School influencing political opinions on kids

[wonderingstar01]

At a recent options meeting at DDs school, two of the teachers presenting their subjects to a room full of parents and kids decided to voice their opinions about Michael Gove's changes to the Maths and English GCSE exam curriculum. One of the teachers really got on her soap box and spoke for a good 10 minutes about why the governments decisions were wrong. At the time I thought it was very inappropriate, regardless of the rights and wrongs of her argument.

DD comes home from school today to say they had a really good history lesson where their teacher told them that if the conservatives return to power again this election, they plan to radically change the curriculum which would affect DDs year from entering university. Including girls begin disallowed certain subjects, RE being abolished and replaced by daily church services, domestic science, needlepoint and looking after babies will be subjects reintroduced only for girls, non-christian pupils would read from a separate text in class and at the end of year 11 all the children would have their noses measured and if more than 5 centimetres they would be sent to a concentration camp in Germany.

Now I'm trying to understand how this conversation could have taken place in a positive way and for the benefit of learning, but I can't.

Erm, no, it isn't. It's maybe not a desired state, but it's not abuse.

"Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit."

It is abuse.

Is this a windup? Not even the most ardent anti-Tory would suggest they're going to introduce concentration camps!

Neutrality really doesn't exist though does it, it could be more manipulative to pretend to have no opinion on something but teach in a way that leans in one direction - if you know a certain teacher is a Tory, another a leftie etc it gives a kind of filter to their beliefs. It would be odd to never express opinions for anyone surely, an art teacher can't say whether she prefers Picasso or Monet - or is it restricted to certain types of opinions?

WiltsWonder15

I feel you're letting your political biases tint your view of teaching children about actual historical events there.

And why teach children about the satirical novel Animal Farm in a History lesson when you could actually, y'know, teach them about Stalin himself, instead?

Expressing an opinion on Monet in an art lesson does not affect on your professional neutrality, or seek to influence pupils in such the same way that the Pro-Indy teachers did, for example.

For me, the most shocking element of this thread is that since the OP's daughter missed the entire point of the lesson, she is clearly not... dare I say it... gifted?! I didnt think that was possibly on mumsnet!

QueenTilly Teachers must not use the name of a real party. They must invent one. Restoration Party, Super Party, the Party For Us All, whatever. It is hard enough when teaching modern history and you have to use the names of the parties which still exist while remaining impartial.

QueenTilly

Yes, fair enough. I was mixing up my subjects a bit - one could have the discussion in an English Literature class instead.

My point - badly made and understood by no-one - was that teachers could get their pupils to imagine nightmare scenarios under a Labour government but it is interesting that this model of pedagogy has only used the Tories or UKIP as the modern example.

If the subject under discussion is right wing political history, fair enough - but I'll wager that left wing political history would not be treated in the same way, despite the far greater number of deaths at the hands of such compassionate types!

Andrew

But then it is obviously, from the first, a thought-experiment. Wrong state of mind for it to be truly effective. The nation's 15-year-olds know the difference between a major "legitimate" party and a tiny one with three members and a pet hamster, even if they don't know the policies of all the major parties. They know it's been Conservative versus Labour for years!

Getting people to think about how much they would accept if a household name party they've grown up recognising as a legitimate form of government was saying it is the point, surely?

WiltsWonder15

I will agree the horrors of Stalin should be known, yes. But if we did neither, that would be "neutral", but in my view, far worse than only learning about one. So neutrality is not the most important issue.

Fifteen is also old enough to appreciate why real names are not being used.

Because "teach is trying a stupid thought-experiment", I think?

Thus putting you automatically on your guard, so you don't experience the sleep-walking into dictatorship at all, because you're looking for it. It's just becomes an exercise in self-congratulatory "I'd never have voted for the [blank]", then.

My DD's village infant school had a display board in the playground with "Gove Is Gone!! " written on it when we collected her after the reshuffle.
I have never seen happier parents or teachers than on that afternoon!

My point - badly made and understood by no-one - was that teachers could get their pupils to imagine nightmare scenarios under a Labour government but it is interesting that this model of pedagogy has only used the Tories or UKIP as the modern example.

Yes, but it's the learning objective, which is part of the curriculum, that comes first, not the 'model of pedagogy'. The question would be how did the German people sleepwalk into accepting Nazism? Imagining nightmare scenarios under a Labour government just wouldn't contribute to answering that particular question.

I agree with whoever suggested that UKIP would be a better model, though -- especially as they are campaigning really on a single, populist issue and who knows what other policies they might sneak in if they ever got elected.

FriendlyLadybird

Yes, but it's the learning objective, which is part of the curriculum, that comes first, not the 'model of pedagogy'. The question would be how did the German people sleepwalk into accepting Nazism? Imagining nightmare scenarios under a Labour government just wouldn't contribute to answering that particular question.

Yes, fair enough. However, if one broadened the enquiry into how democracy can lead to totalitarianism, one might use said Labour government scenario. Indeed, the focus on the 3rd Reich as a subject in its own right, rather than within the broader context of totalitarian governments across 1930s Europe, is part of the left-wing tilt of much teaching today.

One could, for example, teach Cambodia's Killing Fields, Chairman Mao's slaughters or Stalin's Gulag camps in equal forensic detail but that wouldn't sit so easy with the teaching fraternity, I suspect.

Tanith

My DD's village infant school had a display board in the playground with "Gove Is Gone!! grin" written on it when we collected her after the reshuffle.
I have never seen happier parents or teachers than on that afternoon!

How childish and unprofessional.

