Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts

Tuesday 31 January 2023

Brent Green Party sends message of solidarity to striking Brent NEU members

The news that National Education Union members in Brent will be striking on February 1st is welcomed by Brent Green Party, who together with  the Green Party of England Wales as a whole, support all workers taking part in the current strike actions.


We recognise that NEU members are making just claims for pay increases that at least give some respite from the pressures of inflation which is outpacing the incomes of many except wealthy cabinet ministers and donors to Tory party coffers.


We know that the issue is not just pay, the NEU strikes and others are in defence of proper public provision in such vital areas such as education, health and transport. A viable low carbon economy can only be built on these foundations, so the strikes of the NEU members in Brent and many other trade unionists are an important part of wider struggles which are vital to us all.


SOLIDARITY TO THE NEU! SOLIDARITY TO STRIKERS!


Peter Murry, Trade Union Liaison Officer, Brent Green Party

Monday 16 January 2023

NEU teachers vote in overwhelming numbers for strike action. Local strike days 1st February, 2nd March, 15th March, 16th March

 

Teachers in England and Wales have voted overwhelmingly for strike action in one of the biggest ballot seem for years. Support staff in Wales also voted for strike action as did those in England, but the latter did not meet the 50% of eligible members voting threshold.

The NAHT also balloted and again members voted for action but did not meet the threshold. It was a disappoining result as school leaders, teacher and support staff all strking would have been extremely powerful but as it is the NEU vote is very strong. After the announcement the NAHT put out this statement:

 

School leaders’ union to consider re-running industrial action ballot due to postal disruption, as leaders in England and Wales vote to take action

School leaders’ union NAHT, which represents leaders in the majority of schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, today (Mon 16 Jan) announces the results of its formal industrial action ballots on pay and funding, which began on Fri 11 November and closed on Weds 11 Jan.

The ballot results in England show an extraordinarily strong appetite for taking industrial action amongst leaders, with 87% voting ‘Yes’ to action short of strike (ASOS) and 64% voting ‘Yes’ to strike.

This means almost 10,000 school leaders across England are willing to take industrial action.

However, the legal requirement for turnout in England was not met, with votes counted for 42% of the union’s membership – short of the 50% needed.

Paul Whiteman, NAHT general secretary, said: “It is incredibly frustrating that anti-trade union and anti-democratic legislation compelled us to conduct the ballot by post during a period in which the management of the Royal Mail refused to take action to ameliorate the disruption to the postal service.”

There is a sharp contrast between the turnout in NAHT’s electronic consultative ballot for England, which received 64%, and the postal ballot that was restricted by the legislation.

In the final week of the ballot, NAHT surveyed those that had recently requested a ballot paper and 73% of respondents said they had still not received one.

Mr Whiteman continued: “We have to conclude that our democratic process has been compromised by factors outside of our control.

“It is ironic that legislation which the government claims protects the democratic rights of members has actively worked against that objective by not affording an alternative means of voting or allowing a clear ability to extend the deadline. It is notable that elections for party leaders are not constrained in the same way.

“There has been a very strong appetite for action from those we have heard from, with a higher percentage voting ‘Yes’ to both strike and action short of strike than in our consultative online ballot. It is clear our members’ resolve to stand up for themselves and for education has only hardened.

“It is my first priority that we conduct ourselves as a truly democratic union, which means every member’s vote must be counted. If our members feel that they have not had the chance to be heard during this ballot, it may be that we have no option but to start again. The National Executive Committee will meet this week to establish our next steps.

“I warn the government that they are on notice. 10,000 thousand school leaders have made it clear that they are at breaking point with the way things are. That is something that must be listened to. We remain formally in dispute with the government. If progress is not made urgently NAHT members will not be able to keep the show on the road and I have no doubt they will join their NAHT colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland in taking action.”

School leaders in Wales have voted decisively to take industrial action. NAHT Cyrmu today announces that 95% of its members have voted ‘Yes’ to action short of strike, and 75% have voted ‘Yes’ to strike, with a 55% turnout.

NAHT’s analysis shows that postal disruption was less of a factor in Wales. 96% of the duplicate ballot papers requested were in England.

