Ofsted under fire over inspection at Stamford Hill Jewish school
Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls’ School, Stamford Hill. Photograph: Jason Fidler
Two leading secularist organisations have questioned Ofsted about their inspection process at a Stamford Hill school rated ‘good’, after its head told the Hackney Citizen he would continue to advise students against answering religiously sensitive exam questions.
The National Secular Society (NSS) and the British Humanist Association (BHA) have separately questioned the schools inspector over its visit to Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls’ School, following revelations that the school would continue to instruct pupils to avoid “halaichically questionable” topics in exams, including evolution, homosexual relationships and social media.
As a state-maintained school, the Charedi Jewish secondary in Stamford Hill is required to follow the National Curriculum.
The school attracted national attention last year when it came to light that it had redacted exam questions in a science GCSE paper that weren’t in line with the school’s Orthodox teachings. The school was subsequently warned against the “malpractice”.
But in an recent interview with the Citizen following its latest inspection, headteacher Rabbi Avraham Pinter said of future exams: “Our children will be aware of which questions they should be answering and which ones they shouldn’t be”.
Asked whether the Darwinian theory of evolution, a compulsory part of the National Curriculum, was among the topics that were at odds with the school’s ethos, Pinter replied: “Yes, it is.”
These fresh complaints from the NSS and the BHA put the spotlight on Ofsted, which rated the school ‘good’ in its latest report published on 7 October, but did not explicitly address the well-documented concerns previously raised about the school’s treatment of “sensitive” topics.
The BHA has criticised Ofsted for failing to mention sex education, creationism or evolution in this latest report, despite an Ofqual investigation last year into the school’s redaction of exam questions on subjects known to be at odds with the school’s ethos.
In its letter to Ofsted last week, the BHA asked Ofsted to clarify whether the teaching of sex education and creationism had been addressed at the no-notice inspection in September.
“If the school is not teaching evolution or sex education then this is unlawful,” wrote Richy Thompson, the BHA’s Faith Schools and Education Campaigns Officer.
“If it is teaching creationism as scientifically valid then this, in the government’s view, would be failing to teach a sufficiently broad and balanced curriculum.
“I was wondering if Ofsted could clarify whether these three areas were looked at; if so, what was found; and if not, why not. If the areas were looked at and it was found that the school was teaching creationism as science or failing to properly teach evolution or sex education, then why was this not mentioned in the report?”
The NSS, in a similar complaint to Ofsted and the Department for Education, raised concerns that children’s “sexual and reproductive health rights are being impeded by the refusal to teach such key areas of the National Curriculum as human reproduction”.
The letter warns that “children are entitled to be taught about these issues in preparation for life, and it is likely that the parents who send children to these schools are materially less likely than other parents to be teaching them this vital information at home.”
The NSS has called for the schools regulator to investigate comments made by Rabbi Pinter which indicate that he regards homosexuality to be incompatible with the school’s religious ethos.
In response to the complaints, a spokesperson for Ofsted told the Citizen that they “will be responding in due course”.
Secularism has turned “endorsing diversity” into a totalitarian control regime for promoting particular agendas. People are no longer able to hold different views from the secularists without being called “extremists” or “lawbreakers”. What those of us want, who do not buy into the secularist agenda, is better teaching, looking at all aspects of the controversial issues. We do not want children to be brainwashed with the politically-correct dogmas of the day. The Department for Education appears to have some very influential socialists influencing policy.
https://www.facebook.com/LongdendaleConservatives/posts/1450956695159790
Daft comment David. Of course people can hold different views, secularism protects believers and non-believers alike. However, the secular argument is that schools shouldn’t be used to promote religious ideologies and inculcate kids into religion.
This school wants to keep young girls in the dark about how they get pregnant. They want to keep kids in the dark about evolution – something that is critical for understanding biology. That should not be tolerated in our state schools.
Parents can try and indoctrinate and fill their kids’ heads full of rubbish if they want, but they should be allowed to use our education system to do so. The state has a responsibility to give young people a sound education – and doing so doesn’t threaten anyone’s religious freedom.
Fully agree Kelly.
Teaching evolution and sex education is NOT a ” totalitarian control regime for promoting particular agendas.”
If the state are funding a school, as in this case, I expect modern science and PHSE to be taught.
Davids comment is a typical thiest response, their idea of fredom of speech is “shut up and listen to me”
Religion is religion, not science, as creationism has no evidence to support it, in fact no basis at all in science, it should not be taught as science.
A very mis-informed letter and indicative of why ofsted should me taken to task in allowing his views to proliferate.
You seem to be somewhat confused David. There is indeed attempted brainwashing occurring here, but it is the school that is doing it.
However, you knew that really didn’t you – its just that you see brainwashing as perfectly acceptable so long as it the “correct” dogma.
