Ofsted targets ‘fundamentalists’

Amanda Spielman, head of Ofsted

Amanda Spielman, head of Ofsted

According to the BBC, England’s chief inspector of schools is targetting what she calls ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘religious extremists’.

Amanda Spielman, head of Ofsted, says some community leaders see schools as vehicles to ‘indoctrinate impressionable minds’.

They use schools to narrow children’s horizons and ‘pervert education’, she says. Some schools even promote ‘extremist ideology’.

She is asking head teachers to confront those who foster what she terms ‘extremist behaviour’.

Ofsted on ‘Forms of liberalism’

‘Rather than adopting a passive liberalism that says anything goes, for fear of causing offence, schools leaders should be promoting a muscular liberalism,’ Ms Spielman said.  She was speaking today at a conference held by the Church of England in London.

‘That sort of liberalism holds no truck for ideologies that seek to close minds or narrow opportunity.

‘Occasionally that will mean taking uncomfortable decisions or having tough conversations.

‘It means not assuming that the most conservative voices in a particular faith speak for everyone.’

She added: ‘Ofsted inspectors are increasingly brought into contact with those who want to actively pervert the purpose of education’.

Extremist ideology

‘Under the pretext of religious belief, they use education institutions, legal and illegal, to narrow young people’s horizons, to isolate and segregate, and in the worst cases to indoctrinate impressionable minds with extremist ideology.

‘Freedom of belief in the private sphere is paramount, but in our schools it is our responsibility to tackle those who actively undermine fundamental British values or equalities law.’

She is making the speech to support head teacher Neena Lall, of St Stephen’s state primary in east London. Ms Lall has tried to prevent children under the age of eight from wearing the hijab in class. Generally speaking, Muslim girls, although not all of them, wear the hijab after the age of 10. Ms Lall also tried to stop younger pupils from taking part in Ramadan fasting during school hours.

‘All forms of fundamentalism’

Tahir Alam, alleged "ringleader" of the Trojan Horse Plot of Muslims to take over secular schools, was also the co-author of a <strong><a href="https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/trojan-horse-plot-strategy-revealed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">72-page document revealing the strategy</a></strong>. See below

Tahir Alam, alleged “ringleader” of the Trojan Horse Plot of Muslims to take over secular schools, was also the co-author of a 72-page document revealing the strategy. See below…

So far, so anti-Muslim, but naturally the Chief Inspector implied she also has Christian schools in her sights. Ofsted said Ms Spielman was not targeting the Islamic faith, but ‘all forms of fundamentalism’.

A Department for Education official said: ‘Extremism has no place in our society.

That’s why we changed the law and the requirements on schools so that they have to actively promote the ‘fundamental British values’ of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and the mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

‘If there are any allegations of schools promoting ideologies or discrimination in the classroom, we will not hesitate to take action.’

What it means for Christians

There are two ways of looking at this story. Maybe it really is all about Islam.  In this view, Ofsted is putting up a smokescreen with its ‘all forms of fundamentalism’ line.

Or perhaps Ofsted really have Christian schools in their sights. This view might make better sense.  There have already been disturbing accounts of Ofsted inspectors marking down Christian schools.

The Independent reported in January 2017: ‘A number of Christian fundamentalist schools have been downgraded by government inspectors following an investigation by The Independent which revealed children at some schools that follow the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum are taught that LGBT people are inferior and girls must submit to men.’ There are 26 ACE schools registered in the UK.

According to the Daily Telegraph, ‘Nine out of 10 schools linked to the Christian Education Europe network were deemed inadequate or said to be requiring improvement in their latest visit by the regulator in October 2016, despite most receiving positive feedback previously.

‘Criticisms included failing to balance lessons on the creation with teaching about evolution and not addressing other faiths in class in deep enough detail.’

Christian school forced to close

Ofsted forced Cornerstone School in Epsom to close

Ofsted forced Cornerstone School in Epsom to close

And in November 2015, as a local paper reports, Cornerstone School in Epsom was forced to close. Ofsted reported pupils at the small Christian faith school in Epsom had ‘a limited view of the world.’ They were not ‘open to the views of those who might have different beliefs than those offered by church members’.

In the Guardian’s article, Ofsted reported: ‘Pupils do not have sufficient opportunity to learn about and consider the lives of those who have a different religious faith or no faith.’

Headteacher Grahame Davies said: ‘The mountain of demands made by Ofsted meant that, after over 27 years as headteacher, I felt I was not the person to take the school forward.

‘Our unique setting means that this is much easier said than done, so the governors realised they had little option but to close the school.’