Mr Whiteman said: “The results of the ballot in Wales are unprecedented and reflect the sheer strength of feeling among school leaders in Wales that the system is broken. They feel they have no choice but to stand up and fight for themselves and for the children and staff in their schools.

“School leaders are relentlessly reasonable people and they have held their schools together throughout a decade of underfunding of education, eroded salaries, and a pandemic. But our members are telling me now that they cannot continue to run their schools in the current circumstances.

“Insufficient pay has caused a severe recruitment and retention crisis, and the lack of resources, funding, services and staff means that the education and support that can be given to pupils is suffering as a consequence. School leaders are doing their best with what little they have, but with their own salaries expected to be worth as much as 22% less this year than in 2010, many are reaching breaking point.

“No school leaders would take industrial action lightly and we will now return to our National Executive Committee to agree what the action voted for will look like and when it will take place. But this is a huge wake up call for Local Authority employers and the Welsh Government. For school leaders to be driven to voting to strike means things have gone very wrong indeed. They urgently need to listen to our members’ concerns and to take action to avoid the consequences of the industrial action to come.”

School leaders in Wales will join their colleagues in Northern Ireland in taking action. Members of NAHT Northern Ireland have been engaged in action short of strike since 18 October 2022.

Notes to editors:

For workers to take legal industrial action, union ballots must reach a 50% turn out. In England, for members in 'important public services’, such as education, at least 40% of all those entitled to vote must vote in favour.

NAHT balloted approximately 25,500 eligible members. This included serving school leaders in state funded schools in England and Wales, but excluded various member categories such as School Business Leaders whose salaries are covered by different bargaining arrangements, not the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB). There are 24,413 schools in England.

In England, the union’s dispute is with the government, i.e. the Secretary of State for Education. In Wales, the dispute is with school leaders’ employers i.e. Local Authorities.

In October, NAHT conducted an online survey, to establish members’ views on pay and funding. In that survey, 84% of respondents indicated they would be willing to take action short of strike, and 55% of respondents indicated they would be willing to strike.


Thursday 21 February 2019

This Friday in London: Teachers to bring Climate Truth to the Department for Education

Greta Thunberg's speech made earlier today on Video (In English) LINK

From Extinction Rebellion

Teachers, supported by Extinction Rebellion, will be protesting at the Department for Education on Friday 22 February 2019 to demand that the climate and ecological emergency is made an educational priority. As it stands a student could easily go through state education and hear climate change mentioned in fewer than 10 lessons out of approximately 10,000. This will be a peaceful nonviolent protest that may involve non-violent direct action.

Gathering from 12, midday at Old Palace Yard, Westminster, protesters will march to the Department for Education for 1pm (20 Great Smith Street, SW1P 3BT). Facebook event is here.

Speakers at the event will include Professor David Humphreys (Open University), Dr Anne Andrews (Cambridge University) and Dr Alison Green, who recently stepped down from her Pro Vice-Chancellor role to focus on full-time climate activism and who authored a letter published last week which was signed by over 200 academics in support of the Youth 4 Climate Strike.

The Department for Education is not enacting the Paris agreement

A central plank of the protest is the fact that the Department for Education is not enacting the landmark Paris climate agreement – which the British Government signed up to – which states: “Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as appropriate, to enhance climate change education.” (Article 12 Paris Climate Agreement) 

There is currently no requirement nor any guidance on how to teach children about the climate crisis. Academies may not cover these topics at all, as they can be more selective about what they teach. One of the very few mentions of climate change in the National Curriculum for Science refers to the “evidence, and uncertainties in evidence, for anthropogenic climate change.”

Safi Yule, a 16 year old student from North London said:
 “I was lucky my parents told me about climate change but I should have got more information from my school, which didn’t teach this at all. I wish schools would pay as much attention to issues like this, which will change my world as much as me getting my grades at exams.”

Tim Jones, a secondary school teacher and an organiser from Lewisham in London, said: “Climate and ecological breakdown will define the life of every child and student alive today. They and we are facing an unimaginable catastrophe. But when I tell my students, it’s hard for them to take me seriously when it plays almost no part in the content of their education.”

