Teachers and education leaders have given a mixed reaction to the release of new government guidance on political neutrality in schools - with some calling it a “positive” step, and others asking whether it is really needed at all.
The new guidance, which was released by the Department for Education, aims to help teachers avoid “promoting contested theories as fact”, the education secretary has said.
It is the first material of its kind on how schools should approach the teaching of sensitive issues - though schools are already required to teach impartially.
The DfE says it will help teachers and schools navigate issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the legacy of the British Empire or societal responses to racism in accordance with the law.
But teachers have reacted in varying ways, with some of the key responses discussed below.
Some teachers say the main thrust is ‘positive’
Some teachers Tes spoke with said they thought the guidance was needed by schools, in order to stop teachers “inadvertently” breaking impartiality rules.
Tom Rogers, a history teacher and director of Teachers Talk Radio, said the areas covered by the guidance were “all good things to point out”.
He said that though some teachers “may struggle with who the guidance has come from”, it was generally a “useful thing to remind people of”.
He added: “I don’t think teachers are actively indoctrinating people but I would wonder if inadvertently some are breaking impartiality rules with their political opinions.”
Hugh Castle, head of history at Lancaster Royal Grammar School, broadly echoed this, and said the way the guidance was broken into scenarios “could help teachers, particularly newer ones”.
He also said that the main thrust of it was positive, because despite advocating impartiality, it “encourages schools to explore controversial topics”.
Mr Castle said this was “good news” because if students weren’t taught these issues at school they would “work it out for themselves unaided online”.
Others question whether the guidance was needed
But even some of those who generally felt positively about the guidance questioned whether it should really be a priority for the government.
Michael Davies, an ex-history teacher and founder of education charity Parallel Histories, which promotes the teaching of controversial history topics such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, said the charity worked with over 300 schools, and a key question he had for the education secretary was: “Is there a problem in schools with this at the moment?”
Mr Davies added that there was a lot of “good sense” in the guidance and that on the whole he didn’t think it was trying to stifle debate, but said: “Teachers will say they do most of this in their teaching. We work with over 300 schools and they are generally doing this.”
Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the NEU teaching union, said there was “absolutely no need for new guidance on how to appropriately handle political and social subjects in schools”.
She continued: “Very good guidance already exists and this is followed up and down the country. It has always been the case that educators take their responsibilities for teaching in these areas seriously and carry it out with considerable thought.”
Andy Byers, headteacher of Framwellgate School in Durham, similarly said on social media that in 30 years in education and 22 as a senior leader, he had “yet to encounter a teacher promoting partisan political views in the classroom”. He asked: “Is this a genuine concern?”
Guidance ‘needed more work’
Some teachers expressed concern that the connotations of the guidance could end up making teaching more difficult.
One religious studies teacher, said on Twitter that at the school she works at, there are some pupils “who tell parents that teachers say things they don’t agree with”. Responding to the guidance, she added: “This will get worse.”
English teacher Tara Hanley also said that she thought there were required corrections which “indicate that more work was required before this was sent to a professional workforce”.
She also questioned why the document referred to schools needing to respond to parental accusations of impartiality - with the guidance saying concerns should be “treated seriously” - but “does not address schools being on the receiving end”.
Another teacher on social media asked why ideologies including capitalism and neo-liberalism weren’t mentioned as “contested theories” in the document, and added that they wouldn’t be changing their teaching approach based on it.
They said: ”I will continue to teach my students about various political/economic systems and help them to develop their critical-thinking skills, so that they can assess these for themselves.”
Concerns over the advice being ‘over-simplistic’
Some concerns have also been raised with specific parts of the text, and how teachers can implement them in lessons.
Throughout the document, teachers are repeatedly told of the importance of factual accounts and balance, with one section saying: “Where schools remain unsure if a topic is a ‘political issue’, it is advisable to avoid promoting a particular view to pupils. Instead, give a balanced factual account of the topic, in line with the legal duties on political impartiality.”
However, Mr Davies has suggested this over-simplifies what teaching some topics actually involves.
He said: “Sometimes there is no middle ground, no “bipartisan” political view. And just using facts doesn’t always avoid controversy.
“The example I’d use is the Israel-Palestine conflict. You can use true facts and still weave them into different narratives about who the victim is and who has the moral high ground. A reliance on ‘facts’ is over-simplistic.”
Similarly, Mr Castle said while he knew what the guidance was trying to say about achieving “balance”, the issue was “tricky”.
He warned that when teaching controversial issues, “you often don’t come across a single narrative that reaches balance.”
He added: “Sometimes if you just balance things out you don’t get anywhere - sometimes you have to let history speak.”
Mr Castle said one way to take this approach was with the method used by Parallel Histories, where he is the chair of trustees, explaining: “Students explore one side, then the other and investigate the credibility of each stance.
“It really helps take the teacher out of the firing line because the investigation is driven by the controversy or question and the students form their views through evidence-led debate rather than from the teacher’s attempt to blend the two perspectives.”
Should pupils be given more agency?
Another strand of thought that has come through in teacher reaction to the guidance is whether it underestimates the critical-thinking abilities of students.
One teacher, responding to the story on social media, said: “The children we teach all have eyes and ears and can see for themselves what’s going on.” They added that teachers didn’t need “lectures” from the government on remaining impartial.
Another added that they thought the guidance suggested the government didn’t think “children are able to be critical thinkers, evaluate the information and form their own opinions.”
Could the guidance get in the way of teaching ‘controversy’?
A recurring theme that came through from teachers and education leaders was that they hoped the guidance would not dissuade educators from covering controversial topics in their lessons.
Dame Alison Peacock, chief executive of the Chartered College of Teaching, said that the guidance would be welcomed “as long as it helps to encourage dialogue and does not hinder open discussion and learning.”
Teachers responding on social media to the guidance also echoed this call. One said: “We should enlighten our pupils to facts, impartiality, the myriad sides of an argument and academic debate.
“What we must never do is shy away from these things in the classroom. Otherwise, what is the point?”
