The Hizb School Row Is Far From Over
Read Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph:
The central charge is perfectly true, thoroughly documented – and a scandal. But Cameron made some mistakes in the detail, sending the Westminster media chasing down one of their classic “process issue” cul-de-sacs (whether the schools were registered, and which particular part of the Whitehall cake this slice of cash had come from) and allowing Balls to launch his attack on Cameron. He clearly thought he’d scored a bullseye: one-nil to the forces of Gordon.
But it turns out to be Ed Balls, just as much as Cameron, who’s been playing politics and failing to check the facts. The issue is not the situation with the schools now. It’s the situation at the time the public money was paid. It turns out that the schools’ chief Hizb ut Tahrir trustee, Yusra Hamilton, only resigned last month, in response to my story, long after the Government grant came in.
The headteacher of one of the schools, Farah Ahmed, who remains a trustee to this day, refuses to deny that she was a Hizb member and has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt western concepts of materialism and freedom.”
And Ofsted – far from “satisfying themselves that there were no problems” – actually condemned one of the two schools as “inadequate,” questioned the suitability of the staff, and said that it could do more “to promote cultural tolerance and harmony.” That was in November 2007.By May 2008, according to a follow-up report, the school had been magically transformed, and was now “good”. That second report, however, was written by an inspector with, at the very least, personal connections to Islamic groups.
I fear Mr Balls’s heavy reliance on these Ofsted reports to defend the schools is about to make him look pretty silly. Ofsted is also, of course, the body that rated children’s services in Haringey “good” – in the same year that the borough was comprehensively failing Baby P.
But there’s a broader point. If taxpayer-funded schools were run by supporters of the BNP, there would be an outcry. Hizb ut Tahrir is an Islamic version of the BNP: not actually violent, but openly anti-Semitic, racist, and an enemy of liberal society.
Do Ed Balls and New Labour really want to be the friends and defenders of such people? Does Balls really think it’s good politics to be the Minister for Hizb ut Tahrir?
Not for the first time, the minister has allowed his thirst for a quick hit on the Tories to overcome his common sense. And not for the first time, he has scored a tactical victory, but dropped a massive strategic clanger.
Here’s the tragedy of the situation.
Cameron did screw up at Question Time on the precise source of funds for the school. The CSC were not at fault. It was a daft error – why would anybody think that a primary school might be getting PVE Pathfinder money? Apparently, the answer is: a Tory researcher who put together Cameron’s briefing. Silly kid.
But over the next few days, it is going to become clearer and clearer that, just like the far Left groups that they emulate tactically, Hizb ut Tahrir have a policy of entryism. In fact, they are quite open about it. Here is Hizb ut Tahrir’s own description of its method:
1. Establish a community of Hizb ut-Tahrir members who work together in the same way as the companions of Muhammad. Members should accept the goals and methods of the organization as their own and be ready to work to fulfill these goals.
2. Build public opinion among the Muslim masses for the caliphate and the other Islamic concepts that will lead to a revival of Islamic thought.
3. Once public opinion is achieved in a target country through debate and persuasion, the group hopes to obtain support from army generals, leaders, and other influential figures or bodies to facilitate the change of the government. The government would be replaced by one that implements Islam “generally and comprehensively”, carrying Islamic thought to people throughout the world
Hizb constantly shuffles between Stage 1 and Stage 2. At Stage 2, it establishes a bunch of front organisations, through which it seeks to recruit the “Muslim masses”. They have been particularly active in the field of education. The ISF Schools are very far from their only areas of activity. Expect to hear more about this, soon.
Stage 3, of course, is a military coup. That’s pretty much what they argued for in Pakistan a couple of weekends ago, at the Friends Meeting House. Well done, Quakers.
What Ed Balls should have said is something like this:
“David Cameron’s research is slapdash and poor. He has made some pretty basic and foolish errors. His intervention at Question Time was sensationalist and counterproductive.
However, we do take the dangers of extremism in our schools very seriously. The ISF Schools are, quite possibly, blameless and these charges may be shown to be unfair. However, we are committed to ensuring that our system of inspection works, and I will personally be re-examining this case.
But the issue goes wider than just this particular school. There are important systemic issues at stake. If there has been shown to be any failing in our controls, we will take action to ensure that they are remedied.
Instead, Ed Balls put himself in a dangerous position. If it turns out that the ISF criticisms are substantially correct – and I think that they are – he will be forced either to backtrack, or worse still, to adopt Nelsonian blindness to the problem. Neither alternative is an attractive one.
There is a more fundamental problem here, and it has to do with the boring subject of methods of public sector regulation.
There are two regulatory “modes”. A good regulator should ordinarily see its function, not as catching those they regulate out and punishing them, but rather helping them to get things right. That should be the default position for most regulators, most of the time.
However, all regulators should also have a strong and resilient ‘enforcement’ mode that they shift into in appropriate case. Within any group of regulated persons, there will be some people who have no intention of complying. They want to “get away with it”. With such persons, there is simply no point in helping them to follow the rules. They have no intention of complying: they’re much more interested in sophisticated ways of hiding their non-compliance.