When in the Army I had to explain and promote policies of the last Labour Government with which I fundamentally disagreed, to soldiers and civilians alike, both home and abroad (hot, dusty places). I kept my mouth shut and did my job. Pity for our children that some teachers can't do the same.

WiltsWonder15 -- But what would sit easy with the teaching fraternity is neither here nor there. They have to teach to a curriculum that has been set down by Government. They don't have the freedom to choose to teach Cambodia's Killing Fields, Chairman Mao's slaughters or Stalin's Gulag camps.

It's probably why the teachers at the OP's school distanced themselves from the changes to the curriculum -- just in case parents assumed it was their decision.

When in the Army I had to explain and promote policies of the last Labour Government with which I fundamentally disagreed, to soldiers and civilians alike, both home and abroad (hot, dusty places). I kept my mouth shut and did my job. Pity for our children that some teachers can't do the same.

But it is not the teachers' jobs to explain and promote Government policy. Most teachers profoundly disagreed with most of Gove's policies, and disagree equally with Nicky Morgan. Why is it unprofessional to express that? Educated people being expected to keep their mouths shut and not disagree with the people in charge is what happens in, you know, dictatorships.

Really, Wiltswonder?

I saw it as further evidence of how universally hated Gove's policies were by teachers and parents alike.

FriendlyLadybird

But it is not the teachers' jobs to explain and promote Government policy. Most teachers profoundly disagreed with most of Gove's policies, and disagree equally with Nicky Morgan. Why is it unprofessional to express that? Educated people being expected to keep their mouths shut and not disagree with the people in charge is what happens in, you know, dictatorships.

Teachers are there to put Government policy into effect, as are all public sector workers. This means doing things with which one might disagree:-

Army officers might not think the UK Govt policy towards Taliban, or Shia terror groups in Southern Iraq, is wise but they are required to carry out said policy regardless. HMRC officials might disagree with certain aspects of tax legislation but they are expected to enforce them in any event. Registrars might disapprove of gay marriage but are mandated to conduct such services despite this.

Teachers are in the same position - in fact, their position of influence over the youngest in our country should make the requirement for neutrality ever greater.

Unions can make the collective view known and call for protests and strike action of course, but individual teachers, within their own class-rooms should keep their views to themselves.

Tanith

I saw it as further evidence of how universally hated Gove's policies were by teachers and parents alike.

"Universally hated?" Really? And besides, that is to miss the point - Gove might have been calling for the death of each first-born (and to witness the bleating of the unions you'd have thought that was what he was doing) and it would still be inappropriate for teachers to share their own political views within the classroom.

It's a question of principle. You either have neutrality or you don't. For the Left to want their own views within the classroom and no-one else's gives a useful insight into their deeper motives.

The evidence that you have that your DD's teacher said this about the conservatives is what your DD told you. Have you tried asking the teacher for their side of the story? Or even asked any of the other students about the lesson? It's entirely possible that your DD misunderstood what her teacher was trying to say.

"Don't believe everything a teacher or other authority figure tells you" is a valuable lesson in and of itself, though... Sure wish more people understood that one.

Wiltswonder, you have assumed it was a teacher who wrote it. I have no evidence of any such thing since the board is an outdoor one and can be accessed by anyone in the playground.

Tanith

Sorry, that was how I interpreted the post. However, to permit such graffiti to remain suggests wilful incompetence if not blatant sympathy for its sentiments.

One rule for the Left, one rule for everyone else!

Well, again, it could have been added by a parent waiting to collect their child. So I don't think you can accuse the staff of "wilful incompetence" any more than you can call them "unprofessional".

I will concede that the staff were looking very happy that day

OP what do you really think was happening when your daughter started to talk about noses being measured and concentration camps?

Did you really think this was another attempt to share a teachers political stance? If anything you'd question the teachers grasp of reality and not want to follow their politics on that basis? So it would have the opposite effect wouldn't it?

Didn't either you or your daughter think that it had gone a bit far once the gender discrimination and nose lengthism had come into the debate?

Surely there was a collective groan / laughter when the whole class realised that it was an exercise? Does she remember that even if she didn't follow what had happened? Or some kind of stunned silence?

I wouldn't be at all worried about the political teaching, I would however be very concerned about how your daughter came out of the class having not understood any of the lesson? I wonder what happened?

Was it the teaching? The exercise not resolved in time to discuss conclusions?

Or her losing concentration at a critical point of the lesson?

Or so cross about what she perceived to be another attempt to sway her politics she stopped engaging with the flow of the class?

Btw, I remember this same 'trick' being used in history when I was at school, and it was a lively and interesting lesson, engaging all of us when tbh, we weren't that excited most of the time! I remember the point at which I started to feel uncomfortable yet most of the class were still lapping it up, or seemed to be. It was a good few minutes before I got courage up to say something, by which time it had got truly ridiculous with all the hatred of minority groups (ginger hair, & village/ farm inhabitants vs townies).

I can't even remember the political party used to demonstrate the point, only the message of how human rights can be stripped bit by bit, without us noticing until it's too late.

That's how the lesson should be taught!

I can't resist this reminiscence.

My father was a secondary school teacher. About nine we had a lesson about the beginnings of State education in England and there was mention of the first Minister of Education. The teacher asked "Any bright spark here know who is the Minister of Education now?" and my hand went up. He looked round to see if anybody else knew - I suppose I had an unfair advantage - but then said "Yes, Andrew?"

And I answered "Sir David BloodyEccles, Sir".

"What?

"Please, Sir, that's what my father always calls him!"