Dear Schools: let the parents decide what's best

"I was educated during the holidays at Eton."

Osbert Sitwell

When the National Union of Teachers appointed themselves moral guardians - as well as judges, jury and perhaps executioners - last year by objecting to ‘British Values’ being taught in British schools, I suggested the state was engaged in thought-control. With the insane decision to declare Jon Platt and any other parent who takes their children on holiday in term time a criminal, I’m proven right.

The single line of justification for the state robbing families of their money for daring not to attend school for two weeks is that it affects students' exam performance. Newsflash: it doesn’t. The only data that supports the “grades affected” argument comes from the government itself and was conveniently released shortly before Platt was defeated in court.

As a teacher myself, all my experience and instinct tells me the following are the significant factors affecting student performance:

1) The natural intelligence and aptitude of a child.
Smarter students will catch up on any work they’ve missed. “Middle” students will endevour to do so. There may be a small case here for not taking “middle” students out of class for too long shortly before a major exam, but more on that later.

2) The stability of the student’s home life.
And guess what? The annual family holiday is usually symptomatic of a happy, stable family which will have far greater influence on a child’s academic performance in the long run. It’s also proven that a change of scenery and a break in routine can aid long-term memory-retention.

3) The attitude of the pupil’s parents.
This is where it becomes crucial that all parents are not tarnished with the same brush. I’ve dealt with lazy, despicable parents. I have vivid memories of one parent in particular whose children used to miss at least one day of school each week. When I attempted to speak with their mother about it, she laughed. Everything about this parent sent out a message: she was lazy, she wanted to do what she wanted, when she wanted and her children were baggage. Her two daughters would regularly finish bottom in any test.

These are the kind of parents who deserve fines. These are the children that teachers should be indignant over. To suggest that families who want to spend two weeks’ quality time together, perhaps learning a little of a foreign language or visiting a famous landmark - isn’t that educational in itself? Aren’t British schools drooling over ‘diversity’? - deserve the same punishment and labeling as negligent parents isn’t just incorrect, it’s insulting.

From the limited amount of time I’ve researched this it seems most teachers are falling down on the side of the state. This is no surprise, not only do they not want to bite the hand that feeds, some have also happily wandered down the path the British educational system seems happy to follow: the path that places the schools as moral jury, deciding carefully what is right or wrong, moral and immoral, important or unimportant. I still believe parents get first call on that.

There is of course one caveat in the fining system: there are several exemptions in place such as vacations of "religious importance" among other things. In this I see a wonderful opportunity for teachers supporting the fines system to show their dedication and compassion: colleagues, why not give up half of your Easter holidays holding extra classes for those who missed out during term? It would be the perfect chance to back up all the wonderful talk of dedication and concern you espouse so often, and the students go unpunished for missing previous classes. Everybody wins!

What time can we expect you in?

John Platt has a Facebook Page for people who support his fight against school fines.

A letter to the Dearly Defeated: Seven ways to improve your chances of winning next time

thesun.co.uk

If there’s one thing this year has taught all of us, it’s how we can place exactly no faith in opinion polls. I explained part of the reason for this the day before the election but in the spirit of cooperation, I want to offer sincere and effective ideas for anyone who disagrees with me and voted Remain or rooted for Clinton in this election. The ideas may sound snarky, but they are heartfelt.

1) Don’t literally insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you.

If you think someone on the opposite side of the fence is dreadfully wrong, ask them why they believe what they do. Explain your view. Inspire them. Teach them. Show them you understand.

I’ve found that those who vocally praise or assert their own intelligence the most are usually insecure about it.  There is very, very tenuous evidence that traditional ideologies may represent slightly lower IQ scores. Even if this is true, however, it doesn’t make any ideology right or wrong.

Think about it: would you feel inclined to switch sides to any group that continually lambasted your academic prowess? Or would you feel mentally entrenched and more determined to take revenge?  And even the not-so-bright can see the hypocrisy in preaching the intellectual high ground and then rampaging across the city when you don’t get your way.

Also understand it works both ways - if you offend others, they have a right to express a view that you may find offensive. This is how the world works. Pretending or behaving otherwise will only make life harder.


