The author of this post works in education governance and has years of experience as a Birmingham school governor.
Issues arising from the 21 inspections and monitoring visits of Birmingham Schools in response to the Trojan Horse Allegations
The press has been full of allegations of extremism in a group of Birmingham schools. This has distracted from the real issues in five Birmingham schools, of failures of governance - which include one school paying for governors to go to Saudi Arabia and one head teacher’s brother being appointed to a management position in another school which he was not qualified for. However the reports do not highlight extremism in the schools. Ultimately responsibility lies with Mr Gove and his failures of policy and leadership for allowing this to happen.
The evidence points to very serious failures of governance and the introduction of a conservative Islam which is not representative of the local community, Muslim or otherwise. These schools are now in special measures so the most important question is how were they allowed to get into this position and what needs to be done to prevent similar problems arising elsewhere.
There are a range of issues which emerge from the 21 Ofsted documents and the EFA report on the Park View Trust. The first is that although there were very serious issues highlighted in five of the schools there are also implications for the 16 schools which were not graded inadequate. These 16 schools have been drawn into this controversy and in many cases it is difficult to see why. In 11 of the 16 cases the leadership and management has now been judged on an Ofsted monitoring visit to require improvement (RI), primarily because they have not engaged in the Prevent Strategy. This includes a nursery school.
Other recent Ofsted reports in the same area make no reference to engaging in the Protect Strategy as a requirement[1]. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the requirement to engage with the strategy is political rather than educational. In some of the 11 schools now graded RI for leadership and management there is a reference to the need to training staff in looking for signs of forced marriage or FGM. Both of these are serious issues but again there is no reference to them in other recently inspected schools serving similar communities.
Ofsted has a problem because it did not spot serious problems in the governance of the five schools now grade inadequate. The recent reports claim that the problem have arisen since the previous inspections, however, it is clear from Tim Boyes, head teacher of Queensbridge School’s evidence to Lord Hill, Education Minister in 2010, that the concerns about governance and practices in some of these schools existed. It is clear that they need to look at their practices and train their staff to judge governance just as they judge other areas of school life. Assessment of governance is generally based on a one hour meeting. The Ofsted view is that if the school is outstanding then the governance will be outstanding, if the school is good then the governance will be good. If the school requires improvement then the governance will require improvement etc. However those within the education community know this is not always the case. An outstanding school may be outstanding despite a weak governing body. The danger then comes with the lack of sustainability. If what is often a strong head and senior management team leave then a weak governing body may then be exposed and a school goes into decline.
The scale of the problem in Birmingham stems directly from Mr Gove and the policies he led at DfE. There are several messages for Mr Gove from this sad tale of where central government has failed children and their families. Firstly there is a failure of leadership. Mr Gove made it very clear that he wanted to cut the size his department drastically and equally clear that there were only two priorities in DfE: these were the establishment of free schools and academies.
In 2010 Tim Boyes, head teacher of Queensbridge School in Birmingham, met Lord Hill, Education Minister and DfE officials. He explained to them that he and neighbouring heads were worried about what was happening in certain inner city Birmingham schools. His concerns have been highlighted by the BBC and then distorted in various newspapers. He expressed concern about conservative Muslims gaining disproportionate power in Park View School and Golden Hillock School being under heavy pressure. In the last few months Mr Gove has been very concerned about the suggestion of a conservative Muslim takeover of schools so the question has to be: why wasn’t it taken further in 2010 when many of the problems could have been nipped in the bud?
The reason comes down to what can only be described as bad leadership at the top of DfE. In a situation where the Secretary of State is so clear that the only way forward is academisation and when many civil servants were losing their jobs why would you highlight a major failing in a school which was one of the first to convert to an academy? This was not going to be what the ministers wanted to hear so it wouldn’t be what senior civil servants wanted to hear. In a position where individuals feel vulnerable about keeping their jobs and where the ideological approach is so clear how many people would stick their heads above the parapet and say “ I have just learnt about a major problem with the lack of external scrutiny that comes with academisation”. The atmosphere in DfE was not one which encouraged this kind of bravery. Think of the tweets and blogs being sent out by Mr Gove’s SPADs and the identification of those who opposed academisation as “the blob”. It would take a brave or rash civil servant to take this one much further! Civil servants are not trained to be brave or rash which becomes a significant problem when faced with a minister with such a strong ideological approach.
Of course the key problem is the academy programme and the freedoms given to schools which can be abused by governors. Although Ofsted went into 13 LEA schools in Birmingham only one was in serious difficulties, Saltley School. Academisation has had an effect on all state schools. In academies there is a serious lack of scrutiny. In academies there is no constant external scrutiny. Ofsted will scrutinise, but as highlighted above they do not focus on governance, and they may not come in for five or six years to a school previously judged to be outstanding. The Education Funding Agency does not have sufficient staff. Tim Brighouse highlighted in The Guardian[2] that the Secretary State himself may send two civil servants to a governing body meeting but even when the DfE was fully staffed they would not have been sent to academy governing bodies. Now they don’t have the staff to visit governing bodies around the country.
Some large multi-academy trusts do have a development and support team but these are very varied in quality and in a trust like Park View which only has three schools they do not have the expertise, and as can been seen in the Ofsted and EFA reports, their problems existed in all three trust schools.