I don’t know what is going on in OFSTED. It is possible, as Gilligan suggests, that there has been entryism into OFSTED – who knows. But it is equally possible that OFSTED just doesn’t take seriously the possibility that a fascist group is trying to work the system, to get public funds, and to further their campaign for sectarian politics of the worst sort.
Equally, OFSTED might be very badly equipped to identify groups with this sort of agenda when they see them. For example, how much training have OFSTED inspectors had in recognising Hizb ut Tahrir philosophy or organisational practices? Can they tell them apart from ordinary religious Muslims at all?
OFSTED is poorly equipped for this task. Most schools are not involved with organisations which wish to establish totalitarian states, and so schools inspectors don’t know what to do with those who are.
This issue is not confined to education. A similar problem exists in relation to the Charity Commission, which appears incapable of acting against charities linked to jihadists, some of which appear to be raising funds for terrorists. The Charity Commission also appears to have put in charge of their “Faith and Social Cohesion Unit”, a man who has a background in a pretty dubious organisation.
This is a serious problem. It is time that the Government started to take it seriously.
Comments
| 27 November 2009, 2:55 pm |
OT -
watch tonight’s C4 expose on how Haredi Jews are threatening the very existence of Israel.
Can we expect a well-informed, balanced, rational programme?
Is the pope Bangladeshi?
| 27 November 2009, 2:56 pm |
Frog – anyone who uses the nonsense term ‘Islamophobia’ has a reputation for froginess.
| 27 November 2009, 2:58 pm |
Why are there all those posts to which one cannot respond?
On Bungle:
He goes on to talk in broad terms about his opposition to “casual antisemitism” -
what his position on “non-casual” antisemitism?
| 27 November 2009, 2:59 pm |
so you agree that someone who has links to Muslim groups is inherently untrustworthy?
that is, after all, the point of that paragraph in Gilligan’s article.
| 27 November 2009, 3:23 pm |
The Islamic Groups in question include:
- the Global Peace and Unity Awards. GPU is run by Mohammed Ali Harrath, a convicted terrorist in a Muslim Brotherhood group.
- FAIR, whose chair is Al Rawi. Al Rawi is a very extreme Islamist who is on record supporting attacks on British Troops in Iraq.
These aren’t just Muslim groups.
Ordinary Muslim groups don’t have supporters of terrorism and theocracy at their helms, do they?
| 27 November 2009, 3:24 pm |
so you agree that someone who has links to Muslim groups is inherently untrustworthy?
So you really have no clue about the difference between these two: Muslims and Islamism?
Benji, I wouldn’t shout too loudly about people talking crap if I were you …
Any group that openly promotes racism can be dealt with under UK law. And quite separately from that, if you can manage to grasp two concepts at the same time, there is the question of funding a group that promotes racism.
| 27 November 2009, 3:38 pm |
Nonsense. There is no ‘dilemma’. What there is, is cowardice and venality on the part of your favourite friends in this catastrophic government.
Any group, whether BNP or HuT, that calls for a particular ethnic group to be attacked, is committing a criminal offence under current UK law. Let their directors be prosecuted and ideally jailed for 15 years apiece. Perfectly simple.
| 27 November 2009, 3:44 pm |
laws which would probably be struck off and anyway would start chipping away at lib democracy itself.
Which would be bad. But there would be consolation in watching Islamists who despise liberal democracy complaining that liberal democracy is being chipped away at.
| 27 November 2009, 4:04 pm |
Re this
The headteacher of one of the schools, Farah Ahmed, who remains a trustee to this day, refuses to deny that she was a Hizb member and has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt western concepts of materialism and freedom.”
And Ofsted – far from “satisfying themselves that there were no problems” – actually condemned one of the two schools as “inadequate,” questioned the suitability of the staff, and said that it could do more “to promote cultural tolerance and harmony.” That was in November 2007.By May 2008, according to a follow-up report, the school had been magically transformed, and was now “good”. That second report, however, was written by an inspector with, at the very least, personal connections to Islamic groups.
It’s interesting that both Farah Ahmed and Michele Messaoudi appeared together at this event:
* Michele Messaoudi, Ofsted Inspector, on Promoting Children’s Spirituality at Home and School
* Farah Ahmed, co-founder of the Islamic Shakhsiyyah Schools, on Nurturing and Assessing the Pupil’s Developing Islamic Personality
| 27 November 2009, 4:08 pm |
As an aside a quick glance through the Taxpayers’ Alliance fisk of the sort of projects allocated Prevent funding is an eye opener: just about project has a broadly sectarian or religious agenda. You’d think that dishing out taxpayers money to improve ‘cohesion’ would negate money going to Somali wimminz sewing groups and Qur’an publishing houses…wouldn’t you?
| 27 November 2009, 4:13 pm |
I am afraid I got distracted when following the link to the BMSD post on CIF. Incongrously, given Shaaz’s stance, under related links below the post is one to an article in the Guardian on hijab friendly summer fashion. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/30/fashion-hijab-muslim-women. The fashion advisor says “When you’re wearing hijab all the attraction goes to the face.” So, she says, “create an alternative focus. Shoes, bangles … And then all my money goes on bags, bags, bags.”