2) Don’t insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you (metaphorically)

In other words, don’t assume that because you’ve adopted some moral slogan or bumper-sticker gospel, everybody will accept it without question. Yes of course that’s a sin committed eternally by all politicians across the board but let’s look at one example:

In the US, Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton referred to Trump’s vulgar “pussy” remark with professed shock and disgust, Michelle claimed to be “shaken to the core”.  This was long after Michelle attended a concert by rapper Jay-Z featuring his song”pussy”.  On that occasion she managed to suppress her shaken core long enough to invite him to the White House.

The point isn’t that politicians can be hypocrites - we all know that already-  it’s that they see such things as political gains, safe in the surety that the little people will take it in hook, line and sinker. It backfired in the UK and it backfired in the US yesterday. The era of gullible voters may not be dead, but it’s gasping.


3) Don’t assume people will vote for you based on their ethnicity, colour, income bracket or any label you place on them.

Back when this thing started - doesn't it seem like a lifetime ago? - The GOP candidates included an African-American who grew up in poverty, a Latino whose father spoke no English, a female, and the son of a mailman. The Democrats lined up with two white males and one white female. Which party preached the most about "diversity" and which one got on with discussing the issues of the day?

Two of the most inspiring commentaries I saw in the build up to yesterday came from African-Americans.

It’s true  that any demographic will usually vote in its own interests. It’s also true that the Labour wing of Vote Leave and the Democrat party lost touch with some of its key voters.

In the UK, Sunderland and other Labour strongholds voted Leave because they realised that Labour is long, long gone from its working class roots and  has decayed into  a party of elitist, career politicians (possibly excepting Corbyn).

In the USA, Trump took about 5% of the black vote from Hilary. The Democrats brought little to the table for African-Americans except raising the minimum wage, thus mentally consigning them to the lowest income bracket for their lives.

Perhaps African-American, Latino and other “unexpected" Trump voters felt that statistics show their conditions have not improved under a two term Democrat-president. Perhaps they felt that branding someone by race or sexuality is shallow and insulting to their depth of character. Perhaps they aspire to greater things.

Or maybe they just felt taken for granted.


4) I repeat: don’t rely on opinion polls.

Even if you do think someone is a bigot, racist, misogynistic moron, you can hardly expect people to pipe up and offer their honest voting intentions after venting your dislike of them.


5) Don’t get complacent.

Yeh, I know this is a summary of 1-4 but here’s an extra caveat: Remain and Clinton both massively outspent their rivals in campaign funding. Regardless of your support, doesn’t it feel at least a little good to see that money doesn’t completely guarantee success?

6) Accept that democracy is neither perfect nor the Apocalypse

There are many faults with the systems we use (I highly recommend this read) and we’ve seen events of seismic proportions this year. But as I mentioned last time: the sun still comes up. World War 3 will not break out today, Fallout 4 will not become reality and your favourite politician will be promising you the Earth, Sun and stars next time around. Politics has been around since the dawn of mankind and will only die with it. Keeping that in mind, it’s a better look.

7) Don't respond to defeat with more insults 
In the immediate aftermath of a huge disappointment, we can all behave in ways we're not proud of. To continue down a road of slurs, abuse and rioting is never going to help, however. For one thing, it is akin to a spoilt child throwing a tantrum and pours shame on everyone involved. Secondly, it's not the answer. Face the reality that millions of people disagree with you and no, not all of them did it based on colour, gender or anything else. Pretending otherwise is an insult to true victims of prejudice.

Never Wrong: How Clinton Voters and Remainers Deal with Reality

Whatever happens at the polls this year, the sky is not going to fall in on your heads. A lot of the remain voters shared that fear when - against all odds  - the British people overwhelmingly voted to leave the European Union last June. The grief hit hard for the massive majority of politicians, elites and media, all of whom remained utterly smug right up to voting day. After all, we’d received increasingly ridiculous threats and warnings ranging from economic collapse to World War 3. The councils reminded the little people which box to tick while big businesses and merchant bankers benevolently funded the Remain campaign. The message was so simple that all of us plebeians should have understood it: Remain is good, Leave is racist, isolationist and bad.

When the huddled masses rebelled at the voting booths, smugness immediately transformed to angry, scapegoating vitriol: Brexiters didn’t really understand what they were voting for, old people voted to punish young people and, of course, it was a victory for “hate”, with completely fabricated statistics to back it up. Furious remainers marched throughout London to denounce hate (and democracy), shouting insults all the way without a hint of irony.

