Great piece Matt, couldn’t agree more. As a parent of a school child, this is an issue that deeply worries me (and many others, across the board). And yet, all we get is total radio silence on this topic from both of our main political parties. What will it take for this Conservative government to lean into this topic and come out on the side of the parents? What will it take for this Labour opposition to state without ambiguities their positions on this in the event of they getting into government?
It’s useful to remember two points regarding this issue.
Firstly that in the UK a young person is a child until they reach the age of 18.
Secondly, until this age is reached, there is parental responsibility for a range of matters including ‘choosing and providing for the child’s education'. (For the full range of responsibilities see Parental rights and responsibilities: What is parental responsibility? - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk))
On a most basic level, it’s clear that parental involvement in the materials, themes and issues taught is most important. Learning is not confined to the classroom. The best learning happens when it’s explored and embedded outside of the classroom in the child’s every day life.
A child or a young person may well (and should) turn to parents to explore issues that they’ve explored in the classroom. Creating any barrier between teachers, parents and pupils is immensely counterproductive.
Very good idea to have external materials peer-reviewed - after all, it's common practice in academia to guard against bias, poor evidence base et al.
We have had exactly the same debate in Sweden where libraries have invited drag queens to read stories to infants. If you were against that you were against HBQT persons. Well who protected the infants rights in this situation?
I'm a Civil Servant: which companies we get stationary from seemingly is getting more scrutiny and governance than which companies schools can use to teach kids.
What's interesting to me about this kind of teaching is that it seeks to accelerate natural trends, so that the pace of change increases to an extent that it creates instability.
Anyone interested in the theory behind this approach can look up 'Accelerationism', which has both right and left-wing adherents.
I grew up in a time when our parents used the N word with alacrity & routinely denigrated gay people. But my generation pushed back, had interracial social circles & often gay/lesbian friends. This natural progress to a more accepting world is now threatened. It's funny (in an ironic way) to have been part of that social liberalising wave - and I don't regret it for a moment - only to find myself considered to be a hateful bigot today, for not buying into the Accelerationist project.
Excellent piece. Could you please get some legal commentary from UK lawyers on whether the judge's decision is correct or likely to be overturned on appeal? The idea that the commercial interest of the provider (which is surely adequately protected by copyright and its ability to sue anyone who infringed by copying it) somehow restricts the parents' interest is so crazy sounding that it is hard to believe this judge isn't simply making a mistake.
I am not a lawyer and my knowldge of copyright and commercial protection is gained fom practical experience in directorships, in marketing, government contracting and in work as a radio broadcaster. My lay opinion is that "commercially sensitive" is a smokescreen. It is commonly used in situations where a government wants to avoid scrutiny of the output from a private company. There cannot be any justification for non-disclosure. Using written or documented materials in the classroom effectively places them in the public domain where they are addequately protected from exploitation by the laws of copyright. there is no disclosure of the prices or terms of the contract, only the resulting output.
There might be a complication in the case of software if full disclosure requires copies of the software program to be given to parents to run the program on their home computers. But gthey wouldn't be given the source code, so again the case fails. The alternative would be a series of screen shots and videos as shown to the children. Practically cumbersome. Another alternative is to allow parents to sit in on the classes or for the teachers to present all the material to parenyts as if in class - if you could stomach it, because much of it would be quite stomach churning.
It doesn’t matter. The point is that 99.9999% of parents are deterred by the legal process. The delay, the cost, the uncertainty make it impossible for anyone to use.
A great piece Matt, though I’m sure like the rest of us you wish you never to have write it.
My children are now adults thank goodness but, I feel extremely sad and angry that things have come to this for children now and their parents.
Not sure how busy Toby Young is with the Free Speech Union(too busy I imagine) but we could certainly do with something similar in the realm of education to start to challenge this nonsense in the courts and have a body like the FSU who has the financial clout to use the law. As another contributor says above going to court to challenge these decisions is out of reach for the majority of us.
All true Matt. “We could” do a lot to give our kids better protection from political indoctrination and sexual politics in schools. But, we won’t because most parents in this country successfully ‘contracted out’ kids’ education over a century ago. And, we’re used to trusting it.
