The Department for Education — inept or nasty?

Is the Department of Education inept or is it nasty? Is it thoughtless and inconsiderate or is it, worse, callous and cruel? Has it taken its eye off the ball or is it, much more seriously, contemptuous of its legal and ethical duties to have due regard for the consequences of its actions and policies? Is it guilty not only of errors of judgement but also of deceit and bad faith?

These questions are about individual ministers and, at all pay-grades, civil servants. Also they are about systems, routines, procedures, habits, ways of doing things, and not doing things. And they are about the collective mindsets which underlie the DfE’s organisational culture – they are not only about racist actions, for example, but about institutional racism as well. And they of course apply not only to the DfE itself but also to agencies set up by and accountable to the DfE, for example the National College for Teaching and Leadership (ACTL), and to external consultants and advisers whom the DfE and its agencies from time to time engage, for example lawyers and legal teams for specific cases.

In the present context these questions arise from consideration of how, over the last three years, the DfE has handled and mishandled the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham. The latest twist in this tangled and tortuous saga occurred on 30 May 2017, and was summarised with headlines such as Trojan Horse case against five Birmingham teachers thrown out by tribunal (Daily Telegraph) and Five teachers accused in Trojan horse affair free to return to classroom (Guardian).

A panel looking into allegations against some headteachers and other senior teachers had transferred its attention to the behaviour of the DfE itself, and had referred to repeated failures on the part of government lawyers to share crucial evidence that could have been of substantial assistance to the headteachers’ case, and that could have radically undermined the DfE’s own case. (Also, incidentally, the transcripts might well have confirmed what many observers suspected, which is that an earlier inquiry, the so-called Clarke inquiry, has been amateurish and improper in the way it was and was not conducted.) This was not merely a technicality of slight importance but, on the contrary, an abuse of justice whose seriousness was such that the panel had had no option but to end the hearings.

‘It is fundamental to the proper administration of justice,’ the panel pointed out, that an investigation such as the one it had been conducting ‘must be able to rely on the regulatory authority [namely, in this instance, the NCTL, set up by the DfE] acting in a way which ensures the integrity of the process.’ It continued: ‘There has been an abuse of the process which is of such seriousness that it offends the panel’s sense of justice and propriety.’

The panel also considered there had been a ‘lack of candour and openness’ by the DfE and ‘a lack of cooperation in assisting the panel to get to the bottom of what happened’. Serious errors had been far-reaching, it said, and had extended over the entire life of the case.

‘Such failures arise out of decisions which were consciously made,’ the panel declared, but also it considered that the DfE’s deliberate decision to withhold essential evidence represented ‘an extraordinarily serious error of judgment as opposed to bad faith’. The DfE had been inept, the panel in effect concluded, but not nasty.

However, is the distinction between being inept and being nasty really so very clearcut? Is it helpful, in instances such as this, to distinguish between errors of judgement on the one hand and bad faith on the other? Neglect and negligence can be criminal, not just bad manners or administrative oversights, and can cause real and lasting harm to certain individuals, and to the contexts in which individuals interact and have their being.

‘Without scheming to do wrong, or to make others unhappy,’ said Jane Austen two hundred years ago, ‘there may be error, and there may be misery. Thoughtlessness, want of attention to others’ feelings, and want of resolution, will do the business.’

It is almost certainly the case in the present instance (though not argued or even suggested by the Trojan Horse tribunal) that the DfE’s errors were in part or even largely due to hostility towards Islam and Muslims, and to callous indifference towards the misery for Muslims it was itself causing.

Did institutional racism and Islamophobia underlie not only the DfE’s careless conduct at the disciplinary tribunal but also how it perceived and reacted to the Trojan Horse forgery in the first place? Did racism and Islamophobia underlie the amateurish reports which the DfE in due course sponsored? Did they deeply affect the flawed Prevent and British Values projects which it then promoted, and zealously promotes still? Does the DfE realise, really realise, that the rule of law applies to itself as well as to everyone else?

Well, those are questions for thorough investigation at another time and in another place. In the meanwhile profound sympathy is due to the individuals, schools, families and communities in Birmingham that have been harmed over the last three years by the actions and non-actions of the DfE, and much corrective and restorative work needs to be done.