Now across the pond in the run up to voting day, the Americans are looking strikingly similar in their end game. Overrated and minor celebrities have made the ultimate threat and suggested they’ll deprive America of their residence should the public vote for Trump. The left wing media are on full throttle and “groups” are denouncing hate by physically breaking up rallies. Minor media figures are lining up to denounce the bad guy. Whoever’s speaking out against Donald, his alleged crimes are always the same: he’s guilty of being rich, sexist and - the greatest sin of all - “racist”.

But it’s not just the demagogy that rings familiar to Brexit. The sense of unease in everyone’s  suggest that confidence is lacking  It’s not inconceivable that while Hilary Clinton probably will be the next POTUS, the victory margin won’t be as large as many expect.

Now, let’s imagine an even more fanciful scenario where Donald Trump wins. What would the rationale behind it be and how could the polls and media be so wrong, just as they were with Brexit? The answer is actually quite simple: while all politicos are guilty of hyperbole, dishonesty and arrogance, the way at which we arrive at our opinions and policies in the first place can be very different.

Put with crude briefness and with many notable exceptions, my school of thought is like this:  modern liberals and left-wingers begin with a clear cut vision of good and bad. They then place all policies in these baskets without ever taking account of human nature, experience or pragmatism. I call this the ‘Tolkien’ method - everything is clear cut and simple. This is often accompanied by a strong current of intellectual snobbery and pretentiousness.

Conservatives, classic liberals and libertarians are more weary. They incorporate human nature, tradition, cynicism and experience along with a sense of right and wrong. They accept that nobody is all good or all bad, and we have to find the best balance of reality and ideology to benefit the masses. If left-wingers are a Tolkien movie, conservatives are more “Game of Thrones”.

This is important because it explains how and why both sides deal with the flaws and scandals around the people they support and how conflicting views and information are processed.  Liberals have already decided what is “good”, ergo, anything that goes against that view is naturally “bad”,  how could it possibly be anything else? If it’s “bad”, it must be stopped, censored or punished, period. This type of thought is currently dominant in most schools, universities and mainstream media in the west.

By contrast, conservatives tend to be slightly more flexible. They realise politicians will have major flaws, They understand the world has more shades of grey than black or white. If there’s a mistake,  they (people, not politicians) are more likely to acknowledge it. (I should mention other factors such as the belief confirmation theory mean we are all flawed, too.)

The former ideology is over-represented in our media. From the BBC - which is duty bound to be impartial but proven biased - and The Guardian to CNN and the NY Post, our media elites - who earn enough to live in protective bubbles of society, free of the consequences of their ideology - tout the policies of Clinton and Labor to the point of shaming those who speak out against them. Even when dissenting views are expressed, they are treated far more harshly, as impartial tests prove.  Again, this is done with so much complicity and arrogance that it doesn’t seem to occur to pollsters and pundits that it might explain why all those voter surveys are inaccurate. Is it truly surprising that a voter who’s told frequently that voting to leave the EU makes her a bigoted isolationist wants to keep her voting intentions private?

With this in mind, we can seek clarity in the dirty battle between the two US presidential candidates. Hilary voters - including Michelle Obama - claimed to be  “physically sickened” by Trump’s vulgar “pussy” remark. They scream this in the media, yet compartmentalise and ignore Hilary laughing about getting a rapist of a twelve year old girl through a lie detector test.

(Incidentally, Michelle Obama invited rapper Jay-Z to the White House and attended a concert where he sang a song called....”Pussy”. Salon presented this observation in a headline proclaiming "Neo-Nazis" )

Understanding this mindset explains so much more. It explains the motivation between mocking Trump for his repeated comments about ISIS - who are slaughtering innocent people as you read this - while demonising Russia for the endless (and true) Wikileaks revelations without a shred of evidence Putin was behind them. (Wikileaks have never been proven false). It explains why it’s ‘racist” to screen Muslim immigrants but not to hate Russia. It explains why it’s misogynistic to say “pussy” but it’s admirable to vote in Hilary because she’d be the first female president. It explains why it’s “hateful” and “divisive” to build a wall but just and noble to  drop fire on women and children in Syria. (Hilary voted in favour of attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria)

If all these political smears make us dizzy (just be grateful I didn’t mention any of the endless “Nazi” slurs) let’s return to things we know for sure. It’s beyond reasonable doubt that Hilary Clinton destroyed evidence under subpoena by the FBI via a close aide, repeatedly lied about various issues from being under sniper fire in Libya to supporting gay marriage and showed gross negligence for classified information and national security. Her husband raped many women, whom Hilary dismissed as "bimbos". And all this is over and above the more mundane but equally murky and dishonest insider trading scandals. These are all matters of record, they could be concluded  beyond reasonable doubt by a person with no political views.

