{"id":583223,"date":"2022-03-31T15:53:27","date_gmt":"2022-03-31T15:53:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thecanary.co\/?p=1572791"},"modified":"2022-03-31T15:53:27","modified_gmt":"2022-03-31T15:53:27","slug":"educators-are-gearing-up-to-challenge-the-tories-culture-war-in-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2022\/03\/31\/educators-are-gearing-up-to-challenge-the-tories-culture-war-in-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Educators are gearing up to challenge the Tories\u2019 culture war in schools"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The Coalition of Anti-Racist Educators (CARE) and Black Educators Alliance (BEA) are building a campaign against the Department for Education (DfE)’s\u00a0guidance<\/a> on the curriculum for personal, social, health and economic (PHSE) education, which was published on 24 September 2020.<\/p>\n

This comes after the DfE updated its guidance in response to a legal threat<\/a> from the group of educators in October 2020. The original guidance was very clear in its aim to stifle freedom of expression in schools. Although the department softened the language used in its updated guidance, educators and lawyers are still concerned about its potential to suppress political expression and socially just teaching in schools.<\/p>\n

Censorship in schools<\/h2>\n

In October 2020, CARE and BEA sent the education secretary a pre-action letter<\/a> threatening legal action over the PHSE guidance published in September 2020.<\/p>\n

In the letter, CARE and BEA warned that if the Department for Education didn’t withdraw its guidance, campaigners would take the government to court. This was based on the legal grounds that the guidance was “irrational”.<\/p>\n

Represented by Bindmans LLP solicitors Rachel Harger and Jude Bunting QC, the coalition also highlighted that the guidance violated articles 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act – the rights to freedom of speech, religious belief and expression.<\/p>\n

They added that in issuing the suppressive guidance, the education secretary “acted without a legal power”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The group warned that the guidance would prevent teachers from using material from campaigning groups such as INQUEST and Extinction Rebellion. This is in addition to groups campaigning for the rights of marginalised people, particularly Black and minoritised,\u00a0LGBTQ+ and Muslim people. In effect, this would\u00a0limit teaching, ushering in censorship and a climate of intimidation and fear in schools akin to section 28.<\/p>\n

A successful challenge<\/h2>\n

CARE and BEA’s challenge was successful. In February 2022, the DfE updated its ‘political impartiality’ guidance<\/a>, softening the language used.<\/p>\n

Setting out the ‘significant’ changes to the guidance, Harger told The Canary<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Whereas previously the guidance was phrased in mandatory terms (e.g. \u201cmust\u201d and there were references to inspectors enforcing it), it is now largely phrased as guidance (\u201cshould\u201d, \u201cmight\u201d, \u201cmay\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

She added:<\/p>\n

The most absurd parts of the previous guidance – such as suggesting that campaigning against capitalism is extremism, or the vague references to \u201cvictim narratives\u201d, or the culture war nonsense about no-platforming have all been removed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Still problematic<\/h2>\n

In spite of the changes, the updated guidance remains a great concern.<\/p>\n

Harger told The Canary<\/em>:<\/p>\n

The most hard edged aspect of the guidance is that teachers cannot use of material from external agencies that are extreme and the examples have been considerably tightened from the previous guidance. Now the primary focus is on violence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Highlighting the “most problematic” elements in the guidance<\/a>, Harger pointed to:<\/p>\n