In this week’s Spectator, I’ve written about the appointment of Becky Francis, a former Professor of Education and Social Justice, to lead the Government’s shake-up of the national curriculum. This is significant because, in addition to rewriting the national curriculum, the Government is going to force academies and free schools to teach it. I wrote a thread on X about why this is such a disaster here. Here’s how my column begins:
The appointment of Becky Francis CBE to lead the Department for Education’s shake-up of the national curriculum is typical of Labour’s plan to embed their ideology across our institutions – or rather entrench it, since the long march is almost complete.
On the face of it, Professor Francis is “unburdened by doctrine”, to use Sir Keir Starmer’s phrase about how Labour intends to govern. As former Director of the Institute of Education and current CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, she has the outward appearance of a technocrat. But scratch the surface and, like so many Labour appointees, she emerges as a long-standing adherent of left-wing identity politics.
After earning a PhD in Women’s Studies at the University of North London (I’m not making that up), Ms. Francis went on to become Professor of Education and Social Justice at King’s College London. She was then promoted to head of the Institute of Education, UCL’s most left-wing faculty, where she launched the Centre for Sociology of Education and Equity, a research centre dedicated to advancing “equity and social justice” in schools.
For those unfamiliar with the jargon, “equity and social justice” does not mean creating a level playing field so that all children can excel, regardless of colour or creed. It means tilting the playing field so various fashionable identity groups – women, people of colour, members of the LGBT community, people with disabilities, etc. – can win at the expense of the unfashionable – men, white people, heterosexuals, the able-bodied, etc. And helping them win by any means necessary. Not the philosophy of Martin Luther King, but Malcolm X.
You can read the rest of my piece here.
I’m not the only person to ring the alarm bell about the appointment of Ms. Francis. Tim Stanley wrote about it in the Telegraph earlier this week and David James, the Deputy Head of a leading independent school, wrote about it in the Critic. It’s worth quoting from his piece to give you a flavour of Becky Francis’s politics:
You would think that in education there would be a consensus view: namely, that schools should be orderly places which allow all children to get a good education before moving on to either university or employment. You couldn’t be more wrong. The truth is that education at both primary and secondary school levels is riven with ideologues who believe that schools are places of cruelty, that rules are oppressive, and that a knowledge-rich curriculum should be abandoned in favour of less prescriptive, more creative, skills-based courses.
Take this abstract from “Schools as damaging organisations”: In it the authors argue that “schooling in the Global North damages young people (and their teachers). The range of damage includes: the reproduction of social inequality via schooling and the psychological injury and practices of harassment and exclusion this involves for pupils; institutional structures of discipline and surveillance; brutalisation of young people; and the effects of participation and experiences of these practices for teachers.” My own optimism levels dropped quite considerably after reading that.
In this essay schools sound more like Gradgrindian institutions, rather than the mostly liberal and compassionate places they are. But many on the left seek to characterise schools today as trauma-inducing organisations that need to be reformed and made more “inclusive” and child-centred. What is worrying is that one of the authors of this article is Professor Becky Francis, who has just been put in charge of “refreshing” the National Curriculum by the Secretary of State. Professor Francis sees structural inequalities everywhere: she is a strident critic of setting by ability, characterising it as “symbolic violence”, which is “incompatible with social justice”. Professor Francis’s research areas are ideological and principally focused on social disadvantage; it is difficult to imagine how they will not transfer to the “refreshed” curriculum that she will be so instrumental in shaping. Indeed, the main areas of focus for the review makes it clear that the new National Curriculum will have to reflect the “diversities of our society” so that “all children are represented”, coupled with an assessment system that “captures the full strengths of every child”. If you try to argue against such wording you are immediately accused of being pro-exclusion and anti-inclusion,and who’d want that? The problem is that an examination system can’t be fully inclusive: it has to reward those who do well more than those who do not. If you try to bend the final outcomes so that more pupils are able to get more qualifications you have to work backwards and make what is taught in the classroom more accessible — or easier — as well. Standards, inevitably, will fall, as they have done in both Wales and Scotland when both countries, disastrously, reformed their own curricula to make them more inclusive.
Worth reading in full.
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.
Feminists who believe that men and women are inherently identical, with any differences being explained by social constructs, are promoting hard left-wing beliefs – we’re all the same you see. Feminism has evolved (devolved?) into a cesspit of left-wing idealogues. There seems to be a rather muddled school of thought amongst many feminists that insist that the only possible differences are physical, but then choke on their cup of male tears when Brian wants to remove any physical differences and become Barbara. Theoretically though, if this thinking holds firm, then removing physical differences will make a man a woman. But, but, but…
And these feminists have embedded themselves into our education system at every imaginable level.
“men and women are inherently identical” ha ha h ha ha ha jeez. ——-Can any of our DS readers tell which man is identical to this lady?
What is an “intersectional feminist”? Does the modifier “intersectional” apply to the person or to the brand of “feminism” they espouse. What is “intersectional feminism”?
I do wish people would define their terms, especially when using the language of the enemy.
🤣 Best off asking what a chuffing feminist is first! I’m still none the wiser and highly suspect if you ask several of them you’ll get a variety of answers. They all seem to vary greatly in what they stand for.