What you’re asking won’t be getting given any encouragement under a Labour government. And to be honest, if the Tories cared about CRT and Gender Politics then it would’ve done something about it long before. But Johnson wasn’t interested and Sunak has probably left it too late - and I doubt if it’s keeping him awake either. His kids goto private schools and issues like this only affect State Schools - and he has ministers to deal with that.
So, expect us to go the way of the USA for a while longer. Maybe Kemi Badenoch’s investigation into how to differentiate gender and sex in her attempts to rewrite the Equality Act (2010) might just kick something off akin to a debate. But, I’m not holding my breath.
Infuriating and worrying. The actual numbers of the wokerati are small; but unfortunately they tend to be educated and articulate; as well as cushioned from reality by comparative comfort and security. I now don't know if I will vote at all at the next election, something I never thought I would say. The Tories stand up to this nonsense better than the other parties; but still come across as somewhat wavery and lacking the courage of their convictions. Keir Starmer is decent in many ways and in his heart a centrist (I think); but has been captured by wokeism (or left modernism or radical progressivism [progressivism? ho ho] or whatever you want to call it) to the extent that he flounders when describing a woman. This is puzzlingly stupid of him. 99.9% of the population, including the Red Wall that he really needs to win back, detest what Orwell called these 'smelly little orthodoxies'. The votes he will gain from this feeble flopping about will be very few indeed. Why are our politicians so terrified of being labelled whatever-phobic by a few angry people? They shout their insults on social media precisely because it frightens people. Take no notice, they'll drop it.
Another problem with Labour: if they don't get an overall majority they will probably form a coalition with the Lib Dems. Ed Davey as second-in-command? Please. A wokerato to end all wokerati.
Hard not to conclude that our politicians are milquetoasts. Where are the statesmen and women?
Matt, thanks for raising this topic now. Better late than never, this has been brewing for years. The radicalised 22 year old was marinated in this seven or eight years ago and is now a fully paid up member of the new militia, the transhirts, who will reliably vote Labour and make life impossible for anyone who takes a different view. It’s also clear that call this has happened under a Conservative government. We will see some empty words from Rishi, a review that never takes place or recommendations that are never implemented. Then Labour will just carry on.
As a left libertarian i am appalled by this. The tendency to amp up the politicisation of school pupils is in my view part of the elite plan. Its a quasi Maoist indoctrination approach supported by ultra left teachers unions. It’s allied with the lowering of the voting age and the importation of Immigrants (who get to protect their identity also ) as part of the racket. The people who built and sustained this country, yes the indigenous get cast aside. It really is time to resist Matt.
It would be great if I could share this on social media. Too many seem to be unaware of how bad this has become. A wake up call is needed and this piece absolutely fits the bill
The third party providers of RSE are funded by the tax payer. This funding must stop! It is outrageous that a court can choose to protect these providers in maintaining the secrecy of their RSE materials, shutting out parents. Parental rights must be protected.
Any decent and reasonably intelligent person would be full square behind you Matt. We still have the ability to force a parliamentary debate on this issue - surely a good first step? “Create or sign a petition that asks for a change to the law or to government policy. After 10,000 signatures, petitions get a response from the government. After 100,000 signatures, petitions are considered for debate in Parliament.” Would you, with your excellent contacts and networking (already proved successful over Universities) consider the wording of such a petition? I’m sure that good publicity could start a petition that would easily force a debate? What do you think?
I’m with you Matt. As we approach the forthcoming general election this must be made a subject in which all parties need to show their thinking and policies. On a different subject the same requirement needs to be made for the parties policies with regard to WHO, WEF etc plus visibility re funding and pressures from such as GF (ie Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), GAVI, Soros and other wealthiest who gain power through their fantastic wealth. Democracy has to be fought for!! The idea that these are issues people don’t care much about is patronising and occurs in an environment where their main sources of info keep these issues pretty well hidden.
Great piece Matt, couldn’t agree more. As a parent of a school child, this is an issue that deeply worries me (and many others, across the board). And yet, all we get is total radio silence on this topic from both of our main political parties. What will it take for this Conservative government to lean into this topic and come out on the side of the parents? What will it take for this Labour opposition to state without ambiguities their positions on this in the event of they getting into government?
