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

[LazyViper]

Sorry it’s behind a paywall. Has anyone seen this story elsewhere?

” French teacher sacked after attempting to scupper transgender candidate’s hopes of being head girl

Susan Field told tutor group she felt pupil was not ‘representative’ of the student body and that role was not ‘appropriate’ for her”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/28/french-teacher-sacked-attempting-scupper-transgender-candidates/

I'm not bloody reading it again, but I'm sure they said that her comments about LGBTQI were transphobic. Not homophobic, or whatever. Which, again, raises more questions than it answers.

The judgement seems quite proportionate and reasonable. Teachers shouldn't be making critical comments about a student to other children for any reason. And if they're foolish enough to weigh in with their views about trans / representation / student voting, then they deserve the criticism.
Discussing these issues needs planned thoughtful interventions, not individuals weighing in and commenting on an individual child.

There is a debate to be had about representation but this shouldn't be had based on individual children in a schools.

It's possible they meant it was specifically transphobic in practice because it was aimed at a trans person (i.e. would have been homophobic if she'd been discussing a gay person). It's a very different sentiment to say 'a trans girl isn't an appropriate representative of female students' than to say 'LGBTQI people are not representative of the student body' (which I'd agree is transphobic, as well as homophobic and whatever the other -phobics would be).

There are unclear nuances all over this issue.

What was the purpose of the student leadership team? Were there likely to be votes by majority, where the sex (not gender) of the vote takers might impact outcomes? What are the potential outcomes of an imbalance in representation of the sexes?

As to the derogatory comments, who knows the context? Who knows what thos male sex boy has done prior to identifying themselves female? How many children did this?

If it was for head girl, then a female student is entitled to the position before a male. It would be sexist, not transphobic, to do otherwise.

This feels like more me, me, me cancelling of anyone who doesn't swallow the pro-trans hysteria. It being so publicly spread is a subtle reinforcement of the trope of trans 1st women 2nd.

Sick of it. Social conditioning.

There are unclear nuances all over this issue.

Exactly.

And, as a more insightful woman than I has said:

Reading the news reports today of the teacher sacked for refusing to support a boy being elected to the position of head girl.
I'm struck by the fact that I no longer trust that quotes attributed to her are accurate.

We already know that quotes are altered and words replaced.

I don't trust it either. Any of it. The reporting of it, or the testimony of the people criticising the teacher.

That's where we are.

No way should she be trying to influence a vote. And allowing derogatory comments to be made in a classroom is completely wrong.

Yes. This is a straightforward misconduct hearing, and it wouldn't have mattered what the reason for the teacher to have influenced the vote or encouraged/enabled her tutor group to make derogatory comments about a specific individual. It was very clearly wrong for her to use her position that way, and to enable those comments.

I know people are desperate to try to make this judgment seem unfair, but as a GC retired teacher, I'm afraid I can find no fault with it.

@saraclara

No way should she be trying to influence a vote. And allowing derogatory comments to be made in a classroom is completely wrong.

Yes. This is a straightforward misconduct hearing, and it wouldn't have mattered what the reason for the teacher to have influenced the vote or encouraged/enabled her tutor group to make derogatory comments about a specific individual. It was very clearly wrong for her to use her position that way, and to enable those comments.

I know people are desperate to try to make this judgment seem unfair, but as a GC retired teacher, I'm afraid I can find no fault with it.

It's not that it's unfair, it's that there is not enough detail to decide either way. Anyone who is gender critical will disagree with a boy saying he's a girl in the first place.

@Cheshirewife

I don’t think anything other than a permanent ban from the profession would be appropriate here.

At every school I’ve dealt with, the Head Girl has represented their school NOT their gender. It is also typically awarded based on academic and extra-curricular merit. Therefore I fail to see any reason why a trans girl shouldn’t be head girl.

Apart from the fact that they’re male? Giving a male the position of Head Girl means that once again girls have had to move over to make way for male feelings. It would have had more impact if this person had been nominated for the position of Head Boy and rocked up in a skirt - gender non conforming people do not become the opposite sex just because they say so.

@saraclara

No way should she be trying to influence a vote. And allowing derogatory comments to be made in a classroom is completely wrong.

Yes. This is a straightforward misconduct hearing, and it wouldn't have mattered what the reason for the teacher to have influenced the vote or encouraged/enabled her tutor group to make derogatory comments about a specific individual. It was very clearly wrong for her to use her position that way, and to enable those comments.

I know people are desperate to try to make this judgment seem unfair, but as a GC retired teacher, I'm afraid I can find no fault with it.

I completely agree - also a retired GC teacher! The wrongdoing here is that this teacher tried to unduly influence others with their own beliefs. If I had been in her position, I would have just kept my opinions to myself but would not have been able to vote for a male taking the place of a female.

Was she trying to influence someone with her own beliefs? Or was she counteracting the beliefs of someone else? Both of which are equally valid, according to the law.

We all seem to be steeped in favour of not saying anything against transgender ideology, when we absolutely can, to the point of denying it completely.

Yes, you can't complain about the horses bolting, if you held the stable door open and shooed them out with a bucket on your head.

It's not that it's unfair, it's that there is not enough detail to decide either way

On the contrary, in the linked official transcript of the hearing there's as much detail as one can possibly expect from such an event (given that there's no audio recording of the lesson in which this took place). The teacher herself admitted to what was reported by the pupils (apart from one comment which was open to misinterpretation, and which was discounted when the judgement was made)

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.

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.

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....??

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.

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.

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.

@saraclara

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.

Who knows if she did or didn't do that? Women have been fired for less.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

@Nellodee

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?

Indeed.

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.

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.