There are good reasons for avoiding talk of this conflict in schools

[mids2019]

Schools in England accused of closing down debate on Israel-Gaza conflict https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/29/schools-england-accused-closing-down-debate-israel-gaza-conflict?CMP=share_btn_url

If we wish pupils to discuss this conflict in schools it should be added to history lessons as part of modern history with an unbiased appraisal of the complex nature of the middle East especially post WW2. As say discussion about WW1 or the Napoleonic wars the conflict should be put into context of wider global geopolitical pressures with a nuanced analysis with importantly no bias.

What we don't want and I think the article below implies are discussions where pupils get to rant about 'evil Israel' and a school sanctioned display of Palestinian solidarity which some children may feel will allow them to express anti Semitic sentiment. I could easily see a passionate class pupil lead discussion leading to some pupils saying the problem couk d be solved as not having Israel in the first place and criticise Britian in its role in the formation of Israel. We have to avoid this.

Teachers are right to not want to allow discussion on class where tanti Semitic or anti Israel views could be be openly expressed with little sanction. Schools have quite rightly very severe policies on discrimination and racism and it would be easy for the pupils or even a teacher to overstep the mark in these areas.

We also have to consider the feelings of Jewish and Muslim children who may feel they may be targets for bullying as a result of these 'discussions'.

I fully support school decisions to not allow formal discussion of this topic currently though we do discuss the events of October 7th and the resultant war in my home with the aid of reputable media and valid wider historical context.

@Maireas Do you also think that WWII needs to be discussed in a politically neutral and balanced way? Or that creationism should be given equal weight in a biology class on evolution.

I absolutely agree that schools should be neutral on matters of domestic politics. But that’s not what we are talking about here. There’s right and wrong, aggressors and victims and it’s doing a disservice to children to not tell them this, especially when aggressors such as Russia have us very firmly in their sights.

@wherethewildthingis

I don't think the issue is children being aware of current events or being shielded from the realities of the world.

Rather I think it is looking at the benefits (or lack of) of discussing such a heated divisive issues in a school sanctioned environment without bias with knowledge you may have students from a diverse range of backgrounds effected.

There may be benefit from a critical debate about the war (or any other conflict) but you would have to avoid any repercussions against students that put forward views that support Israel and vice versa.

Maintaing school authority is important especially when it concerns sensitive topics that could lead to discrimination.

I just feel we can't let protest movements migrate into the classroom.

@Soigneur

We support Israel in terms of arms sales to Israel. Would you advocate telling school children to vote for political parties that promise to cease this trade?

As a country we support Israel so I guess the state position isn't neutral. I don't think teachers need to wade into politics 🤷

@Scirocco your last phrase?
I do that every single History lesson. They look at sources, note the evidence, look at provenance and come to a conclusion.
That's actually my job.

I hope more teachers start doing that, then.

@mids2019 I agree with you. Especially as the Israel-Gaza situation very much is about domestic politics, pitting as it does British Muslims against British Jews. My comment was aimed at the idea that we should be neutral on the invasion of Ukraine where none of the above applies - no-one in the U.K. is supportive of the Russian position other than a handful of useful idiots.

We are, rest assured. That's our job 😊

I teach WW2. We look at the causes.
The students look at evidence for why it started: Nazi aggression, failure of the League of Nations, Appeasement.
They read and evaluate and come to a balanced judgement about the causes of the war.

Creationism? No, because the evidence is not in favour of that.
We are evidence based.

The majority of schools I've encountered sadly aren't. I really despair for the state of education in this country at times.

Well, History teaching follows that model, so if you feel that a school doesn't, you can report to Ofsted. I'd add - please do!

Absolutely agree op. This should be kept out of schools. There is just far too much chance of different groups feeling threatened, marginalized and too much scope for pitting people against each other.

I agree with @LolaSmiles - many teachers are just not equipped for this.
This is not stifling debate, it's asserting an appropriate learning atmosphere
Appropriate learning atmosphere is a brilliant way to put it.
Children need to feel safe and secure in school.

What I've noticed in life, and in schools, is that the people who have taken the time to learn about topics and who are intelligent will have anything ranging from strong opinions to being undecided, but they're generally not the people loudly proclaiming that issues are black and white and that they're the right side of history. They're also people who tend to think they're being neutral by both-sides-ing but the way they do it shows their opinion quite strongly.

If children are being taught about fact checking content, bias in the media, checking out how different sources might offer different perspectives and information on the same topic, how to weigh up what they read and see, they're are more than capable of approaching any world event or heated topic.

This. Schools are meant to be politically impartial and also their primary duty is to keep children safe.

In any school with both Muslim and Jewish pupils - certainly the case in my dds state secondary- I think discussion of this conflict could make one or both of these groups of children less safe. So, it should not be done on safeguarding grounds.