Robin Richardson, 1 June 2017, slightly updated 2 June

Notes

There is further information about the panel’s statement in news items by John Dickens in Schools Week, and Richard Adams in the Guardian, both on 30 May:

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/trojan-horse-nctl-drops-disciplinary-case-against-5-teachers/

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/30/trojan-horse-tribunal-five-birmingham-teachers-islam

The panel’s statement itself is published in full at <a https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Panel-decision-and-reasons-on-behalf-of-the-Secretary-of-State-for-Education-in-respect-of-applications-for-the-proceedings-to-be-discontinued.pdf

There is an interesting legal opinion of the panel’s statement at >https://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/cryptic-trojan-who-takes-responsibility-if-disclosure-is-the-achilles-heel/

There is substantial discussion of the Trojan Horse affair and related issues in British Values and British Identity: muddles, mixtures and ways ahead by Robin Richardson, London Review of Education, autumn 2015. It can be read at http://www.insted.co.uk/london-review-education.pdf

A low dishonest year

trump-and-farage

On Monday 14 November 2016 Alan Bennett jotted a brief note in his diary. There is ‘a nauseating picture,’ he wrote, ‘on the front of the Guardian of Trump and Farage together’. He added: ‘with “nauseating” in this case not just a word. It does genuinely make one feel sick.’

All over the world many millions of other people felt sick too, and felt not only disgusted and nauseous but also fearful and despairing.

in the famous words of W H Auden in 1939, people felt lost in ‘a low dishonest decade’, where ‘waves of anger and fear/ circulate over the bright/ and darkened lands of the earth,/ obsessing our private lives.’

Auden referred to the ‘unmentionable odour of death’ offending and obsessing the lives of millions. A similar odour is around at the end of 2016, this low dishonest year.

In order not to forget the worries and weariness with which 2016 ends, but also in order to help nurture hope and determination to keep on keeping on ( to show ‘an affirming flame’, in Auden’s phrase), here at the end of 2016 are links to a handful of reflections and proposals:

British Values, Brexit and Trump a meditation for today, December 2016

Making our states fair again post-election reflections, November 2016

Grief, anger and re-engagement post-referendum thoughts and action, July 2016

And to help remember some of the background context here are some further pieces:

A multi-storied nation religion and belief in modern Britain, July 2016

Islamophobia, still a challenge for us all ‘what Muslims really think’, May 2016

Learning to live together British values and Prevent, February 2016

British identity and British values muddles, mixtures and ways ahead, autumn 2015

References

Alan Bennett’s diary for 2016 is published in the London Review of Books, 5 January 2017, at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n01/alan-bennett/diary

 

 

 

 

Charlie Hebdo, free speech, us-and-them thinking

First reflections on what is happening

Headline writers and politicians throughout the western world have been in agreement – the attack on Charlie Hebdo on 7 January was part of a war on freedom, a war on the foundations of western democracy. Anyone who does not express total solidarity with the victims by, for example, holding up a Je suis Charlie slogan, and does not declare their unwavering commitment to freedom of speech, is on the side of the terrorists. This has been the dominant narrative in virtually all the coverage so far in the mainstream media, and in the vast majority of speeches and statements by political leaders.

Only a handful of voices have so far queried this dominant narrative – only a handful have stressed that you can NOT ONLY have profound sympathy for the victims and for their families, friends, colleagues and close followers; and can NOT ONLY deplore the cruelty and callousness of the murderers; and can NOT ONLY care about freedom of expression; but can ALSO deplore the simplistic, hypocritical, racist, Islamophobic and deeply damaging us-and-them thinking that has been at the heart of the mainstream media coverage, and of most political speeches.

Here are links to 28 fine articles that query and deplore the dominant narrative, and that indicate alternative approaches to understanding what is going on. They are listed in no particular order.

__________________________________

1. Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo
by Jon Wilson
http://labourlist.org/2015/01/je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-hebdo/

2. The moral hysteria of Je suis Charlie
by Brian Klug
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/moral-hysteria-charlie

3. Charlie Hebdo and the hypocrisy of pencils
by Corey Oakley
http://redflag.org.au/node/4373

4. I am Charlie, and I guard the Master’s house
by Nadine El-Enany and Sarah Keenan
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2015/01/13/charlie-guard-masters-house/

5. Where monoculturalism leads
by Liz Fekete
http://www.irr.org.uk/news/where-monoculturalism-leads/

6. Why I am not Charlie
by Scott Long
http://paper-bird.net/2015/01/09/why-i-am-not-charlie/

7. No, we’re not all Charlie Hebdo, nor should we be
by Ben Hayes
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ben-hayes/no-we’re-not-all-charlie-hebdo-nor-should-we-be

8. Equal in Paris
by Thomas Chatterton Williams
https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/equal-in-paris/