Before academies in most LEAs had strong improvement teams who kept their ears and eyes to the ground and watched for areas of concern. Parents knew who to go to if they had concerns which were not being dealt with by the head teacher or the governing body. They could approach their local councillor, as I once did about concerns about my children’s primary school. Advisors would go into schools on a regular basis and get a feel for the school. It wasn’t perfect and not every advisor was outstanding but in general it worked.
No replacement has been set up by the DfE despite various academy failures even before this. Furthermore the result of the conversion of around 50% of secondary schools and 11% of primary schools to academy status, tempted by additional funding and freedoms, is that maintained schools do not have this scrutiny and support either. As each academy that converts becomes independent of their LEA and gains control of a disproportionate amount of funding which had gone to the LEA. As a result schools like Saltley in Birmingham, one of the schools in now graded inadequate, has little support from Birmingham LEA, as LEA staff and the broad range of services they used to provide, have been cut.
Discussion around practices at the five schools expose the strange situation we have in the UK around religion and schools. A faith school can teach about their own faith and no other if they choose to do so. We see this in religious schools across the country whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh or Hindu. All maintained schools including academies are legally obliged to have a daily act of collective worship of a mainly Christian character, unless they have a determination which allows them to have a daily act of worship which is not Christian. In reality few schools actually have a daily act of worship of any kind. Finally, there are a significant number of religious schools and academies which choose to adopt a conservative interpretation of their faith. the academy programme has enabled the teaching of conservative religious education in any faith academy or free school. It is only now that this is being raised as a concern. Because DfE do not have a framework for dealing with this issue Mr Gove and Mr Cameron are inventing a new requirement, to teach “British Values”.
The events in Birmingham and the lack of timely response by DfE has exposed the dangers of academisation and the damage being done to other schools because of the collapse of local education authorities. Education is vital to us all for our families and for our communities. This is not an area for experiments and a lack of scrutiny. Our children deserve better, Mr Gove needs to stop playing politics with our education system. Ofsted needs to take governance in schools seriously not assume that the governance grade follows the overall grade and indeed the grade for the paid leaders. All schools need a combination of support and scrutiny on an ongoing basis through an LEA which has democratic accountability through elected councillors. Finally, Mr Gove needs to learn leadership skills so that his civil servants can tell him all the news not just the news that supports academies.
CORRECTION: The article originally said Tim Boyes met with schools minister Lord Nash. This was a typo. It should have been Lord Hill. This has been corrected. Thanks to Barry Wise for pointing out the error.
[1] English Martyrs' Catholic Primary School Ofsted Report, Inspection dates 11–12 December 2013; Requires improvement: monitoring inspection visit to Chandos Primary School, 6th February 2014; Special measures monitoring inspection of Al-Furqan Primary School, 14th March 2014; Chilcote Primary School
Chilcote Close, 27–28 March 2014; Special measures monitoring inspection of Wyndcliffe Primary School 28th March 2014
[2] Tim Brighouse, The Trojan Horse Affair, The Guardian, 17th June 2014
Comments
We see this view in his talk about draining the "swamp". Tory MP Crispin Blunt, former prisons minister, said this could have a negative effect by forcing other creatures who live in the swamp to take sides. He, too, accused Gove of viewing issues in a polarised way and ignoring the "shades of grey".
Gove's tendency to paint issues as a fight between "them and us" is also apparent in his attitude towards those who don't agree with him: they're collectively lumped together as the Blob, enemies of promise and so on.
There is, of course, a danger from all who hold extreme views whether they grow from religion, politics or tribalism. And there is a danger that promoting conservative (small c) religious views (eg re the treatment of women, attitudes towards people not of the faith) could provide the soil in which extremists can flourish.
But that doesn't mean all those who hold such conservative religious views are going to morph into terrorists (Gove's "conveyor belt"). Neither does it mean their numbers will inevitably grow - Muslims have as much to lose from their ascendance as non-Muslims, particularly Muslim women just as Christian gays would find the world less comfortable if conservative views about homosexuality became mainstream.
Vigilance is required - allegations need to be properly investigated. But not in an atmosphere of hysteria fuelled by sweeping generalisations and unverified anecdotes which appear to attack a whole group.
The main criticism made by the reviewer relies upon argument advanced in another book. The contrast between the two books is perhaps summed up by this -
[The other] "book is of crucial importance because the greatest threat faced by the West is posed not by the Communist-style annexation of countries by Islamists, but by suicide killers who are on the verge of acquiring chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."
In other words Gove was wrong, it is claimed, in that he identified the wrong threat from Islamists, not that he was wrong to identify an Islamist threat.
Both books do however (so it is said) suggest Arab democracy is the long-term solution. Someone remind me how that Arab democracy thing is going.
Gove has seized on the Trojan Horse allegations as an opportunity to launch a carefully engineered racist political offensive designed to associate Muslims with religious extremism and terrorism, for which Gove knew he could rely on a relentless tide of Islamophobia from the Tory press. It enables him to attempt to recover lost electoral ground by out-bidding UKIP on racism and to bolster his support on the Tory Right.
