Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No7

Written by Joel Smalley on March 22, 2023. Posted in Current News

Following my “Dumb Japan” article (which was intended to provoke debate, not just to derogate the nation), I had an insightful exchange with the author of this article, who kindly explained to me how it has come about that the Japanese are “dumb” (my word, not hers).

IMO, the rest of the world is catching up fast (or perhaps already on par) due to the systematic failure of the indoctrination, er, I mean education, system to promote critical thinking and self-responsibility.

In this week’s newsletter we look at the rise of therapeutic ideas in education. To start, Stuart Waiton wanted to share with you some correspondence in the SUE email inbox from Glenrothes MP Peter Grant.

A message from Peter Grant MP

When we launched the Scottish Union for Education, we emailed politicians about our organisation. Usefully, Peter Grant, SNP Member of Parliament for Glenrothes, emailed back, but the response from Mr Grant is a telling example of the bad faith that we often see coming from today’s political class.

Our email explained that we were a union being set up for parents, teachers and communities concerned about aspects of education that were becoming a form of indoctrination. The articles in the Substack elaborated on this point.

Rather than engaging with the ideas being presented, the MP emailed back with a technocratic response, sounding more like a bureaucrat from HR than a politician.

His email read:

‘You’ve emailed me several times describing yourselves as a research organisation. Can I ask you the same questions I ask of any such organisation that lobbies for my support.

• What’s your constitutional status? If you’re a registered company or charitable organisation what’s your registration number?
• Do you subscribe to any recognised code of ethics for academic research? If not, what independent assurance is there that your research is not biased?
• Who funds you? Can you provide details of any individual or organisation who has provided funds that would meet the threshold for disclosure if they were provided to a registered political party.
• Can you provide me with a copy of your constitution and of any register of interests completed by your board or senior staff?‘

If Mr Grant is genuinely interested in the answers to his questions, he could look at the ‘About’ page of the Substack where he’d find our board members and our community group’s constitution.

There is no code of ethics, but we have a very clear approach and we welcome challenges or questions about the work we are doing. All our work is in the public realm, and we are funded by our members who subscribe to the Substack.

As an academic, one of my areas of research is the emergence of what is often called the new elites. One of the characteristics of this group of people is that they often hide behind administrative and seemingly value-neutral processes and procedures, speaking in a language that masks their own outlook or prejudices.

‘Who funds you? Are you registered? What are your codes and procedures?’ they ask. Rather than having clear politics and principles, these new elites prefer to find technical ways to dismiss those with whom they disagree and to talk about ‘doing’ politics differently, instead of engaging in a political or moral exchange.

The first email from Peter Grant falls nicely into this administrative approach.

Today the other substitute for political engagement among politicians and ‘right thinking’ types is name calling. As we have seen with the Gary Lineker drama, to call opponents fascists or equate their views with those prevalent in Nazi Germany has become standard practice.

Coincidently, Peter Grant was guilty of a ‘Lineker’ back in 2021, when he had to apologise for a bizarre tweet about Nazis directed at Andrew Neil.

I replied to Peter Grant’s email, suggesting that he might want to read the Substack and that I would be happy to take his name off our mailing list. Grant wrote back and then we start to get a little closer to his real concerns.

It read:

‘Could you clarify your constant tirades against “indoctrination” in Scottish schools please? Are you against denominational schools?

Are you against religious education? Or is it only “indoctrination” when it doesn’t coincide with your world view?’

As it happens, SUE has no position on denominational schools, and religious education, in my opinion (as an atheist), it is fine and can be a useful part of schooling if indeed it is educational.

Regarding indoctrination, I replied to the MP as follows:

‘There shouldn’t be a “world view” taught as fact in school. Just now headteachers’ guidance is to teach “social justice” – this is a value-laden ideology. Educating social justice as facts is indoctrination.

A debate about social justice would be very welcome. For example: Do you think all white people have white privilege? If you do, that is your political opinion – not an accepted fact.

Do you think gender is fluid? You may think so, but again, this is your opinion, but it is being taught as fact – and taught to very young children.’

There are areas of indoctrination in our schools and Grant can read what we think about them online. In the spirit of open debate, we would welcome a public response from the MP for Glenrothes, which we are more than happy to publish.

It would be nice to hear if Peter thinks that it is acceptable to teach young children that their gender is fluid, or that they have ‘white privilege’. As 96.2 percent of the Scottish population is white, perhaps he could explain what on earth having white privilege means in the Scottish context.

The Glenwood area, in Glenrothes, is in the bottom 10 percent for deprivation in Scotland, and the number of Fifers living in extreme deprivation is on the rise.

It would be fascinating to know if Mr Grant has told his constituents about their privileged existence. It would be interesting to know if Mr Grant believes that his constituents elected him to oversee an education system that has embraced this social justice perspective.

SUE believes that we should have a liberal education system. There are specific ideas and ideals associated with this outlook, such as the idea that school education should be focused on academic subjects, and in later years and especially in further education, a belief in open debate and academic freedom.

A liberal approach to education aims to teach objective facts to children – facts that have been accepted within the academic community, whether that relates to mathematical formulas or to biological facts about X and Y chromosomes.

It is also an approach that allows the potential for all other perspectives and approaches to be aired, at least for older children, and encourages open discussion and debates about different beliefs and ideas.

So, Mr Grant, let us know if you are opposed to the children in your constituency receiving a liberal education.

Let us and your voters know if you believe schools should be adopting a dogmatic social justice approach, and if so, please explain how this approach is anything other than indoctrination.

See more here substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.