I somehow doubt this strenuous effort needed to divert from the unfortunate side effect of wearing hijab will be all that effective. The eyes of how many men are going to bypass the face to fix on the bag and cry “ooh love that Birkin” (or whatever the must have bag is currently, I don’t keep up).
| 27 November 2009, 4:29 pm |
It is possible, as Gilligan suggests, that there has been entryism into OFSTED – who knows
would it be irresponsible to speculate as to whether mysterious shifty Islamisses terrorisses had subtly inflitrated every single organ of British society? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!!!
in our very primary schools! invading our sacred fluids! they’re everywhere! promoting terrorism, but doing so subtly and mysteriously, so much so that nobody can detect they’re doing it! They might be doing it right now! Look out! OH NO, I THINK THEY’VE GOT HARRY TOO!!
ffs. have a word with yourselves. try taking a bit more tobacco with it, guys.
| 27 November 2009, 4:39 pm |
The usual sane comment from dsquared. In his world, there is no AIDS, there is no terrorism, everything in Candide’s garden is lovely.
Do cut back on the Prozac, babe: 20,000 mg a day is overdoing it.
| 27 November 2009, 4:39 pm |
Classic Dsquared.
If he’d discovered that Nick Griffin’s wife and Mark Collett’s underage girlfriend had started up a school, and employed a head teacher who had written a pamphlet calling for the repatriation of non-whites, and that the school had then been inspected by somebody who had been a speaker at the Red White and Blue Festival –
– would we see a comment by him where he asks “why do you hate Christians so much”?
| 27 November 2009, 5:12 pm |
I hope they stop funding these desert “faith” schools completely. It is also good for Muslims so they could spend money on education than silly Manchester City FC.
| 27 November 2009, 5:21 pm |
It is instructive how the BBC has been treating the whole issue as an opportunity to be chucklesome about opposition gaffes. They had Danny Finkelstein reminiscing how when he was an advisor he was responsible for scorn being poured on gvt funding for the Women’s Hopscotch group which turned out to be a group for rape survivors.
If BBC had any gumption they would have examined it more rigorously to distinguish the minor error from the major serious problem.
| 27 November 2009, 6:18 pm |
For anyone actually interested in the facts may want to read Richard Garner’s article in the Independent:
| 27 November 2009, 6:40 pm |
Can anyone parse Mr. M’s comment?
| 27 November 2009, 6:49 pm |
Amie, that is simply the BBC in frantic – and classic – damage-limitation mode on behalf of their friends in the government. They have no other approach but to shill for Brown, Balls-up et al, and currently almost no other raison d’etre.
| 27 November 2009, 7:01 pm |
If he’d discovered that Nick Griffin’s wife and Mark Collett’s underage girlfriend had started up a school, and employed a head teacher who had written a pamphlet calling for the repatriation of non-whites, and that the school had then been inspected by somebody who had been a speaker at the Red White and Blue Festival –
Yes, I would certainly start gibbering and foaming, posting on my website that the whole world was being taken over by insidious BNPists and that everyone except me was too blind to see that we were all at risk from ruthlessly indoctrinated four year old terrorists. Because in that strange parallel world, it would be me who had become a conspiracy loon, rather than you. Strangely, in this infinite universe there is yet another parallel reality in which we are both supermodels, so it’s as well to keep a sense of proportion.
I notice that several comments on this thread have been deleted, by the way. This is great news, that you’ve solved the problem of not having the time to moderate your website. I look forward to reading it in future untroubled by racists and conspiracy theorists.
| 27 November 2009, 7:04 pm |
So let’s get this straight:
The BBC is controlled by
The Labour Party, which is controlled by
Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which is controlled by
The Muslim Brotherhood, which is controlled by
Hamas, which is controlled by
IRAN!
did I get all the links right, or did I miss a few levels? Where do the lizard people come in?
| 27 November 2009, 7:07 pm |
The headteacher of one of the schools, Farah Ahmed, who remains a trustee to this day, refuses to deny that she was a Hizb member and has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt western concepts of materialism and freedom.”
Oh dear.
I wonder what dsquared’s reaction would be if the head teacher of the school was a BNP member who had publicly condemned – for instance – the ‘politically correct’ idea that there is no indigenuous British race?
Would he on here with his childish insinuations of paranoia? If not, why the double standards?
Come on Daniel.
| 27 November 2009, 7:11 pm |
Yes, I would certainly start gibbering and foaming, posting on my website that the whole world was being taken over by insidious BNPists and that everyone except me was too blind to see that we were all at risk from ruthlessly indoctrinated four year old terrorists.
Now how about addressing the point in a mature fashion.
| 27 November 2009, 7:13 pm |
done that one, Mark. I realise it’s too much to expect you to scroll up so I’ll summarise – I briefly (but effectively and wittily) poured scorn on the idea that such a hypothetical case would have me believing in monstrous conspiracies to infiltrate every organ of society in our land.
By the way, your implicit suggestion that there are no nativists or British bigots running primary schools in Britain is diametrically at odds with my personal experience. This is how I know I have the fortitude to bear such a state of affairs without becoming Chicken Little.