Which seems much more way over the top on its side than anything Gove has said on the subject. First I conclude that Richard must be a student firebrand flush with the political fervour of youth and his exaggerations are therefore to be indulged.
But then via Google I discover he's the Professor of Education at Birmingham City University (which in Gove terms would make him part of the Blob). Then on Googling again it turns out Richard is the complete Gove caricature - he's a leading Trotskyite as well!
Sometimes life seems like a conspiracy to prove Gove right.
Janet, You say, "Gove would not describe himself as an Islamophobe BUT his actions appear to contradict his words" but I fail to see that the analogy of 'draining the swamp' implies that Gove is an Islamophobe. Rather, and irrespective as to whether this is considered an appropriate strategy, what is being put forward is the need to target the the right people rather than everyone. Neither is his, and in this he is by no means alone, tendency to use the "them and us" approach indicative of Islamophobia. Rather this is a variation of the theme, 'either you are with me or against me', which has absolutely nothing to do with religious views or attitudes to religion. Instead it is what it is, a blunt unsophisticated methodology often employed by those with influence and/or power.
1. For the pre-academised (pre PVAT) reports of difficulties what did Birmingham City Council do, and if whatever it did was ineffectual why didn't the dissatisfied HTs escalate their concerns to the DFE?
2. If Ofsted inspection process embraced inspections in close enough proximity to the removal of the HTs why were the issues not identified by the Lead Inspector.
3. How much were the PVAT senior leaders aware and what did they do to address issues?
In the context of any state school becoming the focus of inappropriate governance or other excessive and extreme activities/influence I would expect either colleagues at the school to raise/report concerns and the Ofsted inspection cycle to identify and report on issues.
It is pure speculation to suggest or imply that a Christian group conducting a Trojan Horse style takeover would not trigger action is unhelpful.
CNN reports "right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology."
"I think it is unacceptable that there are things that can be said publicly about Muslims which can be said about no other communities and religions, and there is something sick about that and it is something that does need to be fought,"
I take this to mean the the allegations, which were rightly investigated, have been used as a generalised attack implying anyone who lives in the "swamp" must be a "crocodile".
Richard is right about the treatment of the affair by many sections of the press - all 21 schools (it was 25 at one point) were portrayed as guilty until proven innocent - reports were leaked and comments published which didn't appear in the final Ofsted reports, anecdotes were gleefully reproduced (always with the appendage "alleged" just to keep lawyers at bay). Even now people still talk about the 21 schools at the centre of the "plot" when Ofsted found severe problems with governance at 5 and lesser governance problems at a further three.
And we mustn't forget that the DfE had been told about problems at some B'ham schools in 2010. A cynic might say Gove's noisy intervention now is to draw attention away from inaction nearly four years ago when he was occupied with pushing through his academies and free schools programme - a policy which has actually made the domination of schools by their governing bodies easier.
If that's the view of a positive reviewer, then there is perhaps cause to be worried about Gove's philosophy and attitude.
A more savage review was described in TES thus:
'When Celsius 7/7, Gove’s book on the Middle East, was published in 2006, historian William Dalrymple deemed it: “A confused epic of simplistic incomprehension, riddled with more factual errors and misconceptions than any other text I have come across in two decades of reviewing books on this subject.”'
Sadly, I can't find it.
Barry - I don't think we should judge what people say on any particular issue, by referring to their wider political affiliations, and this applies to Richard Hatcher as much as to Michael Gove.
"THE statistics do not look very encouraging. Of the 50-plus countries where Muslims are in the majority, only two (Indonesia and Mali) enjoy political liberty as defined by Freedom House, a New York-based monitor of human rights and democracy. The Democracy Index, run by the Economist Intelligence Unit, adds Malaysia to that shortlist, rating the three countries as “flawed democracies”; other Muslim lands are put in a lower category."
(6 Aug 11)
http://www.economist.com/node/21525400
"That said, even in Muslim-majority countries that embrace consensual government there are not the same freedoms of the press, speech, and ethnic and sexual minority rights as seen in the West. If the barometer for democracy is France or Britain, then Muslim countries are not on that trajectory. Why should they be? Theirs is a different culture rooted in scripture, unlike that of secular Europe. The freedom to blaspheme or "insult the prophets and God" is not acceptable to most Muslims or even Christians living in Palestine, Pakistan, Egypt, or Lebanon. This tension between Western and other approaches to democracy will remain a cause for ongoing struggle."
(23 May 13)
http://www.cfr.org/democratization/why-have-many-muslim-states-struggled...
Not forgetting of course that a core aspect of what we fondly refer to as democracy in the West if freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief etc. For the 'pious', 'conservative/Conservative' follower of Islam this is tantamount to anathema. For example, in Western democracy people have the freedom of changing from one religious group to another, the freedom to criticise government/politicians/religions/religious leaders, the freedom to express their sexual orientation. Many of these would incur grave and terminal punishments under sharia law.
Speculation ... not entirely, but professional confidentiality issues prevent me from giving details.
Brian, understood but the principles remain the same. Genuine concerns need to be reported at the appropriate level. That applies whether it is a single school or more.
It is also interesting that the Muslim world is generally so economically underdeveloped. No doubt it could just be a coincidence.