Nobody seems to adhere to dictionary definitions anymore. 😹 🤡
Nobody seems to adhere to dictionary definitions anymore
That’s the point Mogs. Language is being deliberately twisted and abused in order to undermine society – control the language, control our thoughts.
I’m not falling for any of it.
So I hope that’s cleared up your question?
No, me neither.
Slightly amusing that its from a site called unwomen.org
OK so an “intersectional feminist” is a feminist who also believes in “intersectionality”. Thanks.
Only according to the person who coined the term… No doubt opinion be divided on the matter.
“intersectionality” reminds me of Douglas Adams’ Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency. I don’t think Mr Adams meant it to be taken seriously.
Brilliant, thanks.
And me neither.
I don’t get this. So I’m apparently in a ”fashionable identity group” ( whatever that is. Since when has someone’s sex been fashionable? ) by virtue of being female, but then I’m also white, heterosexual and able-bodied, so have I just cancelled myself out by being more ”unfashionable” than ”fashionable”? Right, glad we’ve cleared that up! 🤯🙈
”Liberal women hate other women because they hate themselves.” I read that yesterday and I tend to agree. It’s these women that shaft other ( saner ) females. I think this one is a particularly good example. ”Get the penis-owners in women’s prisons and in female sports”, said no right-thinking person firing on all cylinders ever;
”A woman who thinks trans-identified sex offenders should be in ‘the prison of their choosing’ was hardly going to balk at males in women’s sport, was she? @lisanandy
told us loudly and proudly who she was pre-election. She’s one of the main reasons I couldn’t vote Labour.”
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1816124047970672724
The idea is to create a many fundamentally incompatible subspecies of man as humanly possible as this maximises the number of spokespeople who can claim to represent someone and maximises the difficulty of solving the supposed problem, thereby hopefully enabling all these spokespeople to spokespeople everthereafter without the whole hairball ever getting anywhere. The problem is not that left-handed indigenous gay transmen born with legs attached to their shoulders and arms on the back are oppressed, the problem that they could eventually cease to be oppressed and thus, render campaigners for their equality without an occupation.
So I thought to myself “Are there any degrees in Men’s Studies?”.
I had a quick peep on line and found 7 listed in a subject search app.
I present for you education the list that was peresented.
Sounds like Lionel Shriver’s novel, Mania, made flesh.
This is essentially a Marxist creed; underperformance in school/life reflects deprived opportunity. Likewise, theft is purely a response to economic/social factors.
The ‘Left’ are adept at occupying the offices of any and all institutions and authorities. They believe that is the appropriate process and they know they can have political influence in this way. Conversely the ‘Right’ are far less interested, inclined towards or believing in any prestige or power obtained via such a way.
The problem is the ‘Right’ gift power to the ‘Left’ in failing to occupy these offices of influence. The solution is to either make the bally effort or, better I say, strive to do away with them wherever possible.
They are leaving the classroom already in the same way that university student did 60 years ago. They know the score. I remember reading a book about how the second Iraq invasion affected the minds of children of primary school age. It affected them very deeply much more deeply than their protectors. The sense of kinship that they felt with the dead and suffering children. They are busy writing the future they have just deemed it expedient to keep schtum around the boomer generation and I think they are making the right decision.
Trust me when shit gets nasty very few women will help you. That is why you have to understand who is useful to you before it reaches crisis point. The women that are useful never use their feminity to gain some sort of advantage.
They won’t help you they will just absorb your energy. Don’t talk to me in six months time women are much worse in terms of genocide endorsement etc.
The pussy divine is actually a sour twat. I am sorry to say this but it is important in terms of a true appraisal of our reality .Don’t be beguiled into genocide wearing a female cloak.
I will always stand for the pussy divine but that has very little to do with human females.
It isn’t what I want to do. Having to spell out simple things which shouldn’t need to be spelt out. I am not having a go at anyone. just letting you know where I stand.
You creates the conditions for feminist scumbags and you complain at this late hour. T
hankfully women reject her with way more gusto than men ever would.
To sum up her “qualifications” she’s got a PhD in a made up subject from the university of what’s the f**king point aka a rebranded 3rd rate polytechnic.
Why should only sex offenders have the right to choose which prison they go to. This is discrimination against non-sex offenders
And will be earning a good amount and have an excellent pension
How can someone gain a PhD in Women’s Studies when they can’t define what a woman is?
I’m astounded this Course hasn’t been banned for not being inclusive.
This probably predates renaming women studies (studying the subject of women, not subjects women study) to gender studies (gender’s studies would be an interesting alternative here). I noticed the shockwaves of that first a little over fifteen years ago, when some female columnists whose articles I used to read starting spouting eloquently worded gibberish pretty much overnight, as if their marching order had just changed.
‘Unburdened by doctrine’ means they wear what doctrine they have very comfortably.
It’s a sexed up version of unburdenen by respect for anything they didn’t come up with themselves, ie, destroy first, then build back better people.
How is it possible that anyone can get a PhD in Women’s Studies? Why does such a qualification exist. Is there anywhere I can get a PhD in Men’s Studies? My town doesn’t have a University. It is high time it did. Where do I apply to set one up and get lots of Gummint dosh to run it. Then I can award myself a Professorship in ‘Lampost Intersectionaliy’ and award myself that elusive PhD, the lack of which has ruined my life?