to think wanting to overthrow capitalism is not an extreme political stance

[chomalungma]

New school guidance issued last week for education.

www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-your-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum#choosing-resources

Issued last Thursday, the guidance reads: “Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters.
“Examples of extreme political stances include, but are not limited to: a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections, opposition to the right of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion and conscience

There are alternatives to capitalism. People may not like them, I don't necessarily agree with them - but I don't think it's an extreme political stance to take.

Yet the Government think it is.

Are people who think that there alternatives to capitalism taking an extreme political stance?

Communism was a hell of a burden on the environment too.

I think loads of people think bank bailouts are sus.

There is no true capitalist country. Is that why some of they haven’t got it right, yet, either?

Anyone fancy naming a country that has “got it right”?

Interested to see an example Occ FB capitalism that is a success for the people at the pointy end.

Yes, I think it's an extreme view to want to overthrow capitalism.

No system is perfect, but I haven't read about any other that's worked out better than capitalism, in the long run.

Find someone who is pushing a purely capitalist system to kids in school and ask them.

Communism was a hell of a burden on the environment too

Yes. The Aral Sea and the rivers of Middle Asia, for one.

Strange how no one mentions that socialism has to bail out capitalism every 10 years or so

I think you'll find it's the other way round.

Germany is still paying off for the DDR.

@jcyclops

Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters [such as] a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow capitalism.

Is wanting to abolish capitalism such an extreme stance that it shouldn't be discussed in schools? If it's not even allowed to be discussed and alternatives discussed, then what kind of education is that?

It can be studied and discussed in schools. The subject is not banned. The resources used to do this must not, however, be from "extremist organisations", so history and politics text books, BBC programmes and the like are OK, but propaganda from The Red Army Faction or Sendero Luminoso is not.

So they aren't allowed Primary sources and have to rely upon solely secondary ones to teach the difference between and limitations of primary and secondary sources of evidence?

Seems a little ridiculous to me.

England only recently stopped paying back capitalists for freeing their slaves. Obviously socialism doesn’t bail out capitalism, as you have to be a capitalist to see that anything needs “bailing out” in the first place. Capitalism just keeps failing to live up to its promises and gets bailed out to pretend it still works.

Also, banning primary sources gives those people a great way to get into impressionable minds - 'Oh, they told you x said that, did they? Did you actually read the rest of the publication/watch the speech?'

'No, because we're not allowed'

'Ah, well here's the text/recording of it. Have a look and let me know if you want to discuss your thoughts some more'

@MitziK

Also, banning primary sources gives those people a great way to get into impressionable minds - 'Oh, they told you x said that, did they? Did you actually read the rest of the publication/watch the speech?'

'No, because we're not allowed'

'Ah, well here's the text/recording of it. Have a look and let me know if you want to discuss your thoughts some more'

Only if they get access. It’s rare children are left with extremist organisations.

Overall the guidance is a good way to protect dc from overly politicised teachers or organisations.

Have we had any mainstream organisations with a claim to want to dismantle capitalism as BLM U.K. does recently?

If we're basing success on Marx, Engel, and co., the fathers of the concepts, then yes, there hasn't been a successful socialist or communist nation. Not surprising, as much as the historical analysis has value, much of Marx's proclamations seem to have a bit too much influence of all the drugs he was on.

But if we're using that, then we must look to the father of capitalism: Adam Smith, and by his definitions of how a capitalist nation should work, every capitalist nation has also failed too. We have not become nations of those who produce that of greatest value, but have had a race to the bottom in terms of quality products. It has not been a system of natural liberty, but of passing the burden onto others. We're not all specialists, if anything the gig economy has been pushing people to do a bit of everything to get by. It has not eliminated poverty or misery for the wage earners. And so on.

Ideologies rarely work as well as those who come up with them think they will. The world is complicated and we're never going to be able to consider all the factors and get it perfect. With every revolution there are promises of better, and while improvements are usually made for some, none have ever lived up to the promises and pretty much all have left a lot of bodies in their wake. Capitalism has just had a few extra hundred years to rack theirs ups and intergrate the failures into just how things are.

Still not sure how any of this is going to come up in relationship, sex, and health education curriculum that resources would be needed, though it could be an interesting loophole for parents to get rid of some of the weird sex ed stuff that's been seen - wonder if those who make those sex dice for 13 year old+ classes that was being discussed on here some weeks back can be shown to fall into any of these categories.

As for countries that have done well I suppose Nordic countries are often mentioned.

Some political commentators call this compassionate capitalism Forbes

The issue is schools using guidance produced by others. I am not happy that they do this much at all. Pamphlets to help them teach creationism or sponsored by commercial companies peddling their views. Instead they should just do what schools did in my day - use the text book, by all means pick a public newspaper or biased pamphlet in an exercise to show children how biased material sponsored by XYZ company or lobby group should be but beware of "materials" you buy in made by planned parenthood or any other lobby group and particularly beware of China, Russia etc.

Do we have examples of what kind of stuff schools are given by lobby groups and then use in schools?

Okay here is one - thousands of children exposed to Scientology, the cult in the Uk through materials about drugs www.standard.co.uk/news/education/revealed-how-thousands-of-london-children-are-exposed-to-scientology-group-in-schools-a3433041.html Not sure if that would be banned under the new guidance but it is the sort of thing schools should do without. Instead teachers can easily just tell the children not to take drugs rather than get sucked into lobby groups.

The issue is schools using guidance produced by others. I am not happy that they do this much at all.

That seems a bit unrealistic. Schools should look at where their materials come from but I’d be fairly sceptical of any school that uses no materials at all produced by external groups including pressure groups. In schools it is totally normal for materials produced by organisations like the NSPCC, CAFOD, Unicef, the Holocaust Education Trust etc.

I also assume that this guidance does not cover the use of primary sources for teaching things like history and politics. I use materials produced by the Nazi party, the government of Stalin, US White Citizens Councils, and Hezbollah as part of my history curriculum.

There’s some missing words there.

Only if they get access. It’s rare children are left with extremist organisations

Overall the guidance is a good way to protect dc from overly politicised teachers or organisations

..that's exactly how online grooming works. Or how somebody in a position with access to teenagers (youth work, youth organisation, big guy in town, religious leader, etc, etc) would be able to bring it up.

We have a very lefty head.
Apparently she didn't believe in dyslexia. Why, how? How could a primary head not believe in dyslexia?

Then I read this article the other day I posted it on here in primary education I don't know how to re post it, it even mentioned mumsnet, the lady the education psychology was furious!

Then I understood how our extremely lefty head had woven this shit into her warped brain and failed dyslexic dc at our school.

I really feel politics and heads who are really extreme don't belong in teaching. I really don't. You shouldn't be able to tell or guess the heads political leaning.

@MitziK

Only if they get access. It’s rare children are left with extremist organisations

Overall the guidance is a good way to protect dc from overly politicised teachers or organisations

..that's exactly how online grooming works. Or how somebody in a position with access to teenagers (youth work, youth organisation, big guy in town, religious leader, etc, etc) would be able to bring it up.

Yes but as a parent you watch out for this.

In a school someone in a position of authority cannot take an extreme position.

Here's an idea.
Instead of banning teaching materials from private organisations pushing their agenda, why don't we fund schools properly so they don't have to rely on 'charity' for teaching resources?

Kenn, I don't doubt schools need more funding but how come some schools manage their budget well and some of don't?

It's really not extreme at all. It doesn't belong in the list. There's tons of problems with this new guidance.