The comment by 'Mark Berry' here -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/03/25/inigo-thomas/goves-enemies-of-promise/
seems to provide it for you, Janet.
It may be a savage review but it's more polemic than academic. Some people would say it is Dalrymple who is rewriting history more than Gove. It's all very well saying not all bombs come from Muslims but how many other bombs come claiming to be a religious duty and are, to a greater or lesser degree, part of a worldwide campaign?
You said "It’s all very well saying not all bombs come from Muslims but how many other bombs come claiming to be a religious duty and are, to a greater or lesser degree, part of a worldwide campaign?."
I was listening to "Sunday" this morning and they featured sermons given by Germans in the run-up to WW1. Religious duty, God on their side etc featured heavily. The same things were being said in British churches.
Throughout history God, Allah, whatever, has always been invoked by people wanting to conquer other people or destroy them.
In the meantime, 100 Imams have signed a letter urging British Muslims not to go to Syria. And ITV reported a leader of the Ismaili Muslim Centre in Leceister who said Muslim extremists were a small minority. People at the centre were packing food for the homeless - the pictures showed many women without headscarves. ITV reported "Hasina Kassam, who volunteers at the centre, spoke of how extremism has given people a false perception of Muslims and said:'It's very sad, it's all misunderstood and unfortunately we all get labelled with one brush.'"
But this doesn't get the publicity given to video of a gobby young man with a T-towel round his head threatening world dominance.
Have you seen the film, Four Films? It's a very funny satire on jihadists. Here's the official trailer:
This means that the onus of responsibility rests with the majority of the Muslim community to identify, root out and help deal with the issue. Letter writing and sermons at Friday prayers are helpful but direct action to liaise with the authorities must be central.
I agree that the media, as ever, does its best to muddy the waters by highly selective sales based news reporting, which can only serve to further alienate people on all sides of the issue.
What concerns me is that from the recent Ofsted reports on Islamic schools it appears that there may be a situation wherein Islamic and cultural studies are well resourced and promoted and the rest of the curriculum lags behind. This includes a focus on boys rather than girls and separation of the genders in mixed schools. These schools are 'independent' but still fall under the requirements of the national education acts and are required to meet the criteria to do so by the Charities Commission or face loss of charitable status and face closure but the only Islamic school to close has been Al-Madina Free School,and even then it was transferred to new proprietors.
What next? The Kaiser as prophet? Constantine the Great Pagan revealed as Jesuit zealot?
In the meantime, "there could be as many as 200 British fighters in Syria" (as of nine months ago) -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24520762
As you speak of the lack of headscarves, allow me to mention that I have read many tales on the net of Saudi women gleefully tearing off their headscarves as soon as their plane to the fleshpots of Europe takes off from Saudi Arabia. So what? That doesn't alter the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers were Saudi citizens.
Why are Muslims in Britain, often of Asian origin, wearing clothes designed (so I understand) as a protection against the desert sands of North Africa and the Middle East? It isn't religion. It is a political statement whether the people concerned realise it or not.
Do you recognise that there is a specific threat, acting in the name of Islam (albeit not necessarily with the unanimity of all Muslims) against the West or not?
The gobby young man to whom I assume you refer seems to be doing quite well in taking over rather a large area of the Middle East. Not on behalf of the State but in the name of religious duty. Sort of like wot Gove said.
I agree that much trauma and tragedy has been inflicted upon the world in the name of ... now this is where it gets complicated. In the name of a divine deity or should that be in the name of religion. The truth that Janet alludes to is that it is enacted and prosecuted by humanity based on a lust/desire for power and control.
To dig a little deeper many authors of human tragedy tend to get overlooked in favour of citing the religious connections. That is to say, it is my understanding that Attila the Hun, and Genghis Khan did not perpetrate their actions in the name of any divine deity. In more recent history neither did Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot. Equally, so the Korean and Vietnam and Balkan wars were not driven or inspired by divine deities.
The issues of this thread coalesce around what may or may not prove to be deliberate and willful moves by small numbers of Muslims on governing bodies of state non-denominational schools to exert undue influence of a religious nature over how the schools were run stretching into curricular issues.
In that context what is possible is small steps forward which offer glimpses of an alternative. That is what the Birmingham campaign aims to do. It has only existed for a short time, it is as yet unstructured and fragile, and there are no guarantees. But we are where we are, and there is a willingness to make it work. The starting point is the immediate issues that are posed, and they are not the ones Roger lists, they are the immediate educational concerns of the local community – by which I mean not just the Muslim community but also local teachers and many others. Those concerns were expressed by a Muslim woman parent at the last campaign planning meeting when she spoke of ‘bully and gross mismanagement’. She also spoke of a school which phoned a girl’s parents to tell them ‘your daughter was talking to a boy’. That is the immediate level at which gender oppression and discrimination is posed: gender segregation and the reported failure in some schools and classes to teach about sexual development and sexual relationships. This is where the discussion starts – though the issues Roger lists may well arise at some point. As the campaign statement says:
‘Workable solutions will not appear overnight. Trust has broken down between those who should be working together. Our role in the journey is to provide parents, staff, pupils and governors a strong forum within which to voice their opinions about the issues raised over the last few months and to give their views about whether proposed solutions will work - in a safe and transparent space.’