Take my advice; just start reading the Guardian every morning with the obituary column. If your name isn’t there, then you know you’re not dead and you might as well get on with things. If your name is there and you are dead, well, the day can only get better.
| 27 November 2009, 7:14 pm |
Where do the lizard people come in?
You should know, you report to them once a day.
But some of your posts are almost sane – I don’t think they’ll be too pleased with that. You should try harder.
| 27 November 2009, 7:14 pm |
For anyone actually interested in the facts may want to read Richard Garner’s article in the Independent
Only a cretin would link to a post with half the story…
| 27 November 2009, 7:14 pm |
They have no other approach but to shill for Brown, Balls-up et al, and currently almost no other raison d’etre.
If you truly believe that then you really haven’t been paying enough attention to government-media relations over the last few years.
Cases in point: the BBC’s alleged attitude to Israel, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism. Compare these to the stances of the government
| 27 November 2009, 7:16 pm |
If not, why the double standards?
Not panicking about Hizb-ut-Tahrir and not panicking about the BNP is not a double standard. It’s the same standard, one of “not panicking”. If I had panicked about one but not the other (as you erroneously supposed I might), then that would be a double standard.
I see your mistake. You aimed to trap me in a dilemma, but got distracted half way through constructing it and failed to notice that one “horn” of your argument was exactly the same as the other.
| 27 November 2009, 7:16 pm |
We are talking about Islamic influence on social relations in this country, Tom. Do try to concentrate.
The BBC’s “alleged” attitude to Israel … LOL.
| 27 November 2009, 7:17 pm |
We are talking about Islamic influence on social relations in this country, Tom. Do try to concentrate.
Ahh, goalpost shifting. Sorry, didn’t realise that was the name of the game. Thought there was room for intelligent debate. My mistake
| 27 November 2009, 7:19 pm |
christ, to think that this comments section used to have David Aaronovitch and Adam LeBor in it. Eheu fugaces, as they say down Holloway Road.
| 27 November 2009, 7:19 pm |
Farah Ahmed, who remains a trustee to this day, refuses to deny that she was a Hizb member
Oh my.
| 27 November 2009, 7:20 pm |
By the way, your implicit suggestion that there are no nativists or British bigots running primary schools in Britain is diametrically at odds with my personal experience.
I implied no such thing.
If you read my post again, I merely questioned whether a post on HP pointing out such an example would be met with a similar response.
You and I both know the answer is no.
BNP members in charge of a school – a matter for serious debate.
Hizb members in charge of a school – childish insinuation about HP paranoia.
Fuck off.
| 27 November 2009, 7:23 pm |
You and I both know the answer is no.
Since I’ve said that the answer is yes, we don’t both know this. The problem here, Mark, is that you’re sticking to a game plan which was based on me picking a different answer to the one I actually picked.
| 27 November 2009, 7:38 pm |
Err I think the point is Sniffin Chuffs is all the claims made by the Cameron and the Tories were wrong: the schools were registered for inpection; the schools weren’t funded by money for combating antiterrorism; ISF isn’t a front for Hizb ut-Tahrir; the head of one of the schools was never a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Even the claim that a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir was a school governor was false – she was the wife of member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and she stood down.
This story is so leaky is should raise the question whether Cameron, Gove etal are fit as MPs let alone to run the country
| 27 November 2009, 7:44 pm |
I’ve said that the answer is yes
Of course, it was just the other day that you posted this comment -
OMG those BNP crazies indoctrinating 4-year-olds into racists!
ROFL!
HAHAHA
| 27 November 2009, 7:45 pm |
Ahh, goalpost shifting. Sorry, didn’t realise that was the name of the game. Thought there was room for intelligent debate. My mistake
Look at the thread title, numpty.
| 27 November 2009, 7:48 pm |
Mark, you really ought to take a couple of steps back, think of a different argument and then regroup. Your current course seems to be heavily dependent on your answering an imagined reaction of mine to a hypothetical situation which never actually happened. This isn’t really going to impress anyone.
| 27 November 2009, 7:54 pm |
No, Daniel. I don’t need to ‘imagine’ your response to the hypothetical, because you have confirmed what it would be.
I asked you whether a post on HP pointing out BNP bigots were running a school would receive a similar response. You -
I’ve said that the answer is yes
So here it is – in your own words – your response to BNP bigotry in schools -
in our very primary schools! invading our sacred fluids! they’re everywhere! promoting terrorism, but doing so subtly and mysteriously, so much so that nobody can detect they’re doing it! They might be doing it right now! Look out! OH NO, I THINK THEY’VE GOT HARRY TOO!!
Oh dear.
| 27 November 2009, 7:55 pm |
you don’t seem to realise that this means that your original argument is totally screwed, do you?
| 27 November 2009, 7:57 pm |
… and with that, I am heading off for the pub.
Once upon a time, one might read this comments section and see prominent politicians, poets, playwrights, journalists and philosophers debating issues of the day. In its time, “Harry’s Place” was considered the premier British political blog.
As Harold Pinter wrote:
I saw Len Hutton in his prime; another time
Another time
| 27 November 2009, 7:58 pm |
Any group, whether BNP or HuT, that calls for a particular ethnic group to be attacked, is committing a criminal offence under current UK law. Let their directors be prosecuted and ideally jailed for 15 years apiece. Perfectly simple.
Simple to you & me Gordon Bennett
Unfortunately our governing classes are rather ashamed of
being white (see J. Delingpole in Speccie) & being British.
They think that certain groups of recent immigrants & their
progeny are not bound to the conventions & traditions,
& more important, the Laws that should bind Brits of all
skin colours.
Since the advocates of multiculturalism have bought their
way out of its effects, they feel happy to brand anyone “racist”
who does not want to send their children to a school run by H uT.
or one of those schools that politicians visit when on camera,
but don’t send their kids to.
Incidentally, wouldn’t it be fun to find out how many
“Left Wingers” send their kids to private schools.
| 27 November 2009, 7:59 pm |
Ah yes. There I was thinking you were inconsistent, when in fact you’re just completely childish.
| 27 November 2009, 8:01 pm |
PS.
The question is begged that we should have any sort of islamic
state schools in the UK.
Why ?
How many Jewish, Christian or Hindu schools are there in
Saudi Arabia or Iran ?
| 27 November 2009, 8:48 pm |
Lucy Lips
There is a truly shoddy backstory to all this.
There has long been a disaster waiting to happen in relation to Muslim faith schools.
The possibility of extremist focus in some schools that we see now was warned of in 2005 by the Chief Education Inspector David Bell.
Of course he was accused of Islamophobia;
David Bell said his organisation had identified a significant growth in the number of independent faith schools.
He singled out Muslim schools for criticism.
“This growth needs to be carefully but sensitively monitored by government to ensure that pupils at all schools receive an understanding of not only their own faith but other faiths and the wider tenets of British society,” he said.
“We must not allow recognition of diversity to become apathy in the face of any challenge to our coherence as a nation. We must be intolerant of intolerance.”………..
Mr Bell’s speech had included an extract……saying many new Muslim schools must adapt their curriculum “to ensure that it provides pupils with a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England and helps them to acquire an appreciation of and respect for other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony.”
Even though this assessment was fully based in a rigorous Ofsted assessment and follow up of Evangelical Christian and Muslim schools, David Bell was pilloried and briefed against by another Staff member of Ofsted.
The regulations stated that faith schools were required to ensure that they ;
2(d) provide pupils with a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England
2(e) assist pupils to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions.
The data for 2003-2004 showed that:
there were 50 Muslim schools and 40 Christian schools – eight Evangelical and most Christian Brethren – in the transitional phase of reaching acceptable educational standards.
In the 2003-04 inspection year, almost all of the Christian schools were assessed on whether they were meeting the two regulations at issue.
Of the Muslim schools, 41 of the 50 were assessed on the “English institutions” rule and 33 on the “other cultures” rule
A quarter of the Christian schools and two thirds of the Muslim schools did not meet the first requirement.
Forty-six per cent of Christian schools and 54% of Muslim schools did not meet the second.
….. the data available so far showed that half the Christian Brethren schools had been revisited and all were meeting the requirements.
About two fifths of the Muslim schools had been revisited, and about a quarter of those which previously did not meet the regulations were doing so.
So about a dozen were not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4215517.stm
So in 2005 it was perfectly apparent that some Muslim faith schools were seriously under performing in terms of their commitment to conform to the required regulations
I don’t know what happened to David Bell, he is no longer Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, the post is currently held by Christine Gilbert.
I do know what happened to the mainstream Ofsted inspection of faith schools however; it was nobbled.
The goal posts were moved, the rules changed and the referees became largely self selected.
These, and only these, faith schools were given a new name ‘Bridge Schools’ and an entirely new inspectorate, with special faith based criteria, was established for them.
The Bridge Schools Inspectorate was approved in 2008 as a body for the purposes of inspecting selected registered independent schools in membership of the Association of Muslim Schools UK (AMSUK) and the Christian Schools’ Trust (CST), under section
162A(1) of the Education Act 2002 as amended from September 2005.
There are currently 55 schools confirmed to be in the inspection remit of The Bridge Schools Inspectorate.
The schools are evangelical Christian or Muslim schools, serving faith
communities, which provide a distinctive religious curriculum alongside secular studies.
In effect this Inspectorate is independent from the mainstream Ofsted and is described as being ’similar’ to the Ofsted to the Independent schools Inspectorate.
The first report for the new segregated faith based ‘Bridge schools Inspectorate’ has now been produced and is available for view.
I think the legitimate question rather than accepting the ‘fait accompli’ is to ask why?, notwithstanding the fact that some wilfully blind commenters will still seek to find Islamophobia in any systematic and perfectly fair questioning of whether certain faith schools are meeting basic criteria applicable to all other schools in the mainstream.
I see nothing Islamophobic in opposing the de facto independence of some Christian and Muslim faith schools, that in the very criteria of their Inspectorate are revealed to have quite a different set of concerns and thus criteria for evaluation than mainstream schools.
The Bridge Schools Inspectorate was established to provide an opportunity for cooperation between faith groups and to enable them to come together to form an independent inspectorate with specialist expertise in schools with a distinctive religious ethos.
The inspectorate gained approval from the Secretary of State for
Education to inspect schools belonging to the Christian Schools’ Trust and the Association of Muslim Schools UK throughout England and it began its work in October 2008.
The Bridge Schools Inspectorate’s model of inspection has been agreed with the DCSF and is set out clearly in the Inspectorate’s Framework for Inspection.
The inspection model is similar to Ofsted’s, in ensuring that schools meet the regulations for independent schools.
It also reports on whether the schools continue to meet the
expectations of the Christian Schools’ Trust and the Association of Muslim Schools UK.
Schools are given approximately five days notice of inspection and are inspected on a three yearly cycle.
Inspection teams are led by experienced former HMI who understand the distinctive characteristics of faith based education and have had
substantial experience of leading independent school inspections.
Team inspectors are drawn from the staff of schools involved. Each association puts forward candidates with substantial experience of teaching, leadership and management to be trained as inspectors.
Candidates are trained by the Bridge Schools Inspectorate
as team inspectors and become accredited Bridge Schools Inspectorate inspectors.
In order to remain accredited, inspectors need to participate in at least one inspection a year and to inspect at least one school from outside their own association once every four years.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/…/200809_BSI_AnnualReport.pd
In other words Evangelical Christian and Christian Bretheren and Muslim Schools get to Inspect themselves and create and manage their own Inspectorate under the fig leaf of a National Schools Inspectorate.
What the hell is an Orwellian titled ‘Bridge School’ if it is not a recently constructed bridge leading away from a universally underpinned consensus of education as the foundation for a shared civic identity and towards an ethno-religiously perceived communal identity?
It is a scandal that these schools have effectively been left to pursue their own faith agenda at the expense of a shared civically minded national experience of education.
Islamophobia has nothing to do with it. The current debacle of Hizb ut Tahir’s involvement in running schools is hardly surprising given the irresponsibility of the deliberate ‘arms length’ and entirely self serving inspectorate.
What is more unacceptable perhaps, is the arrogance of a Government that has by ’sleight of hand’ created a new sectarian faction in education by acting as if these matters are purely a private one of faith, rather than a national and constitutional matter that should be at the heart of the democratic process.
| 27 November 2009, 9:00 pm |
Err I think the point is Sniffin Chuffs is all the claims made by the Cameron and the Tories were wrong
Is this alphabet soup supposed to mean anything?
It’s a redundant question in a way, I know. It’s Farnos we are talking about, after all.
| 27 November 2009, 9:02 pm |
in our very primary schools! invading our sacred fluids! they’re everywhere! promoting terrorism, but doing so subtly and mysteriously, so much so that nobody can detect they’re doing it! They might be doing it right now! Look out! OH NO, I THINK THEY’VE GOT HARRY TOO!!
Wriggle out of that one, dsquared.
| 27 November 2009, 9:24 pm |
Once upon a time, one might read this comments section and see prominent politicians, poets, playwrights, journalists and philosophers debating issues of the day
Ah yes, I remember when Andrew Motion called Patrick Marber a bummer, in reply to which Marber told him to flid off. Timothy Garton Ash then said they were both bummers, only to be told to shut his beardy face by Michel Houellebecq. I think much of this is covered in What’s Left.
| 27 November 2009, 9:29 pm |
I agree Metta, this branch of the inspectorate has been set up to maintain and protect educational ghettos, while casting the illusion of equal treatment across the whole sector. But it isn’t surprising really. This government is in hock to the islamists, it is financing them as much as it can behind the scenes. When it get caught out in one area, it feigns ignorance and quickly finds another.
| 27 November 2009, 9:47 pm |
Err I think the point is Sniffin Chuffs…
The first name’s Snifin, if you please Dicky. And, as N.O. said, the rest of your post’s redundant.
@Meta
Great post – is it really you? The length is there, but you seem to have improved your spelling and learned html…
As Harold Pinter wrote:
Which brings me to what Muhammad Hosny Mubarak of the Manufi clan once said:
المنوفي لا يلوفي ولو أكلته لحم الكتوفي
| 27 November 2009, 10:07 pm |
ha ha
I nearly did it to submit as a guest post so I spell checked it and finally realised what I was doing wrong with HTML, having left-right issues I was using back slashes not forward slashes lol.
| 27 November 2009, 10:10 pm |
What Ed Balls should have said is something like this …
But Ed Balls is Ed Balls – divisive politics is his being, all he ever thinks of is putting one over on the Tories. He doesn’t give a damn for the country or even his own department. If he did, he would not be berating Tories, but berating those in his department who are responsible for this fuck up.
But getting the votes of the most rabid totalitarians in order to swing a particular constituence has always been more important to Labour than standing up for what is right. This is Gerymandering, pure and simple; it is politics, not policy; it is self serving not service.
Guido has a post with a clip of Michael Howard pointing the finger at Alastair Campbell for degrading the political discourse and practice of this country, with sofa government, casual disregard for due process in government and trampling over the Constitution. Campbell, Mandelson, Balls, Brown – none of them are democrats in the true sense of the word. And none of them has the intellectual rigour necessary to run a country in which the primary institutions have run for generations on trust and the rather elitist concept of service.
Jefferson said we need Democracy not because we are angels, but because we are devils. Our democracy needs quite a lot of stiffening to make sure that people such as Balls never get into positions of responsibility again. We need a written constitution – and the Lisbon Treaty is not it. Either that or someone with the backbone of Thatcher.
Can they tell them apart from ordinary religious Muslims at all?
Can anyone? “I was a Muslim once, remember, and it was when I was most devout that I was most full of hate” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
It is time that the Government started to take it seriously.
This government? – dream on.
| 27 November 2009, 10:36 pm |
ALERT : Newsnight have an exclusive on this RIGHT NOW !
Sounds excellent chaps !
| 27 November 2009, 11:20 pm |
Glad to see the anti-Hizb artillery I prayed for has started up. Let’s pray now it spread to take in the Balls salient.
| 27 November 2009, 11:34 pm |
Good post, Alcuin.
This country needs to be saved from the catastrophe that is this government while there is something left to be saved.
| 28 November 2009, 12:09 am |
Hey hurry.
just read your hoh haa about Hizb ut tahrir and muslim schools.
I do not understand what is all the fuzz about?
First of all, its absolutely absurd comparing the Hizb with BNP. it makes one laugh that how low the jounalistic practices could go in order to gain newspaper ratings.
Only if Andrew could google about the Hizb, he would not have mad such a fun of himself, this either shows extreme form of Islamophobia on his behalf.
hahaha i still cannot stop laughing.
lets put it that way, Hizb has made its global brand on the basis of a ideological alternative to the current declining global ideology also known has Secular Capitalist democratic ideology!
I even doubt the BNP intellectual ability to differentiate between different ideologies let alone come up with an alternative global discourse.
Come on guys, as they say when your enemy is smart and capable, i mean ideological enemy, you have to show them some respect atleast, not going into these low life kind of personal attacks against the muslim faith and their children going to Islamic schools!
| 28 November 2009, 12:30 am |
Alcuin – you’re not wrong about Ed Balls but the very same is clearly true about Cameron and Gove. They could have made some decent points about the schools in question but were so desperate to implicate the government that they got the whole thing round their necks. That, for better or worse, is politics.
| 28 November 2009, 12:40 am |
@MMN
What was the outcome? I missed it…and it’s not on the web yet!
@Nabeel
You’re an unconvincing parody in the worst possible taste…
| 28 November 2009, 12:53 am |
mettaculture
27 November 2009, 10:07 pm
ha ha
I nearly did it to submit as a guest post so I spell checked it and finally realised what I was doing wrong with HTML, having left-right issues I was using back slashes not forward slashes lol.
—-
ha ha nothing.
I didn’t even know we were supposed to be doing this. What was I supposed to be slashing?
| 28 November 2009, 12:53 am |
You saythe CSC is “not at fault” but they clearly are responsible for the errors that so embarrased Cameron . The original CSC report is the cause of the confusion that derailed Cameron: The CSC report refers explicitly to Pathfinder Preventing Violent Extremism money a couple of times, and also says the schools were funded by “Pathfinder” money, without making any reference to this being a different , and educational , fund. The CSC caused the confusion. You say “why would anybody think that a primary school might be getting PVE Pathfinder money” – well Cameron did and so did Gove, because of CSC’s report. After the event Robin Simcox of CSC even tried to pretend the CSC report refers to a “Pathfinder educational fund” when this is precisely the distinction it does not make. So CSC are claiming this was a “mis step by Cameron” – but they led him down that garden path
| 28 November 2009, 1:23 am |
sorry it’s on iplayer…watching it now
| 28 November 2009, 1:24 am |
Monty
google ‘HTML italics’ and ‘HTML Bold’ as in HyperText Markup Language. i.e an extremely annoying code for constructing text in web pages.
So annoying that it reminds me of early Word perfect or even DOS except its syntax is an annoying quasi linguistic Pidgin rather than an algebraic syntax, its like trying to remember knitting patterns.
Even more annoying is that you can’t just select text and bold or underline with Ctrl B or I and have some drone programme or tool bar bot translate it for you.
Very annoying.
| 28 November 2009, 1:45 am |
The ’scoop’ on Newsnight appeared to be comments/writings? uncovered by the Newsnight team and made by one Farah Ahmed (she who *is*n’t) a member of Hizb. I caught the name of the document in Richard Watson’s hand (”Education & Identity”), but despite finding no record of it on the net, suspect it referred to a HuT conference or publication from the past.
@Metta
Think how long it take to get a preview button here…asking for tag buttons is a bit audacious dontcha think? ;-)
| 28 November 2009, 1:54 am |
@Ann on
Read the report again, lying cockweasel. It took me all of five seconds using search to discover that the CSC’s superlative report GETS IT RIGHT. It makes no reference to the ISF receiving Prevent Pathfinder funding…read it again.
| 28 November 2009, 8:57 am |
Even more annoying is that you can’t just select text and bold or underline with Ctrl B or I and have some drone programme or tool bar bot translate it for you.