Ex-teacher and head of department, Oliver Hayes, said: “It is clear from scenes last Friday – with thousands of children taking to the streets in more than 60 towns and cities across the UK for the Youth Strike 4 Climate – that children are standing up and saying enough is enough. Worryingly, this emergency has been almost ignored in teaching, especially in state secondary schools. It is taught as a difficult, peripheral and distant issue. Students need to know not only the truth about what is happening to their planet but also what needs to be done about it.”

Letter to the Department for Education

Teachers for Climate Truth sent a letter to the Department for Education on 6th February asking for three changes to the curriculum:
  • That the ecological and climate crisis is immediately announced as an educational priority.
  • That well-founded and evidence-based training is provided for teachers to convey this message, including the scientific and economic causes of the crisis, what governments and society need to do about it, and also on how to support young people when taking on this information. This should be implemented by no later than September 2019.
  • An immediate overhaul of the current curriculum, in the light of scientific evidence and without political interference, aimed at preparing children for the realities of their future on this planet.
The Department for Education response notes that there is coverage of the science and processes involved in changing weather patterns and they mention a new Environmental Science A-level. This is not good enough: it comes nowhere near providing students with an understanding of the realities and implications of the climate and ecological crisis.

“It is incredibly important: if there are only 10 lessons on climate change, that is awful,” said Scarlett Possnett, 15, from Suffolk. “And there’s not a single lesson telling us how to address it. Our government knows the solutions and yet will not take steps to implement them.”

200 academics sign letter of support for Youth Strike 4 Climate

Last week over 200 academics signed a letter in support of the Youth 4 Climate Strike. [2] Noting some of devastating impacts of climate change, the letter states, “It is with these tragic and desperate events in mind that we offer our full support to the students – some of whom may well aspire to be the academics of the future – who bravely plan to strike on 15 February to demand that the UK government takes climate action.”

There are no better words than those of Greta Thunberg – the 16 year old Swedish climate activist who created the School Strike for Climate movement that’s rapidly expanding around the world:
 “What is the point of learning facts when the most important facts clearly mean nothing to our society?” (More here.)
Alex Forbes, nursery teacher and Extinction Rebellion supporter believes:
 “The government has failed our children, not only is there so little on the climate and ecological climate crisis, there is nothing on how to stop it, about the impacts of increasing consumerism and our throwaway society.

“Schools are increasingly pressured to prepare students for exams, with little about the challenges of the real world. Due to government policy staff and students have to focus on tests and results, there is little rounded education.” 
Dr Alison Green of Extinction Rebellion:
“Children should be taught about the connection between our way of life – including the economic and political factors – and the impact it has on the ecosystem in which we live, the consequences of this way of life for us and the planet. Climate and Ecology should be taught as a discrete subject and embedded throughout the curriculum.

“Students should be taught, with adequate support, to think critically about the very real and significant ecological and societal problems of our times, and the possible futures that might ensue. Lessons in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics and the Social Sciences need to be based on up-to-date evidence from reliable sources. While the curriculum needs to reflect the concerns raised in the IPCC reports, it must acknowledge that the IPCC, as a consensual body (including both scientists and politicians), has consistently underestimated the rate at which climate change is happening.”