We are proposing that the local authority supports this process and provides a framework – some sort of local Education Forum – in which it can continue. The issues in question are of course not restricted to these majority-Muslim schools, they are common in various forms across the school system, and perhaps what we are attempting in Birmingham can contribute to a much-needed wider debate.
The question arises as to who is speaking for British Islam. what is their representational status and what are they actually saying?
I entirely agree with you that traditional parental attitudes to issues of sexuality, teenage relationships and morality are delicate with consensus emerging over time. The anecdote you give is one such example. As a 1960s teenager I clearly remember that such issues were not then confined to any particular ethnic community or religious tradition.
However parents that condone the death penalty for apostasy, excuse or practise forced marriage, excuse or practise severe threats of abuse against children or partners judged to have dishonoured their parents, or excuse or practise FGM, all of which are serious criminal offences, surely cannot be allowed to elect governors that share those views and have any say in the way that schools are run.
I do see these as litmus test issues that could be very easily resolved by Imams and community leaders giving clear and unequivocal guidance during religious services and also openly in the public media. There appears to be a deafening and most unwelcome silence from such quarters, while many on the left seem only too willing to shout about 'racism' and 'Islamophobia' if anyone, but especially any white non-Muslim has the temerity to raise such matters.
Janet and others are also right to point out that faith schools in other religious traditions are also given too much unquestioning licence. There is a brand of Christian primary school teaching that threatens little children that God is watching them all the time and that he will arrange for them be to punished for their sins either through misfortune in this life or much worse in the next. Many in my generation can recall such teaching in their childhood. I hope that those days have passed but how can we be sure?
I hope that Richard's 'Putting Birmingham School Kids First' campaign will be successful but I suspect it will either fall prey to religious and political factionalism and splits, or else its unity will be so bland and unchallenging that little progress will be made, while providing lots of scope for political opportunism.
This is why I am certain that it is necessary to change the legal regulations that underpin all schools. Tim Brighouse is right that the first thing to go must be the legal obligation for all schools to hold a daily act of religious worship (obviously a grossly inappropriate school activity), followed by clear requirements tested by Ofsted to ensure that all children are taught the facts about all the major religions and religious sects (what followers principally believe and do) and the accepted major tenets of 'normal science together with a nationally prescribed foundation syllabus for Citizenship and Personal and Social Education. If faith schools believe they have something precious and useful to offer on top of that then their participation in the education system should be welcomed, but it must be 'on top of', not 'instead off'.
I am not optimistic of much progress on any of this in the near future but I hope that any prospective future government will grasp nettles in terms of the policies it puts before us for the next General Election.
So we are faced with a strategic impasse. In my view it is of historic significance. Since the second world war and the 1944 Act progressive reformers in education have looked to the Labour Party as the vehicle by which progressive policies could be implemented, most notably the comprehensive school. Now that vehicle seems to have come to a stop. If rational argument can’t make it move again, then the alternative is mass pressure. But at present the demand for the abandoning of Gove’s policies and a new agenda of education reform is articulated by a number of disparate small organisations and groups, none of them with mass support or a mass campaigning orientation. The one exception is the trade union movement, and in particular the NUT, but it can’t do it on its own, it needs a mass popular movement. That is how on occasion radical reforms – and that is what we are talking about – in state policy have happened in the past. In its absence I suspect we will be having the same sort of discussions on LSN in a year’s time, and two years’ time, as we are now, and with as little effect.
'Back off, Ofsted. It’s a Cumbrian primary, not Jihadist Juniors'
and the article goes on to say
'It pains me to bring to your attention a dark story of racist and homophobic bullying in a British school. Not one of those exciting schools in the West Midlands that, to Michael Gove’s dismay, have recently been taken over by Islamists — such as the Boko Haram Non-Kaffir Early Learning Centre (Dudley, boys only) or the Bin Laden Academy for Advanced Beard Growing (Tipton, no infidels). No, the school I am talking about is a tiny primary in Cumbria where the pupil roll is just 13. I have to say it does not surprise me that this particular establishment — the Ravenstonedale Endowed School— has been singled out by Ofsted for righteous odium. I have long held the view that Cumbria is, and always has been, a viciously racist and homophobic county, a little like Germany in 1936 .......'
Liddle then goes on to berate Ofsted for putting this tiny school into Special Measures, probably on the basis that one child was heard to make a negative 'gay' comment. To be fair to Liddle he does say that he has not bothered to read the report and maybe there were issues other than the one his headline suggests.
Maybe there were. If you have a few minutes have a look at the report and see if anything leaps out at you which in any way justifies the headline.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provi...
The Summary of key findings put Mr Liddle's comments and professionalism in perfect context. As a journalist he would be better served doing minimal research rather than misplaced sarcasm.
A quick review of the sequence and chronology of recent reports indicates a reasons for the Special Measures:
1. 30 Apr 14: Section 5 - Placed in Special Measures
2. 3 May 13 :Section 8 - HMI Grade 3 support
3. 22 Feb 13: Section 5 - Grade 3
4. 8/9 Mar 11: Section 5 - Grade 3
This report shows parents voting with their feet. From the start of March 2014 the school roll dropped from just 25 to 13 by the time Ofsted arrived in April. Inspectors found homophobic and racist bullying with "too many" acts of aggression.
