I have written previously about the prevalence of woke ideology in schools, notably the promotion of intersectionality via the teaching and promotion of Critical Race Theory. Over the last year, I have been monitoring a peculiar element to this ideological trend that is gaining traction: a pro-refugee movement called Schools of Sanctuary, which is effectively the education wing of the City of Sanctuary movement and whose overall objective is political and cultural change to facilitate pro-refugee policies and legislation. Aside from GB News’s coverage in October 2023, which involved Nigel Farage reporting on it, and Toby Young’s commentary in episode 59 of the Weekly Sceptic, there has been limited scrutiny of it. There is evidence that this organisation, either directly or indirectly, politicises education under the facade of charity. In doing so, it places schools in breach of existing legislation and guidance and undermines political impartiality.
The requirements and obligations of schools when dealing with political issues are quite clear. Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 forbids the “pursuit of partisan political activities” and the “promotion of partisan political views”. However, according to section 407 of the Education Act 1996, controversial political topics can be taught provided they are done so in a balanced way. The Department of Education’s guidance on political impartality in schools published 2022 recognises that pupils should have “an understanding and respect for legitimate differences of opinion”. It reaffirms the Education Act 1996 by stating schools “must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views” and insists pupils be given a “balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues”.
The 2022 guidance also draws on the definition of “partisan” as established by Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills (2007) and defines partisan activities as “one-sided” with the intent to “further the interests of a particular partisan group, change the law or change government policy”. Rather importantly within the context of this article, the 2022 guidance also recognises that charitable organisations can be politically partisan. Schools of Sanctuary tries to justify some of its political activism by invoking the Equality Act 2010. While that legislation means it is unlawful for a school to discriminate against its staff or pupils on the basis of their “protected characteristics”, it does not oblige schools to actively campaign for a political cause. And some of the aims, ideological foundations and resources of Schools of Sanctuary, and the behaviour of those schools that have engaged with the organisation, appear to be in breach of the Education Act 1996 and the 2022 guidance.
The background of some of City of Sanctuary and Schools of Sanctuary’s trustees and the content of its materials and resources suggest a political objective and an adherence to identity politics. The trustees of City of Sanctuary include the chair, Yusuf Ciftci, who completed a PhD on immigration policy and the ways to influence changes in said policy. Much of this appears to have influenced the general strategy of City of Sanctuary. One of the trustees, Alice Mpofu-Coles, has been a Labour councillor for Whitley Ward, Reading, since 2021. She describes herself as “a passionate advocate for social justice” and a “tireless activist”. She is also a trustee of Alliance for Cohesion and Racial Equality Ltd, a charity that aims to address “imbalances in power and bring about change founded on social justice, equality and inclusion”.
According to its trustees’ report of 2022, City of Sanctuary is seeking “big political change” and intends to build a “strong and widespread movement” that will “translate into public support for changes in policy and practice”. With a General Election just a few weeks away, there is an opportunity for City of Sanctuary and Schools of Sanctuary to pursue that objective. The Illegal Migration Act 2023, in particular, is being targeted by City of Sanctuary and Schools of Sanctuary, as demonstrated by School of Sanctuary’s “useful” General Election door hanger, which urges people to repeal the Act. These aims clearly point to a political objective and thereby run counter to the Department of Education’s 2022 guidance.
An ideological imbalance in Schools of Sanctuary is implicit elsewhere in its literature and resources. A resource pack from Schools of Sanctuary suggests as much as it says there is an “increasingly hostile environment for people seeking sanctuary in the U.K., feeding anti-immigrant sentiment, racism”. Elsewhere on its website, Schools of Sanctuary claims there is “widespread hostile – and often inaccurate – rhetoric in the public and in the media driving increasingly cruel immigration policies and encouraging attitudes of distrust and hate”. It asserts “the challenges that people who are seeking sanctuary experience often intersect with racism”. This organisation seems to think immigration can only ever be positive and beneficial. Any concerns, criticism, challenge or opposition to immigration are by implication racist and unjustified.
Such beliefs inevitably necessitate a filtering of factual evidence. With the upcoming General Election, Schools of Sanctuary has issued guidance on having “courageous conversations” as part of its push to get people to “step up” This guidance states it “isn’t about debating the other person” and instead emphasises the strategy of emotional persuasion, of encouraging individuals to “speak from the heart” rather than relying on facts. This is a convenient strategy to use with many children, since it dispenses with the need to find, analyse and evaluate tangible evidence. This is essentially derived from the concept of “lived experience” and avoids the troublesome problem of contending with data which does not fit an established narrative.
And where Schools of Sanctuary does stoop to mentioning facts, it does so selectively. Take, for example, the assertion that asylum seekers only receive £49.18 per week which “must cover all food, transport, hygiene items, phone data and clothing”. To be sure, this specific figure is not incorrect. But it certainly lacks context and overlooks a considerable number of other facts, such as the ability of refugees to access Universal Credit, Child Benefit (both of which can be backdated to the date of an asylum claim) and NHS services with free prescriptions and dental care. None of this is mentioned by Schools of Sanctuary and it is not surprising since recognising such facts would undermine the organisation’s agenda. Besides not being objective and impartial, this filtering of information is not exactly consistent with City of Sanctuary’s self-proclaimed belief in “high standards of honesty and behaviour” either.
This intellectually myopic approach is reinforced through the accreditation process which the organisation has developed. Schools of Sanctuary recognises that schools can be used as training camps for producing generations of social justice activists. To that end, it takes a leaf out of Stonewall and the Carbon Literacy Project’s book by accrediting schools which comply with its criteria and objectives. One of the stages of this process is an audit tool, which is a self-assessment document containing a long list of criteria and demands which a school must meet to gain accreditation. Staff must log evidence in this document and compile a portfolio ahead of an inspection from a representative from Schools of Sanctuary. During an inspection, Schools of Sanctuary evaluate this evidence and interview staff and pupils. If a school is deemed compliant, then accreditation is awarded and it can then officially advertise itself as a “School of Sanctuary”.
This audit tool, as indicated in criterion 1.5, draws on some of the core concepts of critical social justice ideology, such as “anti-racism” and “unconscious bias”. The influence of Critical Race Theory is evidenced elsewhere in Schools of Sanctuary materials; its website, for example, says “white people who are privileged can safely stand up to racism”. A resource pack asserts it has never “been more apparent that every school should work towards becoming actively anti-racist” and says schools managers should be “ensuring staff and students engage with anti-racist learning and activities”. Complying with these diktats is required if a school is to be accredited as a “School of Sanctuary”.
So far, this article has primarily looked at the intentions of Schools of Sanctuary and suggested it has clear political and ideological objectives, contravening key impartiality rules, as set out in legislation and official guidance. The question remains, however, whether any of this has succeeded in embedding itself in schools and whether teachers have begun to serve Schools of Sanctuary’s political interests, and in doing so violated the law.
Within my own school, which has ambitions of gaining Schools of Sanctuary accreditation, pressure has been exerted on pupils to support the charity’s political objectives. This has, for now, principally been done by getting them to write messages of support on large paper orange hearts, which are then pinned up around the school. These messages typically demand “action for refugees”. There are, however, plans to use PSHE and morning registration to promote ideas from Schools of Sanctuary. The school email system has been used to encourage staff to attend pro-refugee protests, and managers have begun to demand heads of department produce evidence showing they are compliant with Schools of Sanctuary’s requirements. I have raised concerns about the breaching of political impartiality rules at the highest level but so far have been ignored.
There are signs that other schools are embracing the political activism of Schools of Sanctuary. Evidence from a newsletter produced by Birmingham Schools and Colleges of Sanctuary in March this year indicates some teachers are providing pupils with a decidedly unbalanced treatment of the issue of immigration and asylum. In one school, “pupils studied the shocking findings in a recent report from Asylum Matters and used their maths skills to present the information”. They also “heard about the Lift The Ban campaign”, which aims to make it legally possible for asylum applicants to work while waiting for those applications to be processed. In the same region, schools were running “days of action” in which academic subjects were being set aside so pupils and staff could engage in activism for refugees. One school was reported to have “embarked on a journey of activism” which involved pupils writing to various public figures. In the process, pupils “gained a deeper understanding of social justice issues”. Similar activism has emerged elsewhere, such as a primary school where “pupils were so outraged when they learned how little money asylum-seekers received”. Other schools have made a point of taking to social media to post videos calling on MPs to “oppose the anti-refugee bill”. All this ties in with Schools of Sanctuary’s suggestion in its resource pack that schools should establish lunch time clubs to “campaign for refuges and asylum seekers’ rights” and encourage pupils to work with activist groups like Right to Remain. Besides the fact that academic subjects are potentially being set aside, this all suggests some schools are not providing a balanced treatment of a controversial political issue.
How much of a problem is this? According to the Schools of Sanctuary website, the total number of schools involved is approximately 400. There are some 32,163 schools in the U.K., which would mean Schools of Sanctuary has infiltrated just 1.24% of all schools. Hardly a majority, but still a concern as the organisation is gaining momentum, with 2023 seeing 140 schools signing up. That’s a 55% increase compared to 2022 and there’s obviously time for the organisation to spread its influence across our schools.
However, the problem is more significant than the statistical evidence suggest. Thomas Sowell noted that modern teaching practice increasingly emphasises the venting of emotions over conventional intellectual methods and guides students to “prepackaged conclusions”. In other words, children are not taught essential critical thinking skills and are not encouraged to think independently; they are in effect indoctrinated. Following GB News’s report, Schools of Sanctuary issued a response in which it stated it was “proud” of those schools that had already signed up for the initiative. In its response, Schools of Sanctuary claimed it does “not promote a political perspective”. Quite how this sits with the desire for “big political change” referred to in the trustees’ report is unclear.
With the influence of Schools of Sanctuary, schools are potentially overstepping legal and ethical boundaries by facilitating pupils’ conversion into political activists who perhaps do not appreciate that alternative, equally legitimate points of view exist. This is concerning, irrespective of whether the intention is to build a “culture of kindness and compassion”. The question remains as to whether Schools of Sanctuary will try to further use the education system to promote its political cause. School governors, senior managers, the Charity Commission and the Department for Education ought to be scrutinising organisations like Schools of Sanctuary more closely if schools are to comply with their legal obligation to be politically impartial. And those who are running schools and choosing to overlook this significant issue should be held accountable.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.