teaching ‘reality’

Nadhim Zahawi recently warned teachers against the dangers of politicising education in a message he summarised as ‘education not indoctrination.’[1]

Concerns over the politicisation of education are neither new nor misplaced; guiding students through an institution that remains defined by public examinations whilst ensuring their development as well-rounded, socialised young adults is immensely difficult. 

Education is inherently political - it helps define group identity. The decision as to which knowledge is offered or withheld determines what habits and abilities students are meant to acquire. 

Since 2014, all schools UK-wide have a duty to ‘actively promote’ the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.’[2] These values were set out three years prior, in 2011, but it was not until 2014 that schools had to provide clear strategies as to how they would be implemented. 

You would be hard pressed to find a teacher who does not recognise the political elements of education, even if only linked directly to government policy. There have been six education secretaries since 2014, creating a semi-constant change in policy direction that highlights education’s ideological influences. 

What is widely misunderstood about politics, however, is the power of not saying anything. The inclusion of British values so explicitly might be an obviously political move, but the exclusion of curriculum knowledge can be equally political. The exclusion of subject matter marks it as unimportant, creating barriers to knowledge that enforce certain belief systems. There is a reason we do not teach hunting at schools, but we do teach biology. 

More relevant is the lack of sex education provided around LGBTQ+ sex, the exclusion of British colonial history, the peripheral focus (if at all) on texts written by Black, Brown or international authors in English and the omission of darker skin tones in Biology textbook diagrams. 

This month, the Cambridge Latin Course announced its decision to reposition the voices of its female, enslaved and racialised characters. Caroline Bristow, Director of the Cambridge Schools Classics Programme, explained:

“What seems to irritate our critics is that we don’t present Rome purely as a civilising culture. The reason is we’re teaching children to be classicists. We’re not teaching them to be Romans.”[3]

Whilst the Cambridge Latin Course is only one of many that is predominantly only offered by 7% of the UK’s schools (private schools), Caroline’s statement is widely applicable to education.

Offering broader viewpoints and more inclusive curriculum matter only benefits students. It provides them with the tools to engage more widely with society – be it recognising that skin conditions can manifest differently on skin types at A level biology, or be it exposure to a variety of female authors from a younger age. 

Yet, the debate over education is not over whether students should feel included or not. Zahawi is hardly declaring that he wants young people to feel alienated in the education system. Instead, the tension is over understandings of inclusivity and cultural citizenship.

Inclusivity must be understood both through unity and through difference. To make something truly inclusive relies on accommodating every individual’s needs and abilities. It does not negate individual responsibility to engage with education, but it recognises the importance of reflecting diversity. 

Example 1: 

A sign on the door says ‘coffee morning every Monday at 10 am - everyone welcome!’

Whilst everyone might be welcome, people who are free on Monday at 10 am are likely to be stay-at-home parents. Younger people are unlikely to go, as are working parents. If you delve deeper and consider that as of 2017, it’s estimated that only 1.2%of  families have a father as their primary caregiver, it’s likely that this coffee morning will be mostly attended by mothers.[4] Whilst everyone might be welcome in theory, many people won’t be able to attend and those that can (i.e stay at home fathers or young people) may not feel that they will be included. 

But why does it really matter if this coffee morning isn’t inclusive? The answer is it doesn’t really - and that is linked to cultural citizenship. At the end of the day, access to that particular coffee morning won’t make or break someone’s access to their own community – there will be other coffee mornings.

Cultural citizenship can broadly be understood as the ‘capacity to participate successfully within a national culture.’[5] Jan Pakulski further understands cultural citizenship as the right to symbolic presence and visibility.[6] 

Cultural citizenship has nothing to do with legal citizenship or nationality, it’s about social membership and how different groups of people gain access to representation and inclusion. 

Example 2: 

From 1988 to 2000/3 under UK law, Section 28 forbid the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ by local authorities.[7] Schools were not allowed to teach about LGBTQ+ relationships in any capacity. 