Parents’ responsibility

Teaching about creation has been one other way in which Christian schools have incurred the wrath of Ofsted. So is teaching Biblical morality and not giving room to condom-based sex education.  The Bible shows the importance of sound teaching here, but it cuts both ways:

Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Going further, parents have the responsibility for their children’s education:

Deut 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

The New Testament reinforces that doctrine:

Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

It follows that Muslim parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit. Nevertheless, they should not do this at public expense. If they are delegating the duty, as is their right, they should pay for it themselves.  Moreover, we should be clear.  They may not teach murder or treason.  However, teaching against the transient fashion of ‘equalities law’ may be a prophetic act, whoever does it.

Indoctrination

Muslims, however, prefer to have their cake and eat it. They put their children into state schools.  When there are enough Muslim children, they make sure the school becomes Islamic. However, the State will certainly inspect schools which have public funding. Moreover, if it finds that a Muslim clique has taken over, Ofsted should take action.  This was what happened in the Trojan Horse scandal in Birmingham.

But firstly, as is clear, even private schools are under the inspection regime. Secondly, Ofsted used the Trojan Horse problem to bring in the absurd ‘British Values’ idea, and try to compel all schools to become ‘liberal’ and ‘tolerant’ notably of perversion.

Amanda Spielman, head of Ofsted, says some community leaders see schools as vehicles to ‘indoctrinate impressionable minds’. But Ofsted itself wants to ‘indoctrinate impressionable minds’ – in all schools. It will do that with its own liberal values.

Ofsted express outrage at schools ‘promoting ideologies’. But every school does that.  Ofsted mean ‘ideologies we do not share.’  We may feel a constitutional Christian State should insist on Christian ideology. But the elite are now overwhelmingly secularist, and they defend their privileged position by all means possible.

Home schoolers

German Social Services took the Wunderlich children because their parents were home-schooling them. Home-schooling is illegal in Germany.

German Social Services took the Wunderlich children because their parents were home-schooling them. Home-schooling is illegal in Germany.

Finally, home schoolers should be on guard.  Ofsted and its Scottish and Northern Irish equivalents will not stop until home schooling is either outlawed or registered. The Biblical idea of parents educating their children is anathema to the elite.

They believe the ‘purpose of education’ is to make children uncritical servants of the state.

Radical Christians or New Agers often head such households. Either way, the elite see them as places of insurrection against the system.

Do not think a clamp-down cannot happen. Home schooling is illegal in Germany.  Children will be taken away from home-schooling parents, as we reported here.

In 2009, an MP proposed outlawing home schooling in this jurisdiction.  The move led to a huge petition, in which Christian Voice was involved.   Our report on that is here.  And local authorities have been known to take children into care because they are being home-schooled.  You can find our report on such a travesty of justice in Medway here.

Be on high alert.

We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings

Click on the social media links below to share this post:

Real Time Analytics


Clicky

Share

22 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. This Ofsted head, Spielman, is a fascist.

    By definition a fascist is someone who wants to close down those who disagree with them. true believers in British Values will welcome robust debate with those who disagree with them, but Spielman is clearly an agent of the devil, sent to harass genuine Christians.

    1. can’t disagree with this, Bob: I expect she’s Common Purpose too, like most of the rest of them.

      Very sneaky how they use obvious problems in islamic schools to harass Christian schools, with which there are no problems: and when the muslims kick up a fuss, they back down and concentrate on easy targets, the Christians.

      One reason the lefty fascists make excuses for muslims, and facilitate them, of course, is that they are both in the kingdom of darkness: their common, real enemy are us Christians.

    2. “By definition a fascist is someone who wants to close down those who disagree with them.”

      That isn’t the definition in the New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998)
      Fascism: “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organisation.
      (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice,”

      Chambers Dictionary (2008) gives more, but it still doesn’t really fit :
      “The authoritarian form of government in Italy from 1922 to 1943, characterised by extreme nationalism , militarism, anti-communism, and restrictions on individual freedom; also the methods, doctrines etc of fascists , rigid and intolerant enforcement of any doctrine”.

      Where did Bob get his definition ?

      Ms Spielman claims to be a liberal (in the nicest possible sense), and (were she to use such terminology) would presumably brand indoctrinating educators as “fascists”. Rigidly enforcing their doctrine with intolerance fits the Chambers definition remarkably well . Isn’t there something fascist about parents who force little girls to wear Hitler Youth insignia, or hijabs, at a tender age, to mark them out as necessarily adhering to the parents’ beliefs ?

      If Ms Spielman took it into her head that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, all depend essentially on the Old Testament, and that all children in England must be made to believe in that even if their parents don’t, so she heavily enforced the fundamentalist teaching of the Old Testament in schools, and made children wear yellow stars to show that they are committed to it, then she would be something of a fascist. But she is not doing anything like that.