Compare this to the rhetoric against Trump, which mostly amounts to slurs such as “racist” , “hate”,  “misogynist” etc.  This is the type of vitriol heard most frequently when debating or discussing the personalities involved.  This is not to say none of it is true or reasonable, but it’s not impartial, it can’t be tried in court or proven a danger to national security.

None of this is coincidence. It’s the logical outcome of a thought process that starts by asserting what is, without question, right and, ergo, what goes against it must be bad.  The true danger is when we become so entrenched in this way of thinking that we throw out any evidence suggesting we could just possibly be wrong by dismissing it in Pavolian fashion with any of a range of insults “fascist” , etc) that permits us to sidestep consideration or logic.

It’s nothing new, but in an age of increasingly polarised politics, massive but untrustworthy media sources and higher stakes, it’s a bigger problem than it’s ever been.

Shortly after the shockwaves of Brexit calmed, the British economy started to pick up. In fact, employment levels and markets have seen record highs. This good news has been impossible to process for Remainers still trying to validate apocalyptic consequences they promised everyone beforehand. I can’t help but wonder if, somehow, Donald Trump defies the odds and becomes the next most powerful person in the world, how would the celebrities, Hollywood residents and newscasters explain an American revival to us in six months’ time?

Rebutting Remain: the 7 biggest attacks on democracy (and why they're wrong)

The political earthquake that was Brexit has since turned into Biblical Apocalypse in the minds of the losers. The same people who backed David Cameron and his warning that the outcome must be respected have had a distinct change of heart since it transpired the bookies, exit polls and general consensus were wrong yet again.

The reasons for the shocking outcome have been scrutinised in several sources, with Peter Hitchens perhaps proving the most insightful. But as Britain tries to move forward and let the outcome sink in, the disgruntled minority have returned to form by spreading several myths, half-truths, emotional blackmail and - in at least some cases - downright lies in a desperate bid to find any excuse any excuse to ignore democracy and get what they want. Let's review the propaganda:

• 1) "Many" , "Some", "Reports suggest" (choose which weasel words you prefer) have admitted they did not know what Brexit was and now regret voting for it. 
  
  
• (Sometimes this nonsense is accompanied by a google analysis showing that searches for "What is the EU?" hit a high after the outcome.)

This is the biased sample fallacy. Seventeen million people voted for Brexit. The media has managed to pull up a single-digit number of confused voters on the Brexit side, without checking the opposition vote.  The sources have used this 1/17,000,000 fraction to represent the entire Brexit vote. These are probably the same sources who would be first to rightly scream "racist" at anyone who suggested one Muslim terrorist represented all Muslims. The google searches show us nothing except that a lot of people - we have no idea of their age, gender, nationality, political preference or favourite underwear colour - searched for information about the EU after the poll.

• 2)  Old people voted for something younger people have to live with ( circumstantial ad hominem )

This is probably the most unintentionally revealing complaint, as it exposes contempt for older voters. The professed shock at the revelation that pensioners and millenials have different views is either phony or born of ignorance. Did anyone expect seventysomethings and twentysomethings to see the world similarly? Did the same outcry occur when the Conservatives - the traditional party of old folk - won the last election, breaking the hearts of the Labour youth?

Yes, younger voters will have to live with the decision because more elders voted Leave than youngsters voted Remain, it's called "Democracy". What's the objection? Are younger voters wiser? More knowledgeable? Do they deserve to have more say in world affairs than people who have experienced real life for longer than they have? When considered carefully, this complaint is nothing but an ad-hominem attack against a demographic of society. Again the same sources would be screaming from the rooftops if the same type of argument focused on a religious or non-white ethnic group.

• 3) We should have a second referendum because the result was so close (special pleading)

And if Remain won the second referendum, would there be a third?
The online petition reached three million signatures, which is less than a quarter of the Leave vote, and was also found to have at least 17,000 fake signatures which renders it highly dubious.