Text of Extinction Rebellion’s Letter to the Department for Education
“To the Ministers and Employees of the Department for Education
6th Feb 2019
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told us last October that we have 12 years to radically change every aspect of society if we are to avoid disaster. Highly regarded scientists, like Peter Wadhams, have highlighted the political restrictedness of the IPCC and the glaring omissions and over-simplifications of its report. We must accept the likelihood that 12 years is a vastly over- generous window of opportunity. We have killed 60% of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish since 1970. Insect populations are collapsing, coral reefs are bleached and dead, natural disasters are worsening, crops are failing, forests are being felled or burning and forced migration is beginning.
“If we keep this information out of the public domain – out of schools, for example – perhaps we might avoid some awkward conversations in the years to come. We could say we never knew. After all, who wants to tell a child that, unless we make unprecedented changes to how we live, we are heading for societal collapse, famine, war and the increasing likelihood of human extinction? Telling the truth exposes us to the responsibility of facing it ourselves. Which is exactly why we must tell our children: not simply to inform them (many are far better informed than older generations) but also so that we can be held to account for our own actions. We must follow the example of the brave young people who will, on coming Fridays, be striking from school to demand truth and action.
“When we have had the evidence for decades, why does it amount to little more than a footnote in our national curriculum – a vague and marginal concern? Geography lessons cover the basic theory but in the national curriculum for Science the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is described as ‘uncertain’. The issue could be mentioned in as few as four Science lessons in the entire course of secondary education. In academies there may be no mention at all. If not in schools, where should the public learn about where our way of life is taking us? Power knows the value of ignorance. Our Government is increasing subsidies for fossil fuels while presiding over an educational system that effectively denies the consequences of such a policy.
“Imagine if we had the courage to make our schools places where students learned how to repair the damage we have caused. If we have the courage to act now they could be the ones to revive our dying soil, regenerate biodiversity and rebuild the ecosystems that sustain us. But we must act now. We must teach students more than just how to pass tests. We must give them the opportunity to discover what is wonderful and life-giving. And we must urgently equip them with the skills, insight and courage to face what is coming. To do otherwise is an act of criminal negligence.
The evidence tells us that any imagined future for which we are currently preparing our young people is a dream that will never be realised. The lives of every one of our children will be defined by the effects of climate and ecological breakdown. We therefore make the following demands:
“1. The ecological and climate crisis is immediately announced as an educational priority.
“2. Well-founded and evidence-based training is provided for teachers to convey this message,
including the scientific and economic causes of the crisis, what governments and society need to
do about it and also on how to support young people when taking on this information. This
should be implemented by no later than September 2019.
“3. An immediate overhaul of the current curriculum, in the light of scientific evidence and without
political interference, aimed at preparing children for the realities of their future on this planet.
“Please – because we love our children so much – let’s teach them the truth.
We await your response with due impatience and loving rage: schoolsforclimatetruth@gmail.com

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Work in a school? This event is especially for you


Book HERE

Message from the organisers:

There's definitely cause for celebration when we have the world's best teacher, Andria Zafirakou in our midst!  It's time to recognise the great work that so many are doing, day in day out, with children and young people in Brent and beyond.  Are you one of them?  Then you need to be at this event!  Let us show you some appreciation! 

What is the event all about?

A chance for educational professionals and anyone that works with children in Brent, Harrow and the surrounding areas to come together as a family and celebrate their contribution over a buffet dinner, whilst helping a worthy children's cause!
This event is both a networking opportunity for teachers and others in the field and a fundraiser for a successful holistic education charity project (Gift a Smile) looking to connect with UK schools. 

The International Association for Human Values along with the Art of Living Foundation are putting on this event to raise awareness of their children and youth programmes (ART Excel for 8-12 year olds and YES! Youth Empowerment Seminar for teens) and free holistic school provision in the developing world via the unique Gift a Smile programme.  Please do visit: http://www.iahv.org.uk/project/gift-a-smile/ to find out more.

EduGreat! would not be possible without the kind donations of local residents and businesses who will also be recognised on the day. Thank you!

FAQs

What's the order of the evening?
5 - 5.30pm Connect with Colleagues
5.30 - 6pm Presentations
6pm - 6.45pm Vegetarian Buffet Meal
6.45pm Raffle Prize Draw
7 - 8pm Live Music Performance 

Do I need to attend the event from beginning to end?
Please time your entry between 5 - 5.30pm so that presentations are not disturbed, however, it is entirely your choice how long you stay on for.

Are children welcome?
YES! This is a family friendly event and craft activities courtesy of Holistic Happy Birthdays and Scribble Arts have been organised to keep them entertained! 

Is alcohol/smoking permitted?
Strictly NOT.

What are my transport/parking options for getting to and from the event?
Wembley Park Tube on the Met and Jubilee lines is just a 2 min walk away.
Side Road parking off Chakhill Rd or use the Asda car park on Forty Lane (free for 3 hrs).
Pay n Display parking on Bridge Road/Wembley Park station car park available too.

How can I contact the organiser with any questions?
Please call or msg: 07946 542 876

Do I have to bring my printed ticket to the event?
Let's save paper - just show the eventbrite confirmation received on your phone.