      Many of us would like to close down the little factories which make the drugs like Ecstasy that we disapprove of, but which others adore. Does that make us fascists ? By Bob’s definition it clearly does. Drug dealers might agree.

      1. Well, she certainly wants to act against individual freedom, and fascists have always moved strongly to silence those who disagree with them, so Bob is quite close. I’m not sure what ‘right-wing’ means in that ‘definition’

        1. “I’m not sure what ‘right-wing’ means in that ‘definition’”

          It means left-wing!

          Left-wing means socialist, as in Nazi : Nationalsozialismus or National socialism. That’s one strand of it, and then there was Mussolini as well, who was a socialist by his own admission. Early Italian fascists campaigned for woman’s rights and being left-wing they were anti-capitalists as well. The difference between them and moderate socialists is they believed in achieving their aims by violence and direct action. A modern day example of this was Mandela, a figure worshipped by the left. He believed in murdering his political opponents.

          You just can’t rely on the Oxford dictionary these days. Like many things it has been compromised.

          Woman’s rights probably enabled Amanda Spielman to become the head of Ofsted. These people are everywhere now.

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 2 February 2018 at 08:12
              Author

            Neat point. Personally I would put all collectivist ‘isms’ on the left, and individualist ‘isms’ on the right. Which puts the Christian world-view – with the individual, the family, the church and the state all severally responsible to Almighty God – bang in the centre!
            Talking of Nelson Mandela, he at least came out of prison preaching reconciliation and forgiveness. There is a discussion of his Christian faith on Christian Today here.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 3 February 2018 at 00:07

            Well, I did offer you Chambers dictionary (published in Edinburgh) as well as the Oxford which you distrust . And I really don’t think that Oxford dictionaries older than “these days” are going to support you ! The one I quoted was 1998. How far back are you going to go ?

            Let’s look at a trusted French dictionary, “Le Petit Robert” (2172 pages despite its name, and my copy from 1992, so not really “these days”).
            Fasciste: [It deals with the Italian ones, and then] “Se dit aussi d’un adversaire de droite consideré comme partisan d’un régime autoritaire”. It gives an example of this, quoting André Malraux (1901-1976 , a resistance fighter, captured by the Gestapo, who was later Minister of Culture). “Les communistes disent toujours de leurs ennemis qu’ils sont des fascistes”.

            Translations : “Is also said of a RIGHT-wing adversary considered as a partisan in an authoritarian régime”. “COMMUNISTS always call their enemies fascists”.

            It’s an elementary mistake to be deceived by the “Socialism” in National-Socialism. Hitler was very right-wing. This is rather indisputable, not to say an understatement. He persecuted trade unionists and communists almost as much as he did Jews.

            Although there was a bit of a hiccup at the beginning of the War, the Soviet Union declared itself strongly opposed to fascism in 1934 , and Russia looks on the Second World War as a war on fascism, as we all do.

            I think some contributors here may be confusing “fascism” with “totalitarianism”, which can certainly be of the left or of the right.

            Wikipedia deserves the last word:

            “Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements. “

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 3 February 2018 at 18:20
              Author

            So essentially, ‘fascist’ has lost all meaning and is just an insult.
            According to dear little Wikipedia, ‘Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe’.
            That sounds to me awfully like the communists did.
            Meanwhile, ‘right-wing’ is plainly now a Humpty Dumpty word. It means whatever you want it to mean. I often found while at college people would say ‘Hitler was right-wing’ in order to smear Conservative Party types. Of course he wasn’t, by any normal definition.
            Josh Adams had a good game on the right wing for Wales this afternoon, by the way, while Steffan Evans was superb on the left.

  2. Stonewall is very good at using schools as a vehicle to pervert education and indoctrinate impressionable young minds. Yet these extremists never seem to come into the Prevent radar.

  3. Ultimately, we are in a spiritual battle of good and evil. The Devil will use all tools available to to him attack the Gospel he rightly fears. He is deploying a pincer movement of modern secular ‘liberalism’, some of which is in fact intolerant, dictatorial and fundamentalist, and the accelerating spread of fundamental Islamic practices as a means to erode our right to choose to have our children educated in a Christian manner. Christian schools providing a rounded education are being tarred with the same brush as Madrasas with a closed and solely Islamic objective. While the dominant ‘equality’ agenda is used to attack our freedoms of faith and speech and hence our right to aver that we believe that there are moral limits to ‘equality’.