And by the way, the vote wasn't close, there was a majority of one million.

• 4) This is a victory for racism , Fascism, hate, isolation (choose any other slur that fits) (ad-hominem)

Sometimes accompanied by a set of apocryphal reports on Twitter of someone saying "I heard someone says Romanians go home" etc. ( guilt by association )

The reason the viral reports of people saying unpleasant, discriminatory things is so popular is because it makes the losers feel vindicated - they are the superior intellect and better human being. What's interesting from these rumours is that none of them I've seen has anyone actually confirmed a police report has been made, and making racially-hostile comments is a criminal offence in the UK. Of course, making a false police report is a criminal offence in itself. Have a few people made nasty comments? Probably. In any large city in the world you're likely to find at least a tiny number of xenophobic people. When Leave campaigner Boris Johnson arrived at his office after the result was announced, he was booed, abused and a tiny number of people threw things at him. Pretty sure that we could compile a Twitter wall of these things, too.

• 5) "What about the foreign people working here or Brits living abroad"

Leave said before, during and after the poll that any changes in laws would not be retroactive. End of.

• 6) "Vote Leave lied/spread fear" (ad hominem again )

The 5 million slogan was a little risqué, it didn't account for the rebate. It's true.
Meanwhile, Remain discussed World War 3, economic Armageddon, used the American President to deliver a possibly scripted threat, shamelessly and deliberately exploited the brutal murder of a good person and a colleague, exploited celebrities, sent out based leaflets, and allowed stereotypes of Brexiters as skinhead thugs.

• 7) This has caused the economic crash (appeal to belief )

The economic crash that wasn't and was never reported as such by any media source that had any knowledge of economics. It was rightly reported as a very sharp drop. The kind of sharp drop that occurs in any nation when there's a serious, unexpected event. Speculators cash in, they always have done and always will, it's the founding principle of stock markets.

The richest few were the biggest losers, the pound was not. The FTSE is recovering. Will there be some blips? Probably.

Then again, perhaps our market will drop and never pick up. Perhaps we'll suddenly become a nation of Fascists, pick up guns and attack every nation in Europe, while signing songs about Hitler and expressing hatred of all the foreigners that we see. On the other hand, perhaps things will carry on very much as normal, with the only difference being that we have a stronger level of soveignty, a court that has legal supremacy, greater freedom to spend our own income, more leverage with FTAs and the chance to employ skilled and qualified workers from across the commonwealth and knowledge that we know who are leaders are and, if necessary, how to get rid of them.

If you're so sure it's the former, go to the bookies and place your bets. Maybe they'll call it right this time.

Jo Cox aftermath: How about 'honest' instead of 'kinder' politics?

 

One thing all Thailand guidebooks draw attention to is the idea of the “little good lie”, the simple idea that sometimes feelings will be spared by an untruth. I have received many 'good lies' in my time overseas, but the only one that sticks in mind is early in my career when I covered a very popular senior teacher in a grade five math class. After two weeks, my boss came to me and told me he was so grateful for my help that they would "reward me" by freeing up some time on my schedule and removing me from my cover classes. It transpired that some parents had requested the previous teacher return to class.

In the west however, where lies and especially lying politicians are treated with contempt, the old adage  “The bigger the lie, the more it's believed” rings true. Political lies tend to fit one of three types: either they are rushed through in the hope that nobody bothers or knows how to verify them (think: numerous claims made in the Brexit debate), they are promised to be proven or justified by some future report or other event that is continuously and deliberately postponed (Iraq War report, for example) or they bypass logic and verification altogether via emotional blackmail and appeal to our populist, more defensive instincts. The tragic death of MP Jo Cox and the despicable pile of lies and emotional blackmail heaped on it by some of her so-called friends and allies is an example of that latter type and represents possibly the lowest our own politicians have sunk in quite some time.

Jo Cox, rest in peace

Fact: Jo Cox was killed by a violent man who believed himself mentally ill and linked to a US-based Nazi group. It's a hard truth that extreme people like this have always existed in society. History books have rare but endless tales of senior figures assaulted by violent citizens. However the likelihood of it happening to any one of us is rare, which is why we quite rightly feel such a sense of shock, revulsion and sympathy when we see someone fall victim to such a senseless act. Such sentiments were probably exasperated in Jo's case as – despite being a politician – she lacked the aura of aloofness and occasional arrogance displayed by many of her colleagues. She was a likable, regular person.

All of which makes what happened next all the more despicable. Before Cox's body was even cold, some of the media and her political allies moved to fashion a huge lie from the public grief. Apparently sidestepping the natural stage of grief felt by rational people, the Daily Star was first to hit the press with the headline “Jo Cox killed by Brexit Gunman”. The single claim for the headline was based around a rumour the Cox's killer had yelled “Britain First” after shooting. The headline was wrong for two reasons. Firstly, “Britain First” is not a Brexit group but a fringe political, right-wing group. To suggest that supporting them makes someone a Brexit supporter is akin to saying being a KKK member makes someone a Republican. The second problem is that it never, ever happened. A witness to the event confirmed he never heard the gunman shout “Britain First” or anything remotely similar.

But by the truth had its boots on, the lie was halfway around the world.  Sure enough, Guardian writer Polly Toynbee - formerly a BBC employee – produced an article on Cox's death warning of a sentiment  of“hate and isolation" built up from Brexit support. Still less than 48 hours after the death and with the Labour MP's family no doubt still in shock, Toynbee reveled in her moral pedantry. I personally found it difficult to decipher the psyche behind her column: was she really so confused as to believe her drivel? Was she simply so arrogant and callous that she didn't care? Or did she believe the end game was so important that all lies and exploitation were justified?

From then on the myth snowballed. Remain leaflets warned “Jo Cox's murder may be the start” , with similar hyperbole spreading uncontrollably from some sections of the Remain camp. Others didn't even pretend: Remain campaign director Will Straw was exposed in a phone conversation and email ordering his team to exploit the death. Meanwhile, in a serious of mostly heartfelt and sincere tributes to Jo by politicians of all sides, Labour's Neil Kinnock couldn't resist linking the death to UKIP and Nigel Farage in a two-sentence "tribute" tweet.

Even apparently justified and reasonable acts became loaded. The recalling of parliament to allow tributes to Cox was probably a kind thing to do. The question, however is: would the same course have been followed if, say, Douglas Carswell had been murdered? Would David Cameron have been so keen to display grief and tributes if the undertone of anti-Brexit sentiment hadn't been established? If not, why not? The whole purpose of parliament is to display, encourage and follow the process of democracy. Democracy means accepting different views. If you bend or twist procedure according to the views of the person at the end, you're being the exact apposite of “kind” or democratic.


A charity was set up in the wake of Jo's passing. Three charities were named as beneficiaries. Two of them I know little of, but their cause sounds courageous and noble. The third, however, is “Hope Not Hate” , a group set-up with – despite any claims to the contrary– a single goal to stifle, disrupt and intimidate any groups that express enough disagreement with socialist politics. HNH have repeatedly disrupted various events such as UKIP meetings and Brexit events. Their modus operandi is not to engage, discuss, debate or engage in “kind” politics but to simply shut down the opposition.

But in this mountain of lies, “kind” may be the most abused word. “Kind” is being presented as the idea that we shouldn't disagree, that we shouldn't find fault or acknowledge that people, culture and societies can, do and always will differ in some way.

“Kindness” can have many meanings and examples but surely in the murky world of politics we can narrow the field to two useful examples: the first being tolerance if not approval or assistance to those with very different views. We don't need to be told that killing isn't the answer, no sane person believes otherwise. The second is that even in a field where deceit and dishonesty is the norm, we should still draw the line somewhere. When the still-warm body of a good person, a mother and a friend is being exploited and lied about without the slightest element of shame, I'd say that “kindness” isn't the only quality lacking, we could all benefit from a big dose of the human qualities of honesty and common respect for those in grief, too.

Dear teachers: stop being your own pets

Dear NUT (National Union of Teachers),
I used to have sympathy for you, my counterparts back home. Dealing with the levels of violence and threats you face with little support must be agonising. Now I can’t help wondering if you deserve it, or derive some weird sadistic pleasure in this kind of divisiveness.

No I don't mean the standing ovation you gave Jeremy Corbyn, I mean the NUT’s call to end teaching “British values”  in favour of teaching “international rights”, because the former is “cultural supremacy”. I can’t help but wonder how many of you even have a true knowledge and understanding of what those words mean but it’s hard to tell, since there were no further details. I wonder: who will decide what constitutes “international rights”? You? Or will you use the UN declaration? You know, the one that Saudi Arabia refused to sign because it violated Sharia Law.

The truth is that some cultures are superior to others. It’s simply impossible to logically argue otherwise. Saudi Arabia refuses to allow women to drive because they follow a hard-line take on Sharia Law. Other counties, like yours, allow women the same rights as men. Does the NUT believe that our children should be taught that females cannot drive? Do they admire the old Aztec culture of human sacrifice?  If all cultures are equal, it’s perfectly acceptable to support that belief.  The reality is that any teacher even remotely hinting at such an idea would be fired within a week and would never be employed again, because it's an abhorrent idea.   We know full well there are better and worse cultures, we’re just terrified of admitting it.

But while all of you were light on facts about "international rights", you were thick on rhetoric. The list of complaints emanating from the NUT conference read like a textbook (pun intended) example of how modern British teaching has become a parody of itself. Let’s read the grandiose ideas asserted by one of your own (via the Telegraph article):

“Christopher Denson, a teacher from Coventry, said he had reservations about using the term "fundamental British values" in schools because many of his students had ancestry in countries which had been at the mercy British colonialism. “

I don’t follow your reservations, Mister Denson. When we teach “British values” are we teaching that the UK is a perfect union, the only state in the world never to have committed immoral actions? Is that in the curriculum? I don’t see it. Surely we’re teaching that we have learnt from past mistakes and now promote freedom and tolerance? Are the students in question aware that they have been granted British citizenship?

But Mister Denson wasn’t done. He continued:

“ "The inherent cultural supremacism in that term is both unnecessary and unacceptable. And seen with the Prevent agenda, it belies the most thinly veiled racism and a conscious effort to divide communities."
He added: "It’s our duty to push a real anti-racist work in all schools. And that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views, but genuine, inclusive anti-racist work."

Simply reading this statement makes me think Mister Denson will soon be high-up in the government’s well-paid, pen-pushing education hierarchy if he isn’t already. Apparently, using the name of the country in which you live and work followed by the word “values” means you discriminate against others because of their race. A teacher openly declaring his intention not to tolerate other’s views and to redefine national values inside the context of race is shocking to me, but not to you folk at the NUT apparently.

Yet still this teacher - thank the Lord he’s not teaching my (mixed-race) kids - wasn’t done...

"We organised a politics day for Year 8s in the week before Easter. They had a day to form a political party in their tutor groups to come up with a manifesto, film a broadcast, and make banners and take part in a debate. (If this quote is verbatim, I hope Mister Denson isn’t an English teacher.)

"Apart from the quality of the work, the other thing that really made my proud was that every single tutor group had as a policy, 'refugees welcome, open the borders'."

Now I may be going out on a limb here, teacher, but given your earlier comments, is there just the most minute possibility that you guided these children to these conclusion? As any teacher should know, children are not yet fully developed in their capacity to make informed and fully-logical decisions, particularly their long-term consequences. If they were, there’d be no need for teachers and no need for any legal age limits on any civil contract. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that you denied them equal time to any views that opposed allowing “refugees” unlimited entry? I don’t wish to be presumptions but in your own words “that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views”. I bet I’m not the only person suspecting that when you praise the conclusions of your students, in your mind you’re smirking and patting yourself on the back.

Dear NUT, it’s no secret that exam standards are getting easier, schools are getting more crowded and as already noted, you guys are in more danger than ever. Heck, you usually harp on about that at your conferences. But now, when you actually have some way to find a common cause, a sense of unity and principles that will make your lives easier, you’ve spat on it. Why? Could it be that you’ve succumbed to the stereotypes: the teacher who can’t live in the real world so instead spends time at school pushing his or her views onto others?

Stop applauding yourselves. Stop believing that a teacher is also a parent. Stop believing in your own self-righteous superiority. Your role and moral responsibility is to gift students to the tools to think, research and decide for themselves, it is not to tell them what to think.

Remember that next year when you complain about working conditions once more.

5 Star Book Reviews

13 Hours: The explosive inside story of how six men fought off the Benghazi terror attack -





It's Your Time You're Wasting: A Teacher's Tales of Classroom Hell (Frank Chalk Book 1)

 

Wolf's Head (The Forest Lord Book 1)