Inspectors wrote:
"Parents are concerned about behaviour and this partly explains why the number of pupils on the roll of the school has reduced by half over the last six weeks."
Of course, it's easier to make mocking comments about "Boko Haram Non-Kaffir Early Learning Centre" in Dudley (which is the Black Country and NOT B'ham) than to base an article on evidence. It's soooooo funny.
Thanks, Andy, for the link to the report.
The school's chair of governors has told another paper (Daily Mail) that there have been NO incidents of racial or homophobic bullying and that it all comes down to one instance recorded in the school's discipline record where a child had used the word 'gay' in a critical manner. Every primary school teacher will be familiar with the situation where a child uses a word like 'gay' without knowing what it means. You can hardly expect children to have a developed understanding of homosexuality if they are only on the nursery slopes of sex and relationship education, or haven't even begun to learn about sex at all.
In this case it appears the school talked to the child in the presence of his/her parents and recorded the incident in its log. I do not see why that should be subsequently held against the school by Ofsted.
Ofsted, however seem to be insisting there is a racism/homophobia issue, but have yet to produce any evidence.
Parents are understandably upset that their children are being smeared as racists/homophobes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671448/School-just-13-pupils-wh...
I wonder what the evidence is to support the assertion/assumption that there is a total absence of non-British pupils is at the school. You don't have to be coloured to suffer racist abuse.
Perhaps an FOI request for the EFs might allay your fears.
'School with just 13 pupils - all white - is accused by Ofsted of racist bullying: Governor attacks report after village primary is put in special measures over incident.'
Presumably of no consequence are:
'Pupil behaviour is poor (half of pupils have been removed because of this) and the leadership has not taken action to address this.
Leaders do have not have an accurate view of pupil progress so gaps in pupils' knowledge, especially in maths, aren't closed quickly enough.
Arrangements for checking the quality of teaching lack rigour.
Pupils' achievement is not good.
Over time pupils do not make consistently good progress as they move through the school.
Teaching requires improvement. Checks on pupils' work are not frequent or rigorous enough.
Teachers' expectation of pupils' work are not consistently high enough'
(Ofsted report: reasons why school requires special measures)
Maybe, like Liddle, the Mail didn't bother to read the report either and so can say the school was put into Special Measures because of 'the incident.' Or maybe it's just sloppy reporting ... again.
You're right that young children don't always know the meaning of the words they use - that's why schools need to explain that calling someone "gay" or using the N words are not acceptable. That doesn't necessarily mean punishing them - gentle explanation could suffice. Unless the same child persists...
That said, something's amiss when nearly half the children left in such a short time.
The bully identifies a victim. This victim is then characterised as being 'gay'. Subsequent bullying focuses on this supposed characteristic. The 'gay' slur becomes the focus of bullying, irrespective of the actual sexual orientation of the victim, which is of course irrelevant to the bully.
Can the same be said of racist bullying in a school with no ethnic minority pupils? Yes.
You say
Pupil behaviour is poor (half of pupils have been removed because of this) and the leadership has not taken action to address this.
But the Ofsted report says in the behaviour section
The headteacher has put in place a number of strategies to improve pupils’ behaviour and these are beginning to show some impact in the classroom. ...There have been no recorded exclusions over the past year.
Yet in the leadership section it seems to contradict this:
The headteacher and governors have not tackled serious issues with regard to pupils’ behaviour effectively.
And it says that parental concern over behaviour
partly explains why the number of pupils on the roll of the school has reduced.
'Partly' can of course be 10% or 90%. Have Ofsted actually asked the parents who left?
In previous threads we have seen a worrying number of Ofsted reports that look suspiciously as though they have been written up to justify a pre-determined outcome. This one has some of the same characteristics. E.g. the 'non-offence indictment': pupils generally make no more than expected progress because leaders have not taken effective action to improve the quality of teaching and raise pupils’ achievement. Excuse me, but since when was 'expected progress' not enough?
Then the report seems half heartedly to acknowledge that with a total roll of 13 pupils, not much can be read into the data before going on to read all kinds of stuff into it:
the progress of boys in reading, mathematics and spelling, punctuation and grammar is not as good as that of girls...... in 2013, standards at the end of Year 6 dipped from above average in 2012, to broadly average overall but below average for boys in reading and mathematics.....Although the proportion of pupils reaching the highest level in writing was well above average in the end of Year 6 teacher assessments in 2013, pupils in the current Year 6 class are not achieving beyond average standards in all three subjects.
All these are instances of what Ofsted admit you can't really assert on such a small sample size, but then they go ahead and do it anyway.
This whole report makes me a bit uncomfortable to be honest. Particularly the alarming hint that henceforth any gender differential could lead to RI!
" ... Behaviour in lessons is generally sensible and most pupils now have positive attitudes to learning, but at other times of the school day, including break and lunchtimes, pupils do not always treat one another well and are sometimes rude or aggressive towards members of staff."
