Archive | Education RSS feed for this section

Ofsted inspectors will question girls wearing hijabs in primary schools

7 Dec

[Published 07 December, 2017]

This is a guest blog by Iftikar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics. in response to the article published HERE.

Muslim girls who wear the hijab to primary school will be asked why they wear it by inspectors. The reasons given will then be recorded in school reports, amid concerns girls are being forced to wear the headscarf by their parents. Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector of schools, announced the move on Sunday. Imagine being questioned about why you dress the way your parents tell you at 8 years of age!? What do you say?

“Sorry, I’ll tell them they are wrong”?

Looks like Ofsted are now so busy with combating Islam that they will have no time to deal with education? The problem is, before they start the quizzing, they’re making public exactly what the girls should get prepared to reply (by their family) to be allowed to keep the hijab. With all the time to rehearse. Any child asked by an inspector why she’s covering her hair should reply.. ‘its a free country I can wear what I effing want”!! We do not need inspectors chasing Muslims just because we hate them. Looks like Ofsted are now so busy with combating Islam that they will have no time to deal with education?

What is the role of the Government can any of the hijab haters answer This? Or do we need another PREVENT policy to target certain group of people? I bet all the readers who have kids have forced their kids to go to sleep, brush their teeth, wake them out of bed, eat dinner etc, wear a helmet whilst riding bike and so on…So what is wrong with telling your kid to cover the head to if one wants to. There is nothing wrong with this as long as its achieved peacefully and through education. Of course they are forced or at least required to wear hijabs by parents because it is the parents who bring up children according to their tradition, religion or both.

Freedom of religion is imperial . One can choose what to believe in an practise it , it’ not the government’ job to dictate what you should eat, how you should dress ,when you should pray ..it only has the power to coerce it’ civilians but it should just focusing on providing services and infrastructure and education and so on. So they need to send inspectors instead of assuming that it’s the parents brainwashing the kids. Interesting. Maybe they expect to find some 7 years old girls who will give them a detailed report of all the faiths they thoroughly researched before choosing Islam because it’s the one they believe provides the answers to all their existential and philosophical questions.

Parents are free to teach their children what they want as long as it’ not harming them physically or mentally. Its called education not force. I guess every parent has the right to educate their child into doing something which they believe is good (as long as its not a crime etc). It’s the parents that they should be questioning, not the children. No good asking the girls. If they are made to wear it, they will be made to say they aren’t, since that’s what the Inspectors want to hear. Everybody knows who the Inspectors spoke to.

You are/will be brainwashing your believes to your future children on what to do and what not. If my daughter from a young age is willing to wear the hijab I will not oppose it and make her understand that it is empowering her when she reaches puberty and she will be ready for it. When you live in a over sexualised society I believe such precaution is important. The child will progress just as much as the kids not wearing a headscarf in what sense does it make them weaker…apart of you sexualising the children when the Muslim parent prepares them for the real life and teaches what’s right or wrong . Who are you to tell ?

Where is the freedom of religion? Can she not express her identity at young age. Surely preparation makes one better.

I do not want my children to be brainwashed by half naked girls instead I’ll teach her what’s right or wrong and that is my duty not yours not the government. Asking little girls why they wear a headscarf is silly. It is forced on them in one way or another, through dictate by parents, training, social pressure.

Tell that to the Queen… even the DailyMail has no problem with her wearing one… Hijab is not the problem. It’s just a headscarf. The Queen like to wear one!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/The-Queen-steps-headscarf…

Did the NSS also ask for Sikh boys to be quizzed about their turbans and Jewish children for their religious headgear (skull caps or wigs)? If not why are Muslims being exclusively targeted again. I hope they’re also going to quiz Sikh boys who cover their hair..? No, thought not. Just pick on the girls.

Start by quizzing children if they are abused by parent who are alcoholics start by protecting children who are left homeless start by actually doing something usefully instead of targeting Muslims for wearing a religious symbol. Start by quizzing all children why they follow a religion after all they are smart in off to decide for themselves Will they ask Jewish kids if they are wearing their outfits voluntarily?

The opposite to hijab wearing is the display of highly sexualised forms of many western women. Western men get to enjoy this without thinking they are entitled to help themselves to every woman wearing a skirt up to her bum-cheeks.

The bottom line (pun intended) gents, is you can look but not touch. If you are offended, look away you control freak prude.

 

Edited by: Jason Schumann 

Disclaimer:

This has been published as an opinion piece only. The contents or views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the author of the debatingculture.wordpress.com blog.

Advertisements

UK Government Dismisses Complaints on Importance of Teaching Black History Authentically in Schools

5 Dec

[Published 04 December, 2017]

everydayblackhistory_pstr3

If you live in the UK and were or are currently being educated under what is known as the National Curriculum, what you and I have or will be taught about (B)lack History, has always been taught from a Eurocentric or national perspective.

This is to say, (B)lack History has always been and largely continues to be taught today from a ‘colonial’ and semi-religious ‘civilizing’ perspective, albeit with a few very recent additions to the curriculum.

I am a person of colour – both Black and White – who came into existence thanks to a South Afri(k)an Grandfather and Scottish Grandmother.

Both my Grandparents were disowned by their families, because at that time, inter-racial marriages were not accepted.

(No Blacks, no Irish, no Jews, no dogs!)

Thank you, Enoch, you fascist cunt!

Because I have always (and still do) feel as though I am not, nor will I ever be, accepted as fully Black or White, in my late teens I sought to understand my origins, trauma, afflictions, and foibles, as a person of colour.

I wanted to understand my brown skin and golly wog hair and affirm where it is that I am positioned and can identify myself in this world.

