened) then that point should have been made in a staff meeting or to the SLT, not to the students in her form.

it wasn't her who said 'it' or 'that', despite allegations, apparently.

and that was the bit that was struck from the allegations. So it didn't impact the eventual judgement. She admitted to everything else.

I completely support her in her criticism of a boy wanting to represent girls, if that's the case. And I would consider anyone who doesn't, to be in the wrong.

But that's not what the hearing was about. We can't have legal/professional decisions based on our own personal opinions. Just as we don't want judgements to go the way of those who hold different opinions. This person had to abide by the rules of her profession, which she herself admits that she didn't do on that occasion. The matter on which she judged the person standing for election isn't the point.

Just to add, at my school the Head boy and girl are school officer roles along with the house captains. Traditionally, there were always one of each, but lately it is mostly girls who apply, to the effect that there weren't actually enough boys to fill all the roles equally.

We now have two 'head students' and five house captains for each house, one for each year, which makes a total of 22 school officers. Mostly girls. Any boy who applies is pretty much a shoe in whilst girls have more competition.

I don't know why boys don't apply, but I really am beginning to think it's socialisation. Girls want to help, to take part, they want things on their CV - boys have many other commitments outside of school, or think it's a bit lame....??

She denied several things. It wasn't her who said they were disgusting, it wasn't her who said 'it' or 'that', despite allegations, apparently. What she admitted to was not preventing her pupils from saying those things and making her voting intentions known.

You might want to tie yourself in knots to support someone whose views you support, but I'm afraid that in this case you'd be wrong to do so.

I don't need to tie myself in knots. I completely support her in her criticism of a boy wanting to represent girls, if that's the case. And I would consider anyone who doesn't, to be in the wrong. Unfortunately, there seems to be a gap between what is in the hearing, and what's in the papers.

I have been reading about these issues long enough to be sceptical of both the way they are reported, and the testimony of those who claim to be witnesses.

One only has to look at joke articles in the Guardian, to see how these things come about.

It will be interesting to see if any further details emerge.