9. Mourning the Parisian journalists, yet noticing the hypocrisy
by Michael Lerner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/mourning-the-parisian-jou_b_6442550.html

10. The danger of polarised debate
by Gary Younge
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/charie-hebdo-danger-polarised-debate-paris-attacks

11. Smiling Muslims: leave the gun, take the cannoli
by Hamid Dabashi
http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/c7c085dd-968d-4995-8f1f-314806a0d748

12. We must not forget the responsibility that goes with free speech
by Tariq Modood
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/01/12/in-remembering-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-we-must-not-forget-the-responsibility-that-goes-with-free-speech/

13. When blasphemy is bigotry
by Chloe Patton
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/recognise-historical-discussing

14. From the radical left towards Islamophobia
by Alain Gresh
http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/18705071-5026-49d5-9bc7-e7c2ab282941

15. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism
by Jacob Canfield
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

16. Fed up with the hypocrisy of the free speech fundamentalists
by Mehdi Hasan
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html

17. Piety or rage?
by Seyla Benhabib
http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Piety-or-Rage.pdf

18. Moral clarity
by Adam Shatz
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/01/09/adam-shatz/moral-clarity/

19. The Charlie Hebdo tragedy
by Christopher Page
https://inaspaciousplace.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-tragedy/

20. Heroic but also racist
by Jordan Weissmann
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/charlie_hebdo_the_french_satirical_magazine_is_heroic_it_is_also_racist.html

21. West’s sickening moral hijack of Paris massacre
by Finean Cunningham
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2015/01/89159wests-sickening-moral-hijack-of-paris-massacre/

22. Is the Charlie Hebdo attack really a struggle over European values?
by Myriam Francois-Cerrah
http://www.newstatesman.com/myriam-francois-cerrah

23. Free speech is not an absolute value
by Simon Dawes
https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/simon-dawes/charlie-hebdo-free-speech-but-not-as-absolute-value

24. Is solidarity without identity possible?
by Cinzia Arruzza
http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/01/is-solidarity-without-identity-possible/#.VLLvpJIgGK0

25. Unmournable bodies
by Teju Cole
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies

26. Four reasons why I’m tired of Islamophobia
by Khalishah Stevens
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/4-reasons-why-je-suis-fatigue-from-islamophobia/

27. Rival sanctities
by Glen Newey
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/01/09/glen-newey/rival-sanctities/

28. Us and them
by Matt Carr
http://infernalmachine.co.uk/us-and-them/

_________________________________________
This list was compiled in partnership with Bill Bolloten, 14 January 2015. It was later expanded to contain 80 items, and the longer version was published at http://www.insted.co.uk/beyond-us-them.pdf.

 

 

 

 

Peter delivers on a Trojan horse

On Tuesday 22 July the new secretary of state for education in England, Nicky Morgan, made a statement in the House of Commons about the Trojan Horse affair and about a report by Peter Clarke that had been laid before the House earlier on the same day. ‘Mr Speaker,’ she said, ‘we are all in the debt of Peter Clarke for the rigour that he brought to his investigation and for the forensic clarity of his findings. And we are in the debt of my predecessor [Michael Gove], now the chief whip on this side of the House, for his determination in the face of criticism to invite Peter to take on this task.’

The reference to ‘Peter’ implied a close – even cosy – personal friendship between the ministers and the person appointed to report to them, and inevitably raised doubts about Clarke’s professionalism, independence, seriousness and objectivity.

Morgan then immediately proceeded to emphasise the government’s view that ‘we need to deal with the dangers posed by extremism well before it becomes violent’, adding that Clarke’s report ‘offers us important recommendations to address this challenge in schools’. She did not acknowledge that the government’s operational definition of extremism is extraordinarily vague nor that Clarke’s evidence for the existence of such extremism in Birmingham schools is extraordinarily thin.

The cumulative effect of Clarke’s report is to present the neoconservative and profoundly offensive view that Islam is ‘a swamp’ in which noisome creatures such as crocodiles and mosquitos thrive and are given nourishment and support. ‘Peter’ has delivered what his political and media friends hoped and asked for. His report is a grave disservice, however, to very many millions of others.

There is further brief comment on Clarke’s report in this week’s newsletter from the Institute of Race Relations – http://www.irr.org.uk/news/hatred-hysteria-and-a-trojan-horse/

Questioning the Trojan Horse

This morning (Wednesday 9 July 2014) the Education Select Committee at the House of Commons is interviewing three senior members of Ofsted. Next week it is interviewing the secretary of state for education. The principal subject for both interviews is extremism in schools. The interviews will show, both explicitly and tacitly, how Ofsted and the Department foe Education understand the concept of extremism. Also they will show, and similarly both explicitly and tacitly, how the Select Committee understands the concept.