Yes, I was taught about slavery and colonialism, but never that it was wrong, immoral, and brutal. Nothing about the role of Arabs, Jews, and my fellow Afrikans, who enabled it. Nor anything about racism or about the contributions of people of colour in society.

I would only begin to learn about this in later, independent studies.

Teaching about Black History from just a slavery and colonial perspective, in fact limits our understanding and perspective of how the world in which, regardless of our cultures and skin tones, is made and remade and impacts on all of us at the basest level of consciousness, histories, traumas, and lived experiences.

Note: Not everything about Black History is about slavery, ffs!

Black History is also about the interconnections, current perspectives, intersectionality, and contributions we make as people of colour in society, generally, in an interconnected, intergenerational and often politically polarized society.

In context, true and authentic history about the histories of all Black and all people of colour – in valuing and identifying our sense of place in the pervading powerful White spaces – should be taught holistically and without bias as a matter of inclusive teaching practice. Our histories define part of us, so if it is incomplete then so are we.

The teaching of Black history should also be specific to society in a local, national, and in a global context, which is to say, although American Black History is relevant from a world history perspective, it is equally if not more important to teach Black British history to Black Britons, Muslims etc.

As the BLAM Charity recently stated at an event held in London for Black History Month:

The false narrative that continually portrays racism and civil rights as an American issue erases the struggles endured by the Black British population.”

In the UK, the National Curriculum for history makes no specific mention of the teaching of Black history or any other history, except to say, from a ‘non-European perspective’ and of ‘Ancient Civilizations.’

Look closely and all statutory and non-statutory teaching requirements concern European and British history, with the exception of the requirement to teach pupils about the holocaust.

In response to a petition by Stephanie Pitter, the UK Government replied:

The content and structure of the new history curriculum provides scope for black history to be taught in schools.”

Adding:

This, however, is not prescribed in detail within the statutory programmes of study. Instead, schools have the flexibility to teach these topics in ways that are appropriate and sensitive to the needs of their pupils.”

Scope? Flexibility?

One has to ask how it could not be more appropriate and sensitive to teach a Black or any other person of colour about history from their own, as well as from other cultural and national perspectives?

How does the Government respond?

In the primary history programmes of study, Rosa Parks and Mary Seacole are listed at key stage 1 as examples of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements.”

Ms. Parks is not British and was not the first Black woman to refuse to give up her seat.

Although important in the context of history and rights of PoC, the story of Parks was in fact a stunt to stir up a reaction within the Black community by the NAACP. The first person to refuse to give up her seat was Claudette Colvin.

Whilst teaching pupils about Seacole is relevant in the context of Black contributions to British history, it is only recently that her story was added to the curriculum as a topic of study and nearly always there is an institutional and cultural bias toward comparing her against Florence Nightingale. Add to that the story of Seacole is not recent history, so may not be as relevant to some as it is to others.

In any event, in 2012 the Government (Michael Gove, MP) proposed removing Seacole from the curriculum in favor of more important focus on Churchill etc., but was forced to back down, after a petition was set up by Operation Black Vote.

As noted by Gus John:

Every review of the National Curriculum has required us to campaign and lobby to make sure that our children (and all the nation’s children) are not exposed to a white, British nationalist curriculum.”

To illustrate, Nelson Mundell, recounts the comments of one of the presenters at a recent conference on Black history:

During an excellent presentation by Justice 2 History, in which they covered some of the problems they had faced in London classrooms on the teaching of slavery, one of the presenters, a young man from inner London, explained that during his placement he had wandered over to the walls and looked at the displays created by the class. On a poster that collected the generalized end products of slavery, he noticed a subheading titled, something similar to, “how did slavery benefit black people?” Naturally as he recounted this story the audience were all quite shocked and, caught up in the moment, someone declared “if this is what is happening in London schools, what is the teaching around the rest of the country like?

Darren Chetty, a former teacher notes, in the book, the Good Immigrant, how a pupil (a child of colour) once stood up in his class and told him that all stories had to be about White people (1).

Chetty compares this experience with that of Verna Wilkins, whose son came home from school one day with a self-portrait of himself with his face painted in pink. When asked, why pink? Her son replied: ‘Because it has to be that colour.'(2)

The point being made, is that if it is not made a requirement to teach it and to do so in an appropriate and sensitive way, then Black history will only be taught from a White perspective, which ultimately devalues and marginalizes people of colour.

Appropriateness and sensitivity does not include telling your pupils to black-up and wear soiled clothing, or planning a lesson involving a mock slave auction, as was recently the case.

I mean, imagine the uproar of having pupils re-enacting what happened in the Auschwitz concentration camp?

Is that a step too far?

If you think so, you are promoting exceptionalism and victimhood and devaluing the totality of the lived experiences of people of colour.

There is also a strong argument that it will enable the real possibility to reinforce and promote notions of White nationalism and supremacy. The fact that Gove, then Education Secretary, sought to remove Seacole from the curriculum is clear supporting evidence of this.

By not requiring the mandatory inclusion of Black history to be taught in our schools, without which there would be no British history or society, the Government is both failing and damaging Black and other children of colour, by whitewashing Britain’s past and denying people of colour there’s.

In no way does this approach pander to political correctness and neither does it impact on teachers’ freedom to teach.

For a more informed and expert opinion on the importance of authentic representation and teaching of Black history, watch and listen to the author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie HERE.

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

  1. Niklesh Shukla, Ed., The Good Immigrant, Unbound, 2016, p. 100 – 1.
  2. Verna Wilkins, ‘The Right to Be Seen’, Patrick Hardy Lecture, October 29th, 2008.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: