Comment: Ofsted – not the niqab – is impairing learning in schools

Since the implementation of the Prevent strategy, 400 Muslim children under the age of 10 have been referred to the ‘anti-radicalisation’ programme

 

Earlier this week, Ofsted head Michael Wilshaw confirmed that inspectors can downgrade schools if they feel that the wearing of the niqab – by either teachers or pupils – is impairing learning. Phrased like this, it seems a reasonable policy.

In reality, however, opening the door to penalising the wearing of Islamic dress in this way is deeply worrying.

For a start, it’s unclear exactly why the niqab might be an obstacle to learning. Muslims have been teaching, learning and otherwise communicating wearing the full-face veil for centuries in Islamic countries all around the world.

It’s also unclear why Wilshaw feels the need to single out the niqab: if inspectors feel that learning is being impaired in any way, by any item of dress or obstacle to communication, surely they are able to reflect that in their report without the niqab being specified as a potential reason for an ‘inadequate’ rating.

But this policy is particularly concerning given that it follows a trend in recent weeks and months that has seen the practise, expression or even discussion of Islam in schools as suspicious.

Since the implementation of the ‘Prevent’ strategy, 400 Muslim children under the age of 10 have been referred to the ‘anti-radicalisation’ programme, and new E-safety legislation is forcing schools to install software which tracks the use of words such as ‘Pakistan’, ‘Islam’ and ‘Quran’. 

Launching a new ‘Educate against Hate’ website this week which encourages teachers to look out for ‘warning signs’ of radicalisation such as rapid conversion to religion, Education secretary Nicky Morgan admitted that conversion to Christianity ‘of course’ doesn’t count as one such warning sign – showing the clear disparity between the treatment of Christians and Muslims in this country.

When we make young Muslim children feel monitored, isolated and demonised for practising their religion in our schools, we damage irreparably community cohesion, trust and mutual respect. We lose the potential for discussion of difficult but important topics – and opportunities for truly valuable learning. Children in this country are at risk of radicalisation – but we need to tackle this through education, not demonisation.

Indeed, if Michael Wilshaw wants to eliminate barriers to learning in schools, he should perhaps look to the overassessment, rigid focus on examinations and targets, and back-breaking teacher workload which now characterise our education system. Allowing both teachers and pupils to teach, learn – and wear – what they like would do children a world of good.

Sophie van der Ham is co-chair of the Young Greens

95 Responses to “Comment: Ofsted – not the niqab – is impairing learning in schools”

  1. Dave

    Good news! Lesbianism isn’t considered a major sin in Islam because by definition no intercourse can have occurred. Mostly they just get beaten half to death by their parents before being married off to some old bloke.

    And don’t forget that homosexuality is perfectly OK in Islam as long as you do it with a little boy. Refer to Bache Bazi for more details.

  2. Dave

    “If 2.7million Muslims want their kids to be raised as if this was the middle ages, then the Labour party should support it as long as there are votes in it” – I think that sums up your position.

    Well I don’t know how you can live with yourself. I quite like the idea of going back to a time before Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary and re-doing that bit again, but going back to the time of Richard the Lionheart would be a bit too far surely. Maybe going back that far has its benefits though – it was a long time before socialism.

  3. Dave

    I love the irony of her calling herself “Green”. No environmentalism mentioned – it’s all radical left politics. Kate Hudson was obviously right when she was bragging about how the Communist Party of GB had thoroughly infiltrated the Green movement in the UK.

  4. Dave

    Isn’t the real problem that they are sitting their proudly announcing that they have no intention of learning anything because they intend on making themselves the wholly owned property of whichever man they are effectively sold to by their parents and will remain for the rest of their lives re-enacting the medieval period as if the Enlightenment had never happened or was widely regarded as a “very bad thing”?

    If we don’t, as a culture, believe in progress it seems we don’t believe in very much at all.

  5. Dave

    Not much mention of environmentalism in her profile. More a radical leftie with a rather curious interpretation of the term “liberal progressive”

Comments are closed.