Two new papers on the Insted Consultancy website this morning provide reminders of key issues. The one paper consists of extracts from recent articles about the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham – ‘Issues requiring attention’ by Tim Brighouse, ‘The heart of inner city schooling’ by Shamim Miah, ‘An invidious position’ by Jacqueline Baxter, ‘What it means to be civilised’ by Muhammad Khan, ‘A source of deep shame’ by Lee Donaghy and ‘A compelling guide to the debate’ by Peter Oborne. The other paper lists the articles from which these extracts are taken, and also about 40 other recent articles about the Trojan Horse which similarly present an understanding of extremism which is different from, and counter to, that of the dominant narrative in the mainstream media.

The two papers can be accessed from Insted’s home page at http://www.insted.co.uk.

Yet another Muslim plot, new research shows

Careful research by a newspaper reveals today that Edward the Sixth, the half-brother of Elizabeth the First, popularly known as Good Queen Bess, was secretly a Muslim. He did not live long but nevertheless laid the foundations for the gradual Muslimisation of British culture during the centuries which followed his reign.

In his own lifetime (1537—1553) Edward’s great achievement was to persuade his half-sister Elizabeth, who was played by Dame Judy Dench in a recent TV series, not to demonise Muslims. Instead of demonising Muslims, he maintained, the English should demonise Catholics and, though to a lesser extent, people in Scotland.

As a result of Edward’s efforts many British Muslims in the sixteenth century were spared the embarrassment of being burnt alive in public, and Islam as a religion was not seen as a major threat to world civilisation.

But Edward’s greatest achievement was to found prestigious schools which would carry his teachings into the national consciousness over the next five centuries. It was particularly in Birmingham, though also in other cities in northern England such as Bradford and Manchester, that his ideas took hold. In due course the schools which he founded in Birmingham and other northern cities became centres of excellence for Islamic Studies, and for the hallowing of Islamic architecture, astrology, medicine, mathematics, theology and ethics.

 As a result of the far-reaching influence of the schools which Edward VI founded, Birmingham became in the late twentieth century a magnet for Muslims from all over the world. They received there a warm welcome and they for their part made magnificent contributions to the city’s education system, and to its wealth and fame.

‘Where the iron heart of England throbs beneath its sombre robe,’ wrote Edward in a youthful poem, ‘stand schools whose sons will make them great and famous round the globe’. Yes indeed, and thanks to typically painstaking research by the Sunday Times the secret of Birmingham’s greatness is now known – the moral and intellectual values of Islam.

Michael Gove is said to be interested in the findings of the Sunday Times investigation.  An official from the Department for Education confirms today (1 April 2014): ‘We are monitoring the situation very closely.’

Background

Several articles about fantasies in Birmingham have been published by the Sunday Times in recent weeks, and have been duly reprinted in various other papers. For a perceptive, passionate and up-to-date review of the saga, and of the damage it is doing to children, staff and governors in Birmingham schools, see an article by M. G. Khan in the Times Educational Supplement, Friday 28 March 2014: http://news.tes.co.uk/b/opinion/2014/03/27/the-trojan-horse-is-being-used-to-destabilise-muslim-majority-schools-by-galvanising-ofsted-39.aspx

An Islamophobic lie goes half way round the world

Famously, a lie can be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.  A lie travels particularly fast, without let or hindrance, when it reinforces and chimes with prejudices which already exist. The fake document known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, was widely accepted at face value in its day because it accorded with antisemitic conspiracy theories which were already prevalent.  

And now in Britain in March 2014 credence is being given to an Islamophobic lie about Muslim plotting to ‘take over’ a number of local schools in a city in the West Midlands. The story is self-evidently a hoax but is nevertheless widely believed, since it conforms with and confirms pre-existing tropes about British culture being swamped and submerged by Islam. Soon there will be so much egg on so many faces that the truth, when it emerges in the full light of day, will be even more unbelievable than the lie.

Gullibility can be amusing, as when people are taken in by spoof stories each year on April Fools Day. It is not amusing, however, when it taps into and amplifies a racist prejudice such as Islamophobia, and when people are harmed by it. In the present instance the people being harmed include large numbers of children and young people in British schools. (Yes, British, not just English, and certainly not just in one city. One of the first websites to recycle the story when it first broke on 2 March was that of the BNP in Scotland. The story has been widely recycled in the national press, not just the West Midlands press.)