Clearly, LGBTQ+ people (particularly gay men) were excluded from representation under section 28. But crucially, unlike the coffee morning example, this exclusion was systematic and total. There was no school that did still offer this education (aside from a handful of teachers who subverted the law at the time). In the coffee morning example, young people or working people theoretically could find another community meeting point. Under section 28, however, LGBTQ+ people were categorically erased within education. 

Here, the LGBTQ+ community was denied cultural citizenship. They had no social membership on the basis of being gay and could not access representation, visibility or symbolic presence. 

To return to Zahawi’s call to root out activist teachers, we must re-engage with school curriculums through an understanding of cultural citizenship. As it stands, the education system categorically undermines particular groups’ access to cultural citizenship. Having left school at age 18 to study history at university, I had still never been taught about British colonial history. Returning to teach in a primary school last year, I planned a comprehension on the Secret Garden with my year six students and was shocked to see the term ‘memsahib’ used. 

‘Memsahib’ was a popular term to refer to married, upper-class white women in India during the colonial period (where the Secret Garden is set). It was a term that Indian colonial subjects would have been expected to use when addressing women like Mary’s mother in the book. As students took turns reading and struggled over this new word, it struck me how dangerous it was not to address the historical context of such a racialised term. I was similarly deeply uncomfortable that I had read this book in year 6 myself but had never noticed (read: been taught) about the colonial power dynamics or history involved. Add into the mix the fact that my class happened to include students whose families originated from India and Pakistan and yet they were not being given the chance to learn about this history, and you have a problem. 

When we do not discuss the realities of the past, present and future with students, we deny them education. It’s as simple as that. As of 2022, teachers have been banned from advocating on behalf of campaign groups like Black Lives Matter (BLM) and have been informed that ‘contentious and disputed’ issues of British history must be taught in a balanced way.[8] 

I ran a session on BLM and the toppling of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol with another year six class. We discussed how to write newspaper articles and report on the issue and outlined the pros and cons of toppling the statue. There was a particular student in this class who I knew was a staunch supporter of BLM - a passion and knowledge he must have been receiving from his parents. As we discussed how, in retaliation to the Colston statue being dismantled, a group had defaced the grave of a freed Black man in Bristol, I would have been hard-pressed to present a ‘balanced argument.’ 

Zahawi’s conception of ‘balance’ when discussing topics like these is fundamentally built on a misconception. The truth is that we are not starting from a ‘balanced’ position. These are not value-less historical accounts, these are injustices. Denying students the right to engage with or articulate their rights is a breach of conduct as far as education is concerned. 

We cannot educate in a neutral way, because when students leave their classroom they are not entering a neutral world. Refusing to acknowledge that education is not a neutral enterprise is a mistake that has resulted in women being under-represented in STEM, Black students being under-represented in Russel Group universities and LGBTQ+ people practicing unsafe sex well into their adult lives. 

I will end with one last anecdote. I ran a writing workshop with year 5 students and asked them to respond to the prompt ‘what does it mean to throw like a girl.’ I was prepared for there to be a gendered division in responses. But the visible wave of discomfort that spread through the room amongst these 9-year-old girls was immediate. Meanwhile, most of the boys in the room had not yet begun thinking about it. 

So which is the ‘balanced approach’ - to continue to teach according to ‘neutral’ standards that have been defined by an elite few, or to start supporting students to navigate the world they’re about to enter and educate them on injustices they might be blind to?

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10507915/Nadhim-Zahawi-tells-schools-root-activist-teachers-brainwashing-children.html

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jul/10/uk-school-latin-course-overhauled-to-reflect-diversity-of-roman-world

[4] https://masandpas.com/stay-at-home-dad-rates-in-sharp-decline-in-the-uk-whats-holding-us-back/#:~:text=The%20latest%20data%20from%20the,father%20as%20the%20primary%20caregiver.

[5] Diane Richardson, ‘Sexuality and Citizenship,’ Sociology Vol. 32 (1998), 83-100 (84).

[6]Jan Pakulski in Richardson, ‘Sexuality,’ 89.

[7] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/cacc0b40-c3a4-473b-86cc-11863c0b3f30

[8] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10507915/Nadhim-Zahawi-tells-schools-root-activist-teachers-brainwashing-children.html