It’s useful to remember two points regarding this issue.
Firstly that in the UK a young person is a child until they reach the age of 18.
Secondly, until this age is reached, there is parental responsibility for a range of matters including ‘choosing and providing for the child’s education'. (For the full range of responsibilities see Parental rights and responsibilities: What is parental responsibility? - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk))
On a most basic level, it’s clear that parental involvement in the materials, themes and issues taught is most important. Learning is not confined to the classroom. The best learning happens when it’s explored and embedded outside of the classroom in the child’s every day life.
A child or a young person may well (and should) turn to parents to explore issues that they’ve explored in the classroom. Creating any barrier between teachers, parents and pupils is immensely counterproductive.
Very good idea to have external materials peer-reviewed - after all, it's common practice in academia to guard against bias, poor evidence base et al.
That is precisely why many in education wish to remove parents completely and give full control to the state.
We have had exactly the same debate in Sweden where libraries have invited drag queens to read stories to infants. If you were against that you were against HBQT persons. Well who protected the infants rights in this situation?
I'm a Civil Servant: which companies we get stationary from seemingly is getting more scrutiny and governance than which companies schools can use to teach kids.
What's interesting to me about this kind of teaching is that it seeks to accelerate natural trends, so that the pace of change increases to an extent that it creates instability.
Anyone interested in the theory behind this approach can look up 'Accelerationism', which has both right and left-wing adherents.
I grew up in a time when our parents used the N word with alacrity & routinely denigrated gay people. But my generation pushed back, had interracial social circles & often gay/lesbian friends. This natural progress to a more accepting world is now threatened. It's funny (in an ironic way) to have been part of that social liberalising wave - and I don't regret it for a moment - only to find myself considered to be a hateful bigot today, for not buying into the Accelerationist project.
Excellent piece. Could you please get some legal commentary from UK lawyers on whether the judge's decision is correct or likely to be overturned on appeal? The idea that the commercial interest of the provider (which is surely adequately protected by copyright and its ability to sue anyone who infringed by copying it) somehow restricts the parents' interest is so crazy sounding that it is hard to believe this judge isn't simply making a mistake.
I believe the mother is appealing now Andy so will update
Thank you
I am not a lawyer and my knowldge of copyright and commercial protection is gained fom practical experience in directorships, in marketing, government contracting and in work as a radio broadcaster. My lay opinion is that "commercially sensitive" is a smokescreen. It is commonly used in situations where a government wants to avoid scrutiny of the output from a private company. There cannot be any justification for non-disclosure. Using written or documented materials in the classroom effectively places them in the public domain where they are addequately protected from exploitation by the laws of copyright. there is no disclosure of the prices or terms of the contract, only the resulting output.
There might be a complication in the case of software if full disclosure requires copies of the software program to be given to parents to run the program on their home computers. But gthey wouldn't be given the source code, so again the case fails. The alternative would be a series of screen shots and videos as shown to the children. Practically cumbersome. Another alternative is to allow parents to sit in on the classes or for the teachers to present all the material to parenyts as if in class - if you could stomach it, because much of it would be quite stomach churning.
It doesn’t matter. The point is that 99.9999% of parents are deterred by the legal process. The delay, the cost, the uncertainty make it impossible for anyone to use.
A great piece Matt, though I’m sure like the rest of us you wish you never to have write it.
My children are now adults thank goodness but, I feel extremely sad and angry that things have come to this for children now and their parents.
Not sure how busy Toby Young is with the Free Speech Union(too busy I imagine) but we could certainly do with something similar in the realm of education to start to challenge this nonsense in the courts and have a body like the FSU who has the financial clout to use the law. As another contributor says above going to court to challenge these decisions is out of reach for the majority of us.
All true Matt. “We could” do a lot to give our kids better protection from political indoctrination and sexual politics in schools. But, we won’t because most parents in this country successfully ‘contracted out’ kids’ education over a century ago. And, we’re used to trusting it.