Given how packed the curriculum and school day is, it's difficult to see how you could cover all the relevant facts about why this war occurred adequately in the time available and so it could cause conflict which could make students less safe.

Bringing the Middle East into the history syllabus might be good but this would take a lot of time

A better use of time would be extra lessons on why Internet memes / tiktok videos / wikipedia don't constitute reliable evidence, what is reliable evidence, how to assess quality of evidence and what level of knowledge is reasonable before making a judgement on a political situation in another part of the world. Taking into account that schools do already do this in various ways. Plus also perhaps about why staff in schools are supposed to be politically neutral within their jobs (and other professions)

The Guardian is piss poor on safeguarding children and incredibly stupid on many issues as a result.

@Dumbledoreslemonsherbets

Well said

This article doesn't make sense. Since when did children have the right to discuss politically sensitive issues during class time? Very occasionally, there might be a debate on the topic, or you might approach it in history class, but mainly school should be a welcoming place for all pupils. No wonder our children are so behind in maths and reading when school is being politicised to this degree!

No Jewish and Muslim kids should not be beaten up in school by other pupils. Peer on peer violence is a thing.

Teachers should avoid debate on political topics that might make this 100x more likely to happen.

Sorry quote fail I meant to quote @wherethewildthingis who had an issue with children feeling safe in UK schools since children are dying in Gaza.

I didn't realise it was a race to the bottom.

Personally, I would quite like children to feel safe in schools as children who don't feel safe won't be learning. Also I was trying to point out that 'not feeling safe' may be based in reality of not being safe. I know several children who have been beaten up in school.

FWIW I think most teachers will be getting this right, knowing the demographic they teach and their families and adjusting accordingly.

It's very much a situation where one size will not fit all. But schools do need to remain politically impartial and teachers must demonstrate political impartiality.

I also think teachers deserve to feel and be safe in school and outside of school and asking teachers to moderate a highly charged political debate is not within their job description and is not something that should be asked of all teachers because political activists (or even some political activist teachers - who are breaching their employment contract if they express their political activism in school) want it to be so.

Most teachers have enough to do; more than enough. Seemingly everyone wants to keep piling on extra duties for teachers despite the recruitment crisis and high levels of experienced staff quitting the profession.

It's not as if there are no other opportunities outside of school to have this debate - they can debate away outside of school. It is not appropriate in school where all the time is allocated to something else.

@Dumbledoreslemonsherbets

I think that about sums it up....very eloquently put.

I think the danger is parents pressurising schools to have a safe space for pupils to express their anger one way or another about this conflict and I certainly don't feel it is sensible for schools to provide it for the reasons you have given.

I think the expectation is that the teachers empathise with a particular view (say pro Palestine) and therefore lend legitimacy to the view by making it a de facto school position i.e. a political position.

Most teachers I would imagine would not go near this and make the sensible decision to stick to the curriculum and continue the hard task of maximising everyone's opportunities at GCSE and A level.

I think the Gaza/Israel issue should not be discussed in lower years - possibly sixth form might be ok as it's so complex. There seems to be a general view that one side is the aggressor and therefore if you do not support that you are somehow wrong, whereas the situation is complex and people are allowed to have different opinions without fearing reprisal/name calling etc. Sadly this seems to happen with this conflict given what I see on Facebook, witness in peoples real life comments, marches etc. I agree with poster who says that looking at sources is the way to teach/discuss the issue - the only point I would make is that we don't always know what is true/genuine and there is a great deal of manipulation of information.

@LolaSmiles

Really good point about the role schools have in promoting critical analysis and allowing pupils to use a range of sources to direct thinking on a topic. I certainly will encourage my daughters with this.

The problem I would imagine with these discussions if allowed is that there will be very vocal views delivered in a very one sided fashion which is the antithesis to debate. If a teacher tries to moderate such voices they are in real danger of seeming to take sides in an argument and that has obvious concerns

This with bells on!

And I'm guessing your assumption is that these very vocal views and very one sided delivery will be from people who think what is happening in Gaza is not good?

You keep repeating that the 'situation is complex' can you explain what you feel is 'complex' about a man made famine where starvation is being used as a weapon of war? Do you think that children won't be able to understand it? Or would you tell children that starving children like them to death is a 'complex issue' and not always wrong?

I'm just so confused as to why what to me seems so straight forward ie intentionally starving a population, is seen as 'complex' by so many others? Living in a country where we were intentionally starved everybody here 'gets it' they know it's wrong, our government talks about how wrong it is, it isn't seen as 'a complex situation' at all. I'm truly confused as to what makes so many UK mumsnetters feel that intentional starvation is complicated or that there might be 2 sides where 1 might be justified in starving small children to death or I don't know? I'd love if you could shed some light on it?