Thursday 13 April 2017

Teachers invited to celebrate Welsh Harp Centre & find out about its outdoor learning programme


Teachers and pupils in Brent fought hard against the proposed closure of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre and it was saved when the Thames21charity took it over from Brent Council.

This is a message for Brent teachers and educatiors from Thames21

Teachers and Educators – join us by the campfire!

Thames21 is hosting an open afternoon at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre in Brent, for teachers and educators.

This get together is being held to celebrate our first anniversary of managing the site and to share our outdoor learning programme.

There are a wealth of opportunities for developing the centre and we’re really keen to hear what other ‘outside of the classroom’ learning activities people are interested in attending there.

We’ll host a tour of the site and give a camp fire lighting demonstration after which you can cook up your own tasty treats.

We’re meeting from 4.30pm – 6pm, so feel free to drop in at any time.

To book your spot, please get in touch with Edel Fingleton, Thames21’s Education Coordinator, at edel.fingleton@thames21.org.uk or by telephone on 07734 871 728 to book your spot.

Wednesday 22 March 2017

Merged teacher amalgamation will be 'a mighty force for progress'


Later today the ATL and NUT will officially announce the results of their unity ballots to amalgamate the two unions and to create of the National Education Union (NEU).
UNIFY, a cross union body, is confident that the majority of teachers and support staff recognise the need for, and support, greater unity and that the results will be a decisive YES.
Hank Roberts, Organising Secretary of UNIFY said:
We have been campaigning for a massive advance like this for 20 years. It will change the face of education in our country. It will not be panacea, but it will make us seriously stronger and better able to challenge the Government’s planned continuation of the privatisation of our state education system and the huge funding cutbacks currently proposed.
Our next step has to be to move to take this burgeoning unity further. The NEU union will be over 400,000 strong. A union of all education workers would be one million strong. A mighty force for progress.
Our congratulations to all the members, Officers and Officials of both unions who made it happen. And also to our own activists and supporters for all their efforts over the years. Time to move forward. A new dawn awaits.

Sunday 13 November 2016

EDUCATION - INVEST, DON'T CUT March & Rally Nov 17th


The cuts being implemented by the Conservative Government put education at risk. Increased funding is desperately needed to safeguard our children’s education. We are asking the Government to change course and invest, not cut.

What the NUT wants:
  • School funding – Extra money in the system to support reform of the funding system – and more money for all schools to fund higher costs and the impact of inflation.
  • Post 16 funding – Restoration of cuts already made – and real support for sixth form colleges.
  • Send and early years funding – fair funding for these vital areas of education
  • Funding in Wales – an end to the funding gap.
Invest Don’t Cut Education Funding Rallies

The rallies are an opportunity to make policy makers listen to our concerns about the impact of education funding cuts, and act on our demands to increase education funding. Spread the word and encourage colleagues, friends, family and neighbours to attend and support our aims.

London NUT March and Rally - Thursday 17 November 2016
Assemble for March: 17:00, Whitehall, (Opposite Downing Street)
Rally: 18:30, Emmanuel Centre, Marsham Street, SW1P 3DW

Monday 24 October 2016

"If the community sees [PREVENT] as a problem, then you have a problem”


Image for earlier report by Rights Watch LINK

Earlier this month Brent Council organised a public discussion on Extremism at which the majority of the audience appeared to be opposed to the Prevent Strategy - not because they were in favour of 'Extremism' but because they saw the strategy as sterotyping the Muslim community and being implemented in a top-down way which excluded community organisations. Additionally it threatened free speech in schools and colleges and had a corrosive effect on good community relations.  Overall it was likely to be counter-productive.

Now Open Society has taken up many of these issues in a report entitled Eroding Trust: The UK's PREVENT Counter Extremism Strategy in Health and Education LINK

Concerned organisations in Brent has set up a Monitoring Group on Prevent on Facebook which can be found HERE.