You may also wish to remember that while a school can encourage parents to complete the online parent view questionnaire the latter cannot be forced to fill it in and former parents can only raise concerns in a letter to the school, LA, Ofsted or DFE. That said, no-one can force former parents to raise concerns and even if they had gone to the HT or LA there is no way of Ofsted Inspectors knowing about that unless the information is shared.
I do however share some concern regarding the phrasing of information about boys progress v girls i.e. a child's progress should be based on their school based data up to Y6 and from Y7 based on SATs. And, yes, if children are making expected progress that is the minimum expectation. The external observers difficulty is that we don't have the school data and with these numbers RoL is unlikely to be helpful even if we had access to it.
I would also suggest that you follow the the thread of reports from 2004 forwards. This creates a fairly clear picture (over time) of at best a coasting and worst an under performing school.
Since Ofsted started using it as a key measure of impact from KS1 to KS2. It's intended to be fairer in that schools starting with a lower level of attainment can make expected or better progress without having to reach expected national levels. It's flawed, of course ... crude measures always are, but I guess this school didn't get near the national outcomes for three levels of progress which in 2013 were 30% in reading and writing and 31% in maths.
Incidentally I think in the paragraph you quote from the report the inspectors are referring to overall standards, while recognising in such a small school national performance data is unreliable. Doesn't mean that individual pupil performance assessments aren't useful.
I certainly wouldn't disagree with the issues around the use of school's data in such a small school, and the inspectors acknowledge that quite openly, but to be honest having read the report (unlike the Times and Mail journalists) it strikes me that the inspectors are saying that they recognise the fragility of the data but ... well there seem to be plenty of 'buts' which are significant and have led to the special measures judgement.
And as for the press' assertions that you can't have homophobic bullying in a junior school (too young) nor racist bullying in this school (too white) all that does is expose their lack of understanding.
Absolutely, and particularly among young child who often don't comprehend the impact of what they do but do see the impact of their choices.
But it's not performance that's at issue here. It's behaviour, bullying and the mass exodus of 12 children. The chair of governors said the parents who withdrew their children did so because they wanted their children to mix with a larger number of children. But so many leaving within just a few weeks does ring alarm bells.
"What happens in a secular schooling system when, free from ‘the shackles’ of elected local government, parents exercise the choice the state gives them and their school chooses to reflect its community’s aspirations in the way it caters for the “spiritual, moral, social and cultural development” of children? What happens when the community that school serves is predominantly Muslim, even though the school is not a faith-based school?"
http://www.gusjohn.com/2014/06/trojan-horses-and-policing-extremism-in-s...
I am in agreement with Roger, and no doubt others, that the purpose of state funded schools and the education they are charged with providing is not about reflecting or serving the wants, needs, wishes of the community in which the school is located but rather schools are about providing a broad and balanced educational experience for the benefit of the pupils and nation as a whole such that they are able to achieve personal wellbeing (financially, physically and emotionally) and make a positive contribution within the diverse multi-cultural society in which we all live and that is underpinned by democracy, personal responsibility and freedom irrespective of family heritage, gender orientation or faith-group.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900
The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a ban by France on wearing the Muslim full-face veil - the niqab.
A case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman, who argued that the ban on wearing the veil in public violated her freedom of religion and expression.
French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205).
The 2010 law came in under former conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy.
A breach of the ban can also mean a wearer having to undergo citizenship instruction.
France has about five million Muslims - the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe - but it is thought only about 2,000 women wear full veils.
The court ruled that the ban "was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face". The Strasbourg judges' decision is final - there is no appeal against it.
A court statement said the ruling also "took into account the state's submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction".
"The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question."
Exceptions to ban on public face covering
Motorcycle helmets
Face-masks for health reasons
Face-covering for sporting or professional activities
Sunglasses, hats etc which do not completely hide the face
Masks used in "traditional activities", such as carnivals or religious processions
This accords with much of the comment in Andy's post of 29/06/14
I have always supported the French approach on such matters. It is clear, avoids lots of unnecessary, vexatious and potentially inflammatory argument and if applied here would have drawn some important lines regarding what religiously motivated governors can and cannot do in British schools.
I do think we have to stand up for the values of the European Enlightenment regarding democracy (only republics or constitutional monarchies allowed) freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state in relation to civic affairs..
It should be up to shops and offices whether they ban full face veils - many would do so for security reasons.
And I would also ban them while driving after having been in a near collision with a car driven by a woman with a veil which slipped over her eyes and restricted her vision.
Thus the EU ruling has set in concrete a rebuttal of the argument for the wearing these garments on the grounds of religion, which is the ubiquitous position adopted by supporters:
But that doesn't mean that women who want to wear long, flowing, dark-coloured clothes with a veil shouldn't be allowed to do so if it is their own free choice (debatable, maybe) and they are forbidden in areas where motorcycle helmets and balaclavas are not allowed.
That said, this article by a Muslim woman makes interesting reading. She says banning the burqa is a bad as the Taliban insisting women wear them BUT she goes on to say she hates the burqa and wearing it in Western countries is "just plain stupid".
The issue you introduce - personal choice - is just as it states, personal choice. I would however suggest that this is a debate for another forum not the educational aspects of what happened in Birmingham schools.