 According to the clumsily constructed spoof document quoted from in various newspapers, there are two or maybe slightly more than two Muslim people in Birmingham who have won the trust of senior officials and councillors by giving the impression they are respectable and who are plotting now with these officials and councillors to take over four local schools and run them on Islamic principles (or ‘principals’, as the alleged plotters themselves put it at one stage.) They call their scheme ‘Operation Trojan Horse’; confidently assert that the Muslim concept of jihad condones and commends unethical and underhand behaviour; and congratulate themselves on having caused a lot of disruption. And they say they say their leader is someone who is a very widely respected Muslim educationist, and chair of governors at one of their city’s, and indeed one of Britain’s, most impressive and outstanding schools.

The truth will eventually emerge. Amongst other things it will hopefully cast light on the motives of whoever constructed the fake document, and those who have given credence to it for their own ends. The latter may include left-wing critics of the academies programme and right-wing critics of Ofsted. Critics of academies or of Ofsted who have helped spread the story have tacitly supported Islamophobia, even if this was not their prime purpose.

In the meanwhile, the best single source for fuller information is an item on Inayat Bunglawala’s blog, Inayat’s Corner, posted earlier today (10 March). It provides links to all the main coverage so far, and to a robust rebuttal by the chair of governors alleged to be master-minding the so-called plot. It is also fair-minded, and open to the possibility that the document underlying the story is not, or not entirely, a fake. The address is

 http://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/more-developments-in-the-muslim-plot-to-take-over-schools-story/.

 

 

Islamophobia 10 – Theme Parks 0

A day out at a theme park or amusement park, usually with your family but sometimes with your school or a youth organisation, is a happy experience for millions of children throughout the world. Developed from the travelling and seasonal fairs of a previous age, theme parks dramatise the features of a relaxed society – people of all ages are there together, and so are people from all walks of life and all ethnicities, and there’s a vast choice of enjoyable and educational activities in which to share. You enjoy your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and you’re relaxed and pleased that lots of other people are enjoying their lives and freedoms too. Everyone’s ’Us’, no one’s ‘Them’.

Recently the Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF), based in East London, announced plans for a families day out at Legoland, the famous theme park near Windsor. What? A Muslim organisation wanting its children to enter and enjoy public space? In the eyes of the Daily Mail, that would never do. The Mail requested its columnist Richard Littlejohn to rubbish the whole idea. Littlejohn’s article was entitled ‘Jolly Jihadi Boy’s Outing to Legoland’ and appeared on 18 February. It was illustrated with large pictures of Abu Hamza and Omar Bakti Mohammed, allegedly respected and extolled by the MRDF, and it consisted of a spoof timetable for the day as a whole.

The timetable contained one vile Islamophobic trope or stereotype after another. In a nutshell, the day would consist essentially of instruction in the ways and methods of terrorism and would, for example, teach children how to disguise Semtex as Lego bricks and to chant in unison ‘Death to America, Death to Jews’. It would culminate in a fireworks display featuring remote-controlled planes made of Lego being flown into a scale model of the TwinTowers, similarly made of Lego. Interweaving with such glorifications of terrorism there would be times of prayer, to remind the children that terrorism has God’s blessing.

There are reports in the media today (27 February) that MRDF’s day at Legoland has been cancelled. A statement from Legoland explains that this follows from advice given by Thames Valley Police in the light of threatening phone calls, emails and social media posts. ‘These alone have led us to conclude that we can no longer guarantee the happy fun family event which was envisaged, or the safety of our guests and employees on that day,’ says the statement, ‘which is always our number one priority.’

There have been protests against the Mail’s outrageous behaviour, but so far these have been almost entirely from Muslims. Barely a whisper has yet been heard from opinion leaders in other faith communities, or from society more generally. But hopefully the voices of non-Muslims will be raised, and hopefully Legoland and Thames Valley Police will change their minds about caving in to the criminal phone-calls which have been made. But will the Mail apologise for the damage it has done and will it pledge not to do anything similar again? Judging by its coverage of the cancellation, no. It writes about the cancellation as if it has nothing at all to do with its own obnoxious and unethical behaviour.

 For more information

Littlejohn’s vile article is at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2561686/LITTLEJOHN-Jolly-Jihadi-Boys-Outing-Legoland.html

Muslim responses to the article are outlined at http://tellmamