Batley Grammar School - Compensation for the suspended teacher?

[danieldemol]

Hi,

Background: UK's Batley Grammar School is the school where a teacher was suspended in March after showing his pupils a cartoon of Muhammad during a Religious Studies discussion about blasphemy.

The Batley Multi Academy Trust commissioned an inquiry into the incident which found;

"The findings are clear, that the teaching staff involved did not use the resource with the intention of causing offence, and that the topics covered by the lesson could have been effectively addressed in other ways. In the light of those conclusions, the suspensions put in place while the investigation was underway will now be lifted." 1

So in summary the teacher appears to have used the resource (Ie the cartoon of Muhammad) *not* with the intention of offending, and the teacher should have been trained in effective ways of addressing the lesson without the cartoons if the school wanted to not risk offending Islamists whilst providing a quality education.

In other words the teacher got suspended over a training issue, which is the school's fault, not the teachers.

The school's website appears to address that it was a training issue, "The investigation recommends that the issues raised can be effectively dealt with through additional management guidance and training."

Therefore the teacher should be compensated for the suspension by the school, and if possible also for the demonisation and death threats2 he is alleged to have recieved by the parties making those threats and demonisation.

In my opinion.

Do you think the teacher should receive financial compensation?

1 Batley Grammar School - Home
2 Batley Grammar and the triumph of the mob | The Spectator

 

[Altfish]

Firstly, I believe the teacher did nothing wrong.
It is basically the blasphemy law via the back door, censorship imposed on non-believers.

So, yes he should be compensated and his oppressors should be warned of their future conduct.

 

[exchemist]

Hi,

Background: UK's Batley Grammar School is the school where a teacher was suspended in March after showing his pupils a cartoon of Muhammad during a Religious Studies discussion about blasphemy.

The Batley Multi Academy Trust commissioned an inquiry into the incident which found;

"The findings are clear, that the teaching staff involved did not use the resource with the intention of causing offence, and that the topics covered by the lesson could have been effectively addressed in other ways. In the light of those conclusions, the suspensions put in place while the investigation was underway will now be lifted." 1

So in summary the teacher appears to have used the resource (Ie the cartoon of Muhammad) *not* with the intention of offending, and the teacher should have been trained in effective ways of addressing the lesson without the cartoons if the school wanted to not risk offending Islamists whilst providing a quality education.

In other words the teacher got suspended over a training issue, which is the school's fault, not the teachers.

The school's website appears to address that it was a training issue, "The investigation recommends that the issues raised can be effectively dealt with through additional management guidance and training."

Therefore the teacher should be compensated for the suspension by the school, and if possible also for the demonisation and death threats2 he is alleged to have recieved by the parties making those threats and demonisation.

In my opinion.

Do you think the teacher should receive financial compensation?

1 Batley Grammar School - Home
2 Batley Grammar and the triumph of the mob | The Spectator

No. The teacher will have been suspended on full pay, obviously.

It is remarkably stupid of the teacher not to have consulted before showing a cartoon of Mohammed, given the population of Batley has a huge proportion of people originating from South Asia. Does he or she live under a rock?

I think the enquiry findings are being extremely kind to this teacher, actually.

 

[Augustus]

Firstly, I believe the teacher did nothing wrong.
It is basically the blasphemy law via the back door, censorship imposed on non-believers.

So, yes he should be compensated and his oppressors should be warned of their future conduct.

In general, do you not believe a teacher has a responsibility to avoid things which are pedagogically unnecessary, highly culturally offensive to many of the students in the class and certain to detract from the teacher's ability to teach the class effectively to the detriment of all students?

Another example might be that a teacher in a discussion on racism has the choice of saying the full version of the 'n word' repeatedly in a 'non-offensive' manner, or simply referring to 'the n word'. For what reason would it make sense to say ****** knowing full well what the response would be from numerous students?

 

[epronovost]

Another example might be that a teacher in a discussion on racism has the choice of saying the full version of the 'n word' repeatedly in a 'non-offensive' manner, or simply referring to 'the n word'. For what reason would it make sense to say ****** knowing full well what the response would be from numerous students?

Well in the case of the infamous n-word, the obvious reason why it could be used by a teacher or in class material in class about racism instead of some euphemism could very well be to desensitize students to its use in that context. After all, any good class on racism and its history will include texts and speeches which will always include a copious amount of the n-word.

The same goes to a certain extend with blasphemy. You can't really teach about blasphemy and the right to say and do blasphemous things without saying and doing some blasphemous things, especially if the end goal of a class on blasphemy isn't just to explain what that is precisely, why some religion and culture opposes it, but also why the right to say and do blasphemous things is important in Britain. It's also important to show some blasphemous material to show the difference between blasphemy and what could be better referred as "appeal to hatred" for while akin, those two things aren't the same.

These are touchy subject that aren't easy to discuss and teach. I never taught a class on blasphemy, but I did so on racism and made several lectures on feminism and yes, I presented racist and misogynistic material to illustrate points and provide context. The tough part is to shock enough to provide an opportunity to learn and grow, but not too much as to only provoke outrage. It's a delicate balance that needs to be struck.

 

[Vinayaka]

In general, do you not believe a teacher has a responsibility to avoid things which are pedagogically unnecessary, highly culturally offensive to many of the students in the class and certain to detract from the teacher's ability to teach the class effectively to the detriment of all students?

Another example might be that a teacher in a discussion on racism has the choice of saying the full version of the 'n word' repeatedly in a 'non-offensive' manner, or simply referring to 'the n word'. For what reason would it make sense to say ****** knowing full well what the response would be from numerous students?

It's not that difficult to find a resource that can make the same point, without walking this line. That said, I think some history and historical fiction should be accurate, and the portrayal of racism is accurate. Otherwise we risk keeping students naive about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So in summary the teacher appears to have used the resource (Ie the cartoon of Muhammad) *not* with the intention of offending, and the teacher should have been trained in effective ways of addressing the lesson without the cartoons if the school wanted to not risk offending Islamists whilst providing a quality education.

At the same time, teachers should know how to teach responsibly. I suspect that the school did not supply the cartoon, and it's pretty damn obvious that the teacher wholly ill prepared to provide anything approximating "a quality education."

As a compromise, I propose the following: Let the teacher write 500 times

"I will not teach a topic about which I am grossly uninformed."​

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi,

Background: UK's Batley Grammar School is the school where a teacher was suspended in March after showing his pupils a cartoon of Muhammad during a Religious Studies discussion about blasphemy.

The Batley Multi Academy Trust commissioned an inquiry into the incident which found;

"The findings are clear, that the teaching staff involved did not use the resource with the intention of causing offence, and that the topics covered by the lesson could have been effectively addressed in other ways. In the light of those conclusions, the suspensions put in place while the investigation was underway will now be lifted." 1

So in summary the teacher appears to have used the resource (Ie the cartoon of Muhammad) *not* with the intention of offending, and the teacher should have been trained in effective ways of addressing the lesson without the cartoons if the school wanted to not risk offending Islamists whilst providing a quality education.

In other words the teacher got suspended over a training issue, which is the school's fault, not the teachers.

The school's website appears to address that it was a training issue, "The investigation recommends that the issues raised can be effectively dealt with through additional management guidance and training."

Therefore the teacher should be compensated for the suspension by the school, and if possible also for the demonisation and death threats2 he is alleged to have recieved by the parties making those threats and demonisation.

In my opinion.

Do you think the teacher should receive financial compensation?

1 Batley Grammar School - Home
2 Batley Grammar and the triumph of the mob | The Spectator

Definitely. It's the UK. Not a Muslim theocracy.

While I think some respect ought to be afforded for reasons of sensitivity , it's no reason to penalize a teacher for doing his or her job.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's time for Islam to have some kind of
reformation to quell the dangerous fanaticism.
I'll alert y'all when I figure out how to do it.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It's time for Islam to have some kind of
reformation to quell the dangerous fanaticism.
I'll alert y'all when I figure out how to do it.

Far from all Muslims are fanatics, and there are a number of liberal reform movements in Islam already. This article about Bosnia is also instructive.

 

[Altfish]

In general, do you not believe a teacher has a responsibility to avoid things which are pedagogically unnecessary, highly culturally offensive to many of the students in the class and certain to detract from the teacher's ability to teach the class effectively to the detriment of all students?

Another example might be that a teacher in a discussion on racism has the choice of saying the full version of the 'n word' repeatedly in a 'non-offensive' manner, or simply referring to 'the n word'. For what reason would it make sense to say ****** knowing full well what the response would be from numerous students?

As long as the teacher introduces it as a lesson on contradictory views, I see only positives.
Many of the Muslim pupils will not have had their teachings challenged; in the same way that many white kids haven't had their perceptions of black kids lives challenged.
School is for learning, not reinforcing .
The use of the 'n' word if properly framed and as part of a discussion is essential.

 

[exchemist]

Definitely. It's the UK. Not a Muslim theocracy.

While I think some respect ought to be afforded for reasons of sensitivity , it's no reason to penalize a teacher for doing his or her job.

This teacher was teaching religious studies, to a class which was probably 30-40% muslim, judging by the demographics of the area. It is grossly incompetent not to treat something like this with sensitivity. Imagined "theocracies" are quite beside the point.

 

[Orbit]

If the teacher didn't realize a cartoon of Mohammed was problematic, s/he probably shouldn't be teaching religious studies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Far from all Muslims are fanatics, and there are a number of liberal reform movements in Islam already. This article about Bosnia is also instructive.

I know that fanaticism doesn't afflict all.
But reformation is still needed for a great many.

 

[oldbadger]

Hi,

Background: UK's Batley Grammar School is the school where a teacher was suspended in March after showing his pupils a cartoon of Muhammad during a Religious Studies discussion about blasphemy.

The Batley Multi Academy Trust commissioned an inquiry into the incident which found;

"The findings are clear, that the teaching staff involved did not use the resource with the intention of causing offence, and that the topics covered by the lesson could have been effectively addressed in other ways. In the light of those conclusions, the suspensions put in place while the investigation was underway will now be lifted." 1

So in summary the teacher appears to have used the resource (Ie the cartoon of Muhammad) *not* with the intention of offending, and the teacher should have been trained in effective ways of addressing the lesson without the cartoons if the school wanted to not risk offending Islamists whilst providing a quality education.

In other words the teacher got suspended over a training issue, which is the school's fault, not the teachers.

The school's website appears to address that it was a training issue, "The investigation recommends that the issues raised can be effectively dealt with through additional management guidance and training."

Therefore the teacher should be compensated for the suspension by the school, and if possible also for the demonisation and death threats2 he is alleged to have recieved by the parties making those threats and demonisation.

In my opinion.

Do you think the teacher should receive financial compensation?

1 Batley Grammar School - Home
2 Batley Grammar and the triumph of the mob | The Spectator

Teachers should work within agreed lesson plans.
He probably got paid while suspended , but imo he didn't deserve pay.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I know that fanaticism doesn't afflict all.
But reformation is still needed for a great many.

Even when more widespread reform comes, and come it will, I sincerely believe that, there will always be fanatics, of that I also have no doubt.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even when more widespread reform comes, and come it will, I sincerely believe that, there will always be fanatics, of that I also have no doubt.

If we consider Christianity, we see that fanaticism
is less of a problem.....less.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

If we consider Christianity, we see that fanaticism
is less of a problem.....less.

And that may also be what will happen with Islam.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that may also be what will happen with Islam.

Any idea how soon?
Later this year would be great.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This teacher was teaching religious studies, to a class which was probably 30-40% muslim, judging by the demographics of the area. It is grossly incompetent not to treat something like this with sensitivity. Imagined "theocracies" are quite beside the point.

It makes me wonder why there are even religious studies inside a grade/ high school situation the first place.