What you’re asking won’t be getting given any encouragement under a Labour government. And to be honest, if the Tories cared about CRT and Gender Politics then it would’ve done something about it long before. But Johnson wasn’t interested and Sunak has probably left it too late - and I doubt if it’s keeping him awake either. His kids goto private schools and issues like this only affect State Schools - and he has ministers to deal with that.
So, expect us to go the way of the USA for a while longer. Maybe Kemi Badenoch’s investigation into how to differentiate gender and sex in her attempts to rewrite the Equality Act (2010) might just kick something off akin to a debate. But, I’m not holding my breath.
Infuriating and worrying. The actual numbers of the wokerati are small; but unfortunately they tend to be educated and articulate; as well as cushioned from reality by comparative comfort and security. I now don't know if I will vote at all at the next election, something I never thought I would say. The Tories stand up to this nonsense better than the other parties; but still come across as somewhat wavery and lacking the courage of their convictions. Keir Starmer is decent in many ways and in his heart a centrist (I think); but has been captured by wokeism (or left modernism or radical progressivism [progressivism? ho ho] or whatever you want to call it) to the extent that he flounders when describing a woman. This is puzzlingly stupid of him. 99.9% of the population, including the Red Wall that he really needs to win back, detest what Orwell called these 'smelly little orthodoxies'. The votes he will gain from this feeble flopping about will be very few indeed. Why are our politicians so terrified of being labelled whatever-phobic by a few angry people? They shout their insults on social media precisely because it frightens people. Take no notice, they'll drop it.
Another problem with Labour: if they don't get an overall majority they will probably form a coalition with the Lib Dems. Ed Davey as second-in-command? Please. A wokerato to end all wokerati.
Hard not to conclude that our politicians are milquetoasts. Where are the statesmen and women?
Matt, thanks for raising this topic now. Better late than never, this has been brewing for years. The radicalised 22 year old was marinated in this seven or eight years ago and is now a fully paid up member of the new militia, the transhirts, who will reliably vote Labour and make life impossible for anyone who takes a different view. It’s also clear that call this has happened under a Conservative government. We will see some empty words from Rishi, a review that never takes place or recommendations that are never implemented. Then Labour will just carry on.
As a left libertarian i am appalled by this. The tendency to amp up the politicisation of school pupils is in my view part of the elite plan. Its a quasi Maoist indoctrination approach supported by ultra left teachers unions. It’s allied with the lowering of the voting age and the importation of Immigrants (who get to protect their identity also ) as part of the racket. The people who built and sustained this country, yes the indigenous get cast aside. It really is time to resist Matt.
It would be great if I could share this on social media. Too many seem to be unaware of how bad this has become. A wake up call is needed and this piece absolutely fits the bill
Yes you just post the link to the online version
Agreed. Can it be shared? (Not too au fait about these things myself...)
Yes you just post the link to the online version
I had a dream that we had a CONSERVATIVE government, not this lily livered lapdog of the Marxist Left and China.
The third party providers of RSE are funded by the tax payer. This funding must stop! It is outrageous that a court can choose to protect these providers in maintaining the secrecy of their RSE materials, shutting out parents. Parental rights must be protected.
Why do the third party providers want to hide their material from parents??? Because they know the parents will be horrified.
Any decent and reasonably intelligent person would be full square behind you Matt. We still have the ability to force a parliamentary debate on this issue - surely a good first step? “Create or sign a petition that asks for a change to the law or to government policy. After 10,000 signatures, petitions get a response from the government. After 100,000 signatures, petitions are considered for debate in Parliament.” Would you, with your excellent contacts and networking (already proved successful over Universities) consider the wording of such a petition? I’m sure that good publicity could start a petition that would easily force a debate? What do you think?
I’m with you Matt. As we approach the forthcoming general election this must be made a subject in which all parties need to show their thinking and policies. On a different subject the same requirement needs to be made for the parties policies with regard to WHO, WEF etc plus visibility re funding and pressures from such as GF (ie Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), GAVI, Soros and other wealthiest who gain power through their fantastic wealth. Democracy has to be fought for!! The idea that these are issues people don’t care much about is patronising and occurs in an environment where their main sources of info keep these issues pretty well hidden.