As a contribution to the Brent debate I publish below the Executive Summary of the Open Society Report:
“I’ve never felt not British. And this [Prevent experience] made me feel very, very, like they tried to make me feel like an outsider. We live here. I am born and bred here, not from anywhere else”.
“It could have gone the opposite way if I wasn’t thinking straight, if I were the type who was being brainwashed. The way they went about it, [Prevent] could have made me do exactly what they told me not to do. I associate with Prevent negatively, it is not helpful at all”
 Executive Summary and Recommendations


The UK’s Prevent strategy, which purports to prevent terrorism, creates a serious risk of human rights violations. The programme is flawed in both its design and application, rendering it not only unjust but also counterproductive. 
Launched in 2003, the Prevent strategy has evolved against the background of increased public fears over the threat of “home grown” terrorism. The strategy in its cur- rent form aims “to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”. In 2015, legislation created a statutory Prevent duty on schools, universities, and NHS trusts, among other public sector entities, to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. This requires doctors, psychologists, and teachers, among other health and education professionals, to identify individuals at risk of being drawn into terrorism (including violent and non-violent “extremism”) for referral to the police-led multi-agency “Channel” programme (for England and Wales) or “Prevent Professional Concerns” (for Scotland), both of which purport to “support” such individuals. 
This report analyses the human rights impact of Prevent in its current form in the education and health sectors. It focuses on these sectors because they are critically dependent on trust and have particular care-giving functions that have not traditionally been directed towards preventing terrorism. Under Prevent, doctors and teachers who have a professional duty to care for their charges are now required to assess and report them for being at risk of “extremism”, which is defined as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Because the conscription of these sectors into preventing terrorism is part of a growing trend, the report’s principal findings, listed below, not only apply to the United Kingdom, but are relevant and instructive for other governments grappling with these challenges. 
First, the current Prevent strategy suffers from multiple, mutually reinforcing structural flaws, the foreseeable consequence of which is a serious risk of human rights violations. These violations include, most obviously, violations of the right against discrimination, as well the right to freedom of expression, among other rights. Prevent’s structural flaws include the targeting of “pre-criminality”, “non- violent extremism”, and opposition to “British values”. This “intensifies” the government’s reach into “everyday lawful discourse”. Furthermore, Prevent’s targeting of non-violent extremism and “indicators” of risk of being drawn into terrorism lack a scientific basis. Indeed, the claim that non-violent extremism – including “radical” or religious ideology – is the precursor to terrorism has been widely discredited by the British government itself, as well as numerous reputable scholars. Prevent training, much of it based on unreliable indicators, appears to be largely unregulated. Moreover, the statutory duty creates an incentive to over- refer. This incentive is reinforced by the adverse consequences associated with non-compliance with the Prevent duty and the lack of adverse consequences for making erroneous referrals. The case studies and interviews in this report confirm the tendency to over-refer individuals under Prevent. The fundamental nature of these defects makes them unlikely to be cured by a mere renaming of Prevent to “Engage”.

Second, Prevent’s overly broad and vague definition of “non-violent extremism” creates the potential for systemic human rights abuses. On the basis of this definition, schools, universities, and NHS trusts, among other “specified authorities” subject to the Prevent duty, are required to assess the risk of children, students, and patients being drawn into terrorism and report them to the police-led Channel programme where necessary. By the government’s own admission, thou- sands of people have been erroneously referred to the Channel programme. Individuals (including children) erroneously referred under Prevent experience the referral as inherently stigmatising and intensely intimidating. They also fear continued surveillance and the creation and retention of Prevent records, which may taint them and lead others to view them as “extremists” in the future. 
Specifically, the targeting of non-violent extremism raises serious concerns about possible violations of the right to freedom of expression. Children in schools have been targeted under Prevent for expressing political views. University conferences relating to Islamophobia and Islam in Europe have been cancelled, raising questions of possible breaches under the Education Act (1986) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case studies and interviews in this report suggest that Prevent has created a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression in schools and universities, and undermined trust between teachers and students. This risks driving underground, removed from debate and challenge, conversations about controversial issues such as terrorism. In addition, as indicated by the large number of interviewees for this report who requested anonymity, there is a genuine and intensely held fear among some that public criticism of Prevent will trigger retaliation. This fear is particularly acute for parents who fear that their children will bear the brunt of the retaliation. 
Third, the Prevent duty creates a risk of discrimination, particularly against Muslims. Frontline professionals have broad discretion to act on their conscious or unconscious biases in deciding whom to report under Prevent. Current and former police leads for Prevent recognise that currently, Prevent operates in a cli- mate marked by Islamophobia. Significantly, between July 2015 and July 2016, Islamophobic crime in London rose by 94 percent. This climate creates the risk that Muslims in particular may be erroneously targeted under Prevent. All of the case studies relating to the targeting of individuals under Prevent raise serious questions about whether they would have been targeted in this manner had they not been Muslim. Relatedly, in some case studies, Muslims appear to have been targeted under Prevent for displaying signs of increased religiosity, raising questions about the violation of their right to manifest their religion.
Fourth, by requiring the identification and reporting of individuals at risk of violent and non-violent extremism, Prevent creates a risk of violations of the right to privacy. Many of the case studies describe individuals being intrusively questioned under intimidating conditions about their religious and/or political beliefs. One case study raises troubling questions about the collection (apparently without informed consent) of names and political opinions from Muslim children for the Home Office.