I am sure it’s possible to write a macro that takes a section of such text in Word, with bold/underline/italics, and adds html tags. I don’t personally know how to do it, but I have no doubt that it’s doable and I can ask around.
| 28 November 2009, 10:23 am |
mettaculture 27 November 2009, 8:48 pm
Excellent as always. Faith based education supported by the state (condoned no less) must end. Financial assistance from overseas (e.g. Saudi Arabia, the United States of America, whomever) forbidden by statue.
One country, one law and one education system. If you do not like the sound of that, then the Road to Heathrow starts at the door.
P.S. ‘Forward oblique, backward oblique’ please. While I am alive the language has a future.
| 28 November 2009, 10:40 am |
Sniffin Chuffs, I have read the report and it says “ISF confirmed that the money came from the government’s ‘Free Entitlement’ and ‘Pathfinder’ programmes” -it does not say that this is a “Pathfinder” educational programme. In two other instances the report refers to the “preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund” – so while the authors may have been clear in their minds that these were two separate “Pathfinder” funds, their sloppy writing does not make the distinction clear. Gove and Cameron certainly should have checked, but the root of the error is in the report. You can tell CSC feel a bit guilty about this because CSC’s Robin Simcox claimed on Conservative Home (and it is the Tories they have hurt here) that, I quote
“The money for these schools does not come from ‘Pathfinder’ PVE funds but, as the CSC report upon which Cameron based his questions states, from the ‘Free Entitlement’ and ‘Pathfinder’ educational funds” – when of course the report does not put in that all important word “educational” after “Pathfinder”, he only does that retrospectively. Your silly swearing and USE OF CAPITALS does not change the wording in the report.
| 28 November 2009, 10:44 am |
mettaculture: Your post was an eye opener. Beyond being a separate post here, there is a crying need for it to be disseminated in the msm, and, dream on, the BBC.
| 28 November 2009, 11:43 am |
Benji, that was nonsense yesterday and is still nonsense today, however many times you copy-paste it. UK is very clear on racist incitement. BNP and HuT could be prosecuted tomorrow if we had a government with cojones. And if we had one, it would tell Europe to kiss butt.
| 28 November 2009, 11:44 am |
UK law, even.
| 28 November 2009, 11:46 am |
I love Benji’s nonsense about the Charities Commission, a spineless organisation if ever there was one.
| 28 November 2009, 5:35 pm |
their sloppy writing does not make the distinction clear
Sloppy writing? When was the last time you compiled a comprehensive and outstanding report on HuT?
Your silly swearing and USE OF CAPITALS does not change the wording in the report.
The report is very clear and makes copious use of meticulously compiled footnotes. Lying cockweasel is the most appropriate term for someone like yourself who, with malice aforethought, deliberately muddles the facts.
| 28 November 2009, 7:38 pm |
While the footnotes may be copious, Snifin Chuffs, they are not helpful – the footnotes also fail to make clear the difference between the two “Pathfinder” funds. Even though they are copious , they do not make this basic distinction – so the footnotes give the appearance of detail without actually giving detail, they build confidence in the confused narrative. I am not muddling the facts, the CSC did . SHouLd I ADd some oDD CAPItals now, or rude words ?
| 29 November 2009, 12:54 am |
In effect this Inspectorate is independent from the mainstream Ofsted and is described as being ’similar’ to the Ofsted to the Independent schools Inspectorate.
I think the Bridge schools inspectorate is actually staffed by retired ofsted inspectors. Having never encountered ofsted myself (though having usually been cherry picked to be observed by the very similar “Adult learning Inspectorate”) I would have to say that I wouldn’t give any of them more than a 25% chance of actually seeing how an educational institution actually functions for most of the year.
| 29 November 2009, 4:14 am |
Am going to stick up for dsquared here. In his defence, he never claimed he’d be upset about the BNP but not about HT. In their rush to paint him as a hypocrite certain commenters seemed to have missed this.
In doing so they have forgotten his default position on pretty much everything is “do nothing” because by his negativist outlook, doing *anything* invariably creates additional problems to the status quo. His articles on Darfur and not worrying about the rise of the BNP are cases in point. There are doubtless other examples. His expert work on the Saigon Railway is another matter however.
| 29 November 2009, 9:29 am |
Sorry, oldboy, nice try but no cigar. He mocks the very notion that there is anything to worry about in the first place, as regards HT. Correction: he mocks posters who think there s anything to worry about in the first place, as regards HT.
| 29 November 2009, 11:46 am |
In doing so they have forgotten his default position on pretty much everything is “do nothing” because by his negativist outlook, doing *anything* invariably creates additional problems to the status quo.
Haha cruel (but fair.)
that gilligan piece is a pretty shoddy piece of self-justification. Not least this bit:
By May 2008, according to a follow-up report, the school had been magically transformed, and was now “good”.
It’s not magic – schools can improve pretty rapidly. Gilligan is not an education journalist and avoids actually looking at the reports themselves. Given his track record, why should we trust him that the second report is in some way dodgy? oh yes:
That second report, however, was written by an inspector with, at the very least, personal connections to Islamic groups.
note that’s not IslamIST – it’s IslamIC. Why should that make the report untrustworthy?
And people wonder why this site has a reputation for Islamophobia.