Roger and I are in accord with each other on the issue of enforced wearing of either the headscarf or veil - though more the the latter than former - by female pupils in state funded schools. Yes, a uniform is about uniformity of attire for pupils but it is unacceptable to insist on headscarves and/or veils in states schools. This is where the lack of religious grounds and weight of the law comes to the fore in eradicating and indeed prohibiting the practice. Teachers cannot adequately perceive, interpret or judge a female pupils responses with their faces fully covered save their eyes. To permit this is one step away from state schools with majority Muslim pupils introducing female teachers for girls and males for boys, which is equally unacceptable and unsupportable on the grounds of Islam as a religion and the Qur'an.
Hijabs (headscarves) are actually quote common - not just in schools but in shops. A good old British compromise - you can wear a headscarf in school if you want but it must not be flowing (for safety reasons). Schools usually stipulate a dark colour.
The important point you make is the headscarf should NOT be compulsory for any girl whatever her religion which makes the uniform requirement at this Outstanding Muslim girls' school problematic. It could be argued that enforcing the hijab would put off applications from girls of other faiths or none despite the school's avowed value of inclusion.
http://www.whittakersschoolwear.co.uk/Tauheedul-Girls-Islam-High-School
As far as the B'ham schools were concerned, was there any suggestion that governors were trying to enforce headscarves? I read that one male teacher in one of the schools (the same one who allegedly covered his ears during a music lesson) told boys changing for PE they were being immodest because they showed their thighs (my eyes are rolling as I type this) but I didn't notice anything about attempts to make headscarves compulsory for girls.
One the most chilling TV news films I have recently seen was a heavily armed ISIS soldier in Iraq telling a civilian woman to cover her hair. I am not saying that all Muslims agree with this, but for me a figure of authority in an English school insisting that schoolgirls do the same makes me very uncomfortable.
http://www.parkview.bham.sch.uk/
The potential issue is that 'optional' is not something the girl can elect or choose it will be what their parents want, which lifts the lid on all sorts of pressures. For me a state school should have a standard uniform policy and unlike a formally badged 'faith' school items of clothing such as headscarves should not form part of the uniform. The latter becomes a personal/family choice outside of school hours and in non-school activities.
I was also somewhat quizzical with the Oldknow 'Forced marriage' policy that went out of its way to delineate between 'forced' and 'arranged'. I am not wholly certain of my ground on this but seem to recollect that an arranged marriage under the age of 17 is the equivalent of 'forced'.
A forced marriage is one where people are forced to marry against their will. It's a child protection issue for children under 18 (boys as well as girls). It's encouraging a school has a policy laying down how to deal with the issue.
This Women's Aid website gives further information.
Janet, As intimated in my comments I well aware of the definitions and differences between 'Forced' and 'Arranged' marriages. My uncertainty arises from whether an 'arranged' marriage of an under 18 (e.g. 10 year old) would be deemed the equivalent of 'forced' in law. I have contacted the FMU to obtain clarification.
And I would have thought that any policy about Forced Marriages would define the distinction between "arranged" and "forced". Sometimes the terms are used simultaneously.
It seems to me therefore that to comply with safeguarding a school's policy of forced marriage needs to not only detail the difference between 'forced' and 'arranged' but also cover the minimum legal age for marriage and that anyone with British citizenship or residency entering an 'arranged' marriage will be in breach of statute and lead to criminal prosecution.
This week's Dateline London panel debate on the BBC News Channel discussed the EU Court upholding of the French ban on face covering in public.
Every member of the panel took the view that banning the veil in public was Islamophobic. Most argued that the ban was a proxy for deliberate harassment of the Muslim community by racists of various hues.
They all argued that the veil was an external symbol of being a Muslim and that therefore opposition to the veil must therefore equate to opposition to Islam. This is lazy, irrational thinking. I have already commented on the fact that our large local Buddhist community is characterised by the wearing of large red gowns/skirts, men and women alike. Nothing could be more distinctive. This causes no problem at all. Nobody objects to freedom of dress in general, including freedom of religious dress eg, monks and nuns. The objection is entirely restricted to the full face veil.
None of the panel addressed or appeared to notice the important reason given by the court for its decision.
" “The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question.”
For me this is not a religious issue at all. It is about the social convention that people respect the traditions of the community into which they enter to avoid causing offence. For example I take my hat off when I go into a church and I take my shoes off when I enter a Mosque or a Buddhist Temple.
In my youth on a visit to Germany I remember being firmly told by locals to put my shirt on while standing in a queue for a food stall in a park. Even in the UK people do not go into shops in swimming trunks or bikinis. Acceptable conventions vary according to societies.
I regard public places as civic 'temples' in which civic conventions should be observed by all those that enter them. I agree with the court that full face veils are an affront to the general western European convention that all members of a community must be recognisable by means of their face, through which various complex social messages are conveyed. Failure to observe the convention results in discomfort or suspicion from other members of the community.
Ideally Muslims would be aware of this as an issue and just not do it. In the case of a religious minority (however large) that seeks to instruct its followers to flout the polite social convention, then I think the French law is the only solution. This reduces tensions and supports social harmony.
Pages
Add new comment