Fifth, there are serious concerns about the treatment of children under Prevent. Although the government describes Prevent as a form of “safeguarding” (a statutory term which denotes promotion of welfare and protection from harm), the two sets of obligations have materially different aims, particularly with respect to children. In contrast to the Prevent strategy, for which the primary objective is preventing terrorism, the primary objective of the duty to safeguard children under domestic legislation is the welfare of the child. This reflects the obligation under article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in all actions relating to children. Accordingly, while compliance with safeguarding obligations would only permit referral to Channel while prioritising the best interests of the child, the Channel duty guidance does not specify that as a mandatory or even a relevant consideration. All of the case studies in this report relating to children – including one in which a four year-old child was targeted– appear to be instances in which the best interests of the child were not a primary consideration. 
Sixth, the Prevent duty risks breaching health bodies’ duty of confidentiality towards their patients and undermining the relationship between health professionals and their patients. The standard for disclosure of confidential information under Prevent appears to be much lower than that warranted by the common law duty of confidentiality enshrined in the NHS confidentiality code of practice and the General Medical Council’s confidentiality guidance. Specifically, requiring a medical professional to report to the police-led Channel programme an individual who is at “risk of being drawn into terrorism”, including “non-violent extremism”, appears to be a much lower standard than requiring the medical professional to report (under the GMC guidance) the individual only when failure to disclose confidential information would expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. This could generate breaches of the confidentiality duty along with violations of the right to private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Finally, there are serious indications that Prevent is counterproductive. The case studies show that being wrongly targeted under Prevent has led some Muslims to question their place in British society. Other adults wrongfully targeted under Prevent have said that, had they been different, their experience of Prevent could have drawn them towards terrorism, and not away from it. Government data reveal that 80% of all Channel referrals were set aside, implying that there were thousands of individuals wrongly referred to Channel. This in turn risks under- mining the willingness of targeted communities to supply intelligence to law enforcement officials which could be used to prevent terrorist acts.
 
As Sir David Omand, the architect of the original version of Prevent, has observed: “The key issue is, do most people in the community accept [Prevent] as protective of their rights? If the community sees it as a problem, then you have a problem”. This report demonstrates that the UK’s Prevent strategy is indeed a serious problem. 
Recommendations

To the UK Government:

1.     Repeal the Prevent duty with respect to the health and education sectors. 

2.     End the targeting and reporting of “non-violent extremism” under the Prevent strategy. 

3.     End the use of empirically unsupported indicators of vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism. 

4.     Establish an independent public inquiry – with civil society participation – into the Prevent strategy and associated rights violations. 

5.     Create a formal and independent complaints mechanism through which individu- als whose rights have been violated by the Prevent strategy can seek and obtain prompt and meaningful remedies. 

6.     Publicly commit to a policy of zero tolerance regarding retaliation against indi- viduals who allege rights violations under Prevent. 

7.     Publicly disclose data on total number of individuals referred to and processed through Prevent, Channel, and Prevent Professional Concerns (PPC), as well a the breakdown of these figures by age, type of extremism, and referring authority. 

8.     Publicly disclose, to the extent it exists, evidence underpinning and data relating to the UK’s Extremism Risk Guidance (ERG) 22+. 


To the Children’s Commissioners for England, Wales, and Scotland:

Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent on children, including but not limited to whether the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in Prevent-related actions. 
To the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Union of Teachers, and other teachers associations: 
Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent on teachers and children, including but not limited to the extent to which the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in Prevent-related actions.

To Universities UK:

Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent in universities, including but not limited to its impact on academic freedom and freedom of speech. 
To the General Medical Council: 
Review and clarify professional standards relating to the duty of confidentiality as interpreted and applied in Prevent settings. 
To the British Medical Association, the British Psychological Society,
the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and other professional bodies in the health sector: 
Conduct an assessment of the impact of Prevent on the practice of doctors, psychologists and other healthcare professionals, and on patients and patient care, including but not limited to an assessment of how the duty of confidentiality is being interpreted and applied in Prevent settings.

Tuesday 6 September 2016

Lack of BME teachers in English schools revealed but Brent presents a better picture

From Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has revealed a chronic lack of Black and Ethnic Minority (BME) teachers in English schools.

The Bureau found that:

Just 7.6% of teachers in state schools in England are people of colour compared with almost 25% of pupils.

97% of English state school headteachers are white.
Teachers are only fractionally more ethnically diverse than MPs in England.


South Tyneside, Newcastle upon Tyne and Middlesbrough need more than a tenfold increase in the number of BME teachers for staff to reflect their pupil populations. (See attached spreadsheet for full league table).


Responding to the findings, Chris Keates, general secretary of teachers union NASUWT said: “It is clearly unacceptable and it is also disgraceful. Education is such a powerful determiner of life chances. All children and people working within education should be treated with dignity and with access to equality. That clearly is not happening.”

The lack of BME teachers making it to leadership positions is seen as a major deterrent to would-be recruits. “There is a lack of fair and transparent recruitment procedures for interviews and a lack of awareness training for schools on equality issues,” Keates said.

Professor Alistair Ross from London Metropolitan University agreed: “You can’t put your finger on a single appointment and say “that’s a racist decision” but if you look at the disparity of outcomes nationally then there is the presumption that racism, perhaps unwittingly, is taking place.”

Attitudes to teaching from within the BME community are also regarded as a factor. Figures obtained by the Bureau show that only 13% of postgraduate trainee teachers in the 2014/2015 academic year were BME, compared with 35% of people studying medicine, dentistry and law at higher education institutions.

“Amongst the Asian community teaching is thought not to be regarded highly,” Ross said. “Law and medicine are considered much more reputable professions to go into from your family’s perspective. But I would expect that pressure to weaken as generations move on.”

“Part of the solution is to actively encourage young people from BME backgrounds to consider teaching as a valuable profession and at the same time, to talent spot and nurture BME teachers to consider taking up leadership positions,” said Leora Cruddas, director of policy at the Association of School and College Leaders.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We trust school leaders to recruit the right teachers for their classrooms but we are clear that good teams should reflect the diversity of their communities. The percentage of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) teachers is at its highest level on record, and the percentage of BME trainees on postgraduate training course continues to rise.

“We are investing millions of pounds to attract the best and the brightest into the profession, regardless of their background, and we’re also expanding Teach First to get more top graduates into teaching in some of the most challenging parts of the country.

“By supporting schools to recruit and retain the high quality teachers they need, we will ensure every child has an equal opportunity to reach their full potential.”


Added comment from Wembley Matters editor, Martin Francis.

The figures for London and for Brent are rather better perhaps indicating how different London is becoming from the rest of the country. This is particulalrly interesting in view of the widely acknowledged success of London schools.


Ratio of BME students to BME  teachers
Borough
% of BME students
% of BME teachers
2.1
Brent
76
37
2.3
Harrow
72
31
2.4
Hackney
66
28
2.4
Ealing
69
29
2.6
Lambeth
69
27

2.8
Barnet
48
17
2.8
Southwark
70
25
3.2
Hammersmith & Fulham
57
18
3.2
Islington
57
18
3.5
Camden
60
17