Teachers ordered to avoid ‘biased’ views of BLM and Stonewall

[McDuffy]

In the Times today, article is mainly on BLM and Churchill but good to see more coverage;

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a3c27a26-8f67-11ec-8d28-50e05b644342?shareToken=d1d558ba721f891126535db0ba4d3095

Teachers must avoid using material from campaigning organisations such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Stonewall that may have “partisan political views”, government guidance on impartiality states.

Schools are already required to teach in an impartial way but new guidance from the Department for Education (DfE) advises teachers on how to “tackle sensitive issues in a politically impartial way”.

Well, they are at least helping shed more light on it!

Are the Department for education still signposting Stonewall?

I suspect that there'll be a lot of deleting posts / threads etc going on in a range of groups who earn money from schools DomesticatedZombie in an attempt to have a more democratically acceptable profile. Fortunately we have the receipts. Also given the unhinged nature of some supporters, it'll be an uphill struggle to persuade them that women have a right to a voice having spent the last years insisting that women may not speak

[quote OhHolyJesus]Stonewall are making a complaint.

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1494255031893303298?s=21[/quote]
So they know they are affected even if not specifically mentioned.

They're complaining about the way the Times has reported it.. they've named Stonewall specifically when the guidance does not.

@boltanddoorbell

Are the Department for education still signposting Stonewall?

Yes - in their 2014 Equality Act guidance for schools. They signpost Stonewall, GIRES and the Cornwall guidelines while "forgetting" to signpost any other charity / lobby group for any of the other protected characteristics

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315587/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf

Yep. Because the Times is right. They are a lobbying group, a campaigning organisation and, when it comes to T+ they are extreme - in things like their "ahead of the law" stance and their stated desire to remove sex as a protected characteristic under the EA2010.

Tough.

Yes - in their 2014 Equality Act guidance for schools. They signpost Stonewall, GIRES and the Cornwall guidelines while "forgetting" to signpost any other charity / lobby group for any of the other protected characteristics

Then nothing is going to change until they stop doing this. They can change and tweak the advice as much as they like stonewall will still be in schools until the DOE say stop.

Seems totally useless overall.

@OnceuponaRainbow18

I openly celebrate BLM in my school, my classroom has a wall of people of colour from our local community who have achieved great things, I get in a section about BLM into our weekly newsletter that gets sent home to every parent. I run a council for kids of colour only to attend.

Why shouldn’t I?

Because there's a difference between saying "black lives matter", and supporting the political organisation "Black Lives Matter"

So I guess this prevents certain groups from providing learning materials?

[quote OhHolyJesus]Stonewall are making a complaint.

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1494255031893303298?s=21[/quote]
the sound of a rattle hitting the floor after ejection from a pram

I see this as a good thing. Queer/Gender theory is just that, a theory. When teachers start teaching this as fact, because it aligns with their views, this creates a massive problem. Where is it agreed that there are a 100 different genders or that gender identity exists?

@Plasmodesmata

Some of this can be laid at the door of excessive workload I think. SLT "by the way you are now also teaching PSHE to year 9 next week they need to do X". Where do you get the resources from? Online probably, as you don't have any time to make your own and school aren't providing any. You might not have time to read them properly either. You might just think "oh Stonewall, they must be OK" because you don't know about the recent change in direction.

It's more than teaching materials though, there are teachers who are pretty open with their own opinions.

I haven't read the full government guidance yet but am I missing something - it doesn't name BLM either. The Times would be using BLM and SW as examples of orgs schools should be careful with, so to be aligned with this clarifies guidance.

There is no mention of gender ideology in either the test of the guidance or in the examples. My worry is that this omission will make schools think there is tacit agreement that gender ideology is not included in areas of concerns. There are so many different scenarios listed- including one on suffragettes/women’s rights- that it looks like a deliberate omission to me. How do women’s rights make the cut but not gender ideology? I’m not convinced this guidance moves us on at all.

I have always remained impartial in my teaching but, as a biology teacher, it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate the choppy cultural waters we currently find ourselves in. The curriculum is up for review soon and I wonder what changes we will see as a result.
I have always enjoyed the cut and thrust of political debate, particularly amongst older students, as it is a joy to see them become critical thinkers. Again, with the polarisation of politics, this is becoming increasingly difficult.

On the one hand I agree with the Tories that explicit politics in school is bad, the problem is that most children are kind and are taught principles like justice and sharing and fairness. The moment you start talking politics then it is obvious to any child what policies are fair and just and what are not, so effectively teachers end up spouting left wing politics or effectively saying "yes, you all need to take turns because it's unfair that the class bully gets the football all lunchtime, but in the real world it is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint to hold that the rich bully gets all the money because he is the rich bully". Also, obviously, the counter argument to BLM is that BL don't M, ie "racism is fine because PoC are inferior".

I trust the same approach will be applied soon to the police, the NHS and other organisations that should be politically neutral?

Does anyone else think the DfE is a bit clueless? So on the one hand you have this guidance, along with the guidance from 2020, which implicitly criticises Stonewall and fellow-travellers. And then you have them in the Sally and Nigel Rowe case going through the courts at the moment where they're defending kids being taught this nonsense.

I wonder exactly where Amnesty International will fall in this updated guidance, given their recent partisan participation against women's voices.

Good question Saisong. Didn't the Irish Amnesty seek to remove political representation from all women who wish to discuss the conflict of rights? And the behaviour of some of their supporters outside the FILIA feminist conference was openly sexual aggressive towards attendees:

www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/2021/10/26/filia-statement-on-amnesty-international-uk

@Saisong

I wonder exactly where Amnesty International will fall in this updated guidance, given their recent partisan participation against women's voices.

And their anti-Israel agenda.

@ChristinaXYZ - I think any teacher of literature will tell you that toxic masculinity is a very definite strand throughout literature. It’s impossible to be entirely neutral unless you teach like a robot - particularly in subjects like English.

@OnceuponaRainbow18

I openly celebrate BLM in my school, my classroom has a wall of people of colour from our local community who have achieved great things, I get in a section about BLM into our weekly newsletter that gets sent home to every parent. I run a council for kids of colour only to attend.

Why shouldn’t I?

What you should be asking yourself is why are you.