Schools are told they must be politically impartial in what they teach and discuss. But what is political impartiality, and who decides?
In the US, an increasing number of Republican states have taken the approach of telling schools what they must not teach (usually anything connected with raising awareness of racism, sexual prejudice, and social injustice), and what they must not prevent from being discussed (any views which, in the name of ‘balance’ challenge concerns with racism, sexual prejudice, or social justice).
In England, the Conservative Government has issued guidance to schools in an attempt to push a similar agenda but to appear less overtly reactionary. However, one has to wonder if its lack of clarity is deliberate in facilitating the advancement of reactionary ideas, albeit in an obfuscating manner.
For example, the guidance says that topics “which are particularly contentious and disputed” (such as historical events, especially when these relate to “empire and imperialism”) should be taught “in a balanced manner”.’ But what is ‘balanced’? There are Conservatives who have been adamant that detractors of Britain’s past imperial triumphs should not be allowed to put forward their views in schools. Should the guidance be interpreted as requiring any criticism of imperial oppression be ‘balanced’ by a glowing account of the glory of empire? Yet do the two sides always balance out? We cannot assume that every contested issue can simply be resolved by the ‘balancing’ act of giving equal weight to both sides of the conflict.
The advice offered by the government guidance maintains that when it comes to “significant” political figures – “including those who have controversial and contested legacies” – teachers should “focus on teaching about what these figures are most renowned for and factual information about them if teachers think pupils may not be able to understand the contested nature of more complex analyses of their lives, beliefs and actions”. Many Conservative politicians are unhappy with figures such as Churchill being criticised for any views or actions when he should just be idolised as a national hero. But if ‘contested’ is taken to cover any view which is rejected by some politicians, then politicians can stop any idea from being taught or discussed just by contesting its validity. More widely, none of us would learn much about our past if our knowledge is to be fossilised by what historical figures/events were once ‘most renowned for’, regardless of what new research might bring to light. Should we, for example, look back on the Opium War as a shining example of British military prowess and commercial expansionism, or consider it a regrettable use of force to impose the sale of a harmful narcotic on a country that wanted to stamp it out?
The problematic invocation of ‘contested’ goes beyond history to contemporary affairs. Schools are assured they can teach climate change, but “where teaching covers the potential solutions for tackling climate change, this may constitute a political issue”. And the implication is that, since a political issue is by its nature a contested issue, no policy solution (for climate change or any other societal challenge, for that matter) should be explored with pupils unless there is no political argument about it at all.
Ultimately, if any politician – who is misguided, poorly informed, prejudiced, or holding extremist views – can stop any topic from being considered in schools by contesting it, then nothing much that is sensible about politics and society can be taught.
The Education Secretary (Nadhim Zahawi) may insist that “no subject is off-limits in the classroom”. But in adding the critical proviso that it must be done “without promoting contested theories as fact”, he is allowing even facts to be taken off the table so long as someone is prepared to contest them. Of course, one way to deal with this conundrum is to allow established scholars and recognised experts to differentiate credible claims, reasonable hypotheses, disputed assertions, and dubious statements. Their consensus will form the basis for determining what is reasonable to consider in schools.
By contrast, the views of partisan politicians would be the last thing we want in grounding political impartiality.
-
See ‘Guidance on political impartiality in English classrooms ‘confusing’ say teachers’ unions’
Richard Adams, Guardian, 17 February 2022.
No comments:
Post a Comment