    I am concerned that the Church of England should allow Ms Spielman’s message of ‘muscular liberalism’ to be promulgated at their conference without appropriate balancing comment. She defends restrictions on the wearing of the Hijab by pre-pubescent girls, but also has “no truck for ideologies that seek to close minds” – does this include educating children in the tenets of Christianity? If this leads to a pupil coming to faith, does that mean in her view that their minds have been “closed”? If so, the Church must challenge this view. I would prefer to allow parents freedom to choose their children’s clothes, even if they happen to be sexist and patriarchal in intent, if this also enables schools freedom to educate their children in accordance with their founding ethos.

    Our Christian schools should be allowed to be Christian schools, in what is (or was but should be) a Christian country, under our anointed Queen. Christian schools should be allowed to teach the Gospel, and explain the Biblical view of morality and society. This is not to say that it should have an exclusively Christian curriculum: it is appropriate that their pupils are taught in broad terms what other religions teach, and what the prevailing secular, ‘liberal’, and legally enforced views are. That these views exist and are widely accepted is a fact that they need to know and understand. But within these limits, a Christian school should be free to act in accordance with its foundation.

  4. Epistle seems very well informed about the Devil’s tactics. Where does he get this information ?

    1. I think you’ll find most of it comes from Holy Scripture! We do see Islam as demonic, given its roots and its denial of the divinity of Christ. We also see modern Secularism as demonic, because it sets up man as his own God and thereby descends into paganism. Epistle is so right to see a three-cornered fight between Christianity, Islam and Secularism. If you cannot see this as a spiritual battle, you are part of the problem.

  5. Emotive conjugation again.

    I educate.
    You school.
    He indoctrinates.

    To educate a child, to school a child, and to indoctrinate a child, are, essentially the same activity. In emotive conjugation, such as this, one chooses a word to describe an activity that may carry non-neutral overtones, for example expressing one’s personal approval or disapproval of the agent himself, or the way one supposes that that agent is likely to go about that activity.

    From her emotional conjugation, one can discern the prejudices of the speaker. Generally, that is, and in this particular example of emotive conjugation.

    Emotive conjugation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation

    1. That is very wise.

      And whatever the syllabus is supposed to be, it won’t take into account the enthusiasm or disinterest of the teacher, and the naivety of the young child .

      Ideally, children as young as possible are encouraged to look at things from different points of view, and that has always been the goal of good teachers in good schools. I remember one teacher at my grammar school who went out of his way to pretend to believe that Africans were very primitive, although I’m sure he was not really in any true sense a racist. However, he sought to balance the idea that there was complete equality between well-educated white people and “black natives in mud hats”, which sure enough, at that time, there wasn’t. South Africa and Rhodesia did, at that time, desperately need their skilled white populations to maintain their civilisations.

  6. Well I am watching Prof Stuart Burgess’s videos on Youtube to celebrate Darwin Day!! Prof Burgess explains how there is 100% difference in design between men and apes, very clearly, using the design of the foot…

    1. Not entirely relevant to this !
      And you can hardly say that there is 100% difference in the design of the feet, since both have five digits and (as far as I know) all the bones correspond.

      Even less can you say that there is 100% difference in design between men and apes, since both have a heart, two kidneys, a liver, two arms, a head with eyes nose mouth and brain, a digestive system in various quite similar stages, muscles which work the same way, etc etc.

      It’s difficult to put a figure on difference, but it must be less than 50%.
      There must be some mistake.

      1. Whatever the difference is, we sure can’t breed with them. Each after his kind, you see…

        1. Indeed, but “we sure can’t breed with them” is a long. long, way from “there is 100% difference in design between men and apes”.

          Actually, male zebras will readily breed with female horses, and the female offspring can to some extent have offspring of their own. But a zebra is obviously not the same design as a horse — the stripes are obvious, but there are other differences too.

          I know what you will say. This means that horses and zebras are in fact the same “kind”. Doubtful that, because the crossbreds would eventually die out, due to there being no fertile males.

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 8 February 2018 at 07:54
              Author

            There isn’t even 100% difference between us and birds. We have many internal organs and structural details in common. It points to clever design, though, not to evolution, as I am sure you will concede.

        2. It seems to me that the great similarities between all vertebrates points to them being descended from a common ancestor. In the Hornimam Museum in London, there is a fascinating dissection of a snake, showing how all the familiar organs are packed into the long narrow inside of a snake.

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 8 February 2018 at 18:59
              Author

            No, the similarities point much more to design.

  7. Well I am watching Prof Stuart Burgess’s videos on Youtube to celebrate Darwin Day!! Prof Burgess explains how there is 100% difference in design between men and apes

Leave a Reply