Kelly, we can agree that “people can hold different views”, but not that “secularism protects believers and non-believers alike”. Secularism has become the equivalent of a religion, in that it promotes a worldview of its own. Those of us who do not share the secularist worldview find the activities of the NSS and the BHA very threatening to liberty of conscience.
I found nothing in the report to suggest that the school wants to “keep young girls in the dark about how they get pregnant”. However, the school has concerns about the issues of “evolution, homosexual relationships and social media”, which many of us consider perfectly legitimate. You say that “The state has a responsibility to give young people a sound education”, which is correct but not sufficient. The state needs to respect the responsibilities of parents for the education of their children, and should develop policies that do not trample over their views. Unfortunately, the BHS and the NSS are in the forefront of lobbying the government to do exactly this. I repeat my earlier comment: teachers should not be afraid of tackling controversy, but should help children think through issues at an age-appropriate level. This means evidence-based rational thinking and a willingness to raise questions without being threatened with legal action. It is a big mistake to use education to achieve ideological ends. Yet this is what socialists set out to do: they think education should be used as an instrument in pursuit of societal goals. This is what we should resist – and the NSS and the BHS are adopting socialist policies whatever spin they might want to put on their actions. The government is inexplicably pursuing this socialist approach to education – threatening to withdraw funding if schools do not comply. What they should be doing is setting out what a good education involves, supporting parents and empowering teachers. Mike says: “I expect modern science and PHSE to be taught” – which misses the point completely, because the words are so broad that all can affirm them.
Steve, The response you see above is to defend the concept of freedom for all, including for those who are not theists. It is a call for people to engage rationally with diversity, not to protect a PC view using the law.
John, if the secularists have their way, their ideology will be immune from any serious critique – and that will lead to brainwashing.
This is from Melanie Phillips in 2010: “In fact, the intellectual trend in Britain is a remorseless slide towards a dark age of intolerance, reverting to a reason-suppressing, heresy-hunting culture in which certain opinions are being turned into thought crimes. Astoundingly, people are being arrested by the police – even if the case against them eventually falls – because of what they have said. They are not inciting violence or any criminal activity. They are merely expressing a point of view.” Things have got worse since then.
http://jewishworldreview.com/0910/phillips092010.php3
David
It is quite simply not legitimate any more to deny the scientific fact of evolution. That inflates some religious myths above proper science. And children have a right, whatever their parents say, to hear scientific truth.
Children also have the right to be exposed to the diversity of life in the UK today, not to be hidden in some religious backwater created by their parents. That means that they must be educated that people come in all shapes and sizes and all ways of life that do not endorse bigotry are to be respected. Including gay families. A good test for whether teaching on gays is acceptable is to substitute “Jew” or “black”, two other immutable characteristics, for “gay” and see what it sounds like. I doubt that this school, which does not deserve public funds, would pass that test.
Harry, In my view you are making statements that are not in the best interests of education. Take what you call: “the scientific fact of evolution”. This needs to be unpacked. The word “evolution” has many meanings. Some use it to refer to changes in gene frequency – such as is observed in the peppered moth. It is a morphological change, probably adaptive, but does it take us beyond ecology? It would be beneficial for students to consider this question. What about more significant morphological changes? – such as lengthening beaks or increasing body weight in the Galapagos finches. What sort of evolution is this? It demonstrates adaptive change, but are the changes sufficient to build complexity or to bring about novel structures? What sort of genetic changes are involved? Are they within the range of phenotypic plasticity? Are they epigenetic? Again, students would do well to look critically at these questions. This covers most of the evidences that students would normally examine for GCSE – but have we established what many people call “the scientific fact of evolution”, which is common descent from a universal common ancestor? No, we have not! Yet young people are typically introduced to Darwinism using these evidences, and expected to conclude that Darwin was right. I regard that as a form of brainwashing. To get to the Universal Common Ancestor, reference is made to the fossil record, to family trees based on molecular data, and to biogeography. I merely point out that the issue of building complexity is left unanswered and “the fact” turns into numerous data sets that require interpretation. It ought to shake students to find out that the fossil record conflicts with Darwinian gradualism, and the complexity that is found in the earliest hard-bodied fossils is astounding. This is not a post to answer these questions, but to point out to you that “proper science” does not support the way evolutionary theory is taught in schools. To repeat an earlier point, students need to know about all the issues I have mentioned above, but they need to do it with a questioning mind, asking whether the data adequately supports the theory.
I could respond in similar vein to children having “the right to be exposed to the diversity of life in the UK today”. On what grounds do we respect other human beings? How do Humanists, Jews, Christians and other traditions answer this question? What is the essence of bigotry? Why does our society extend respect to humans in general, but not to unborn children? Education is not about programming children with PC responses, but about helping them to understand the issues facing society and themselves. Rather than threaten schools with legal action or withdrawn funding, schools should be encouraged to be proactive in explaining to parents and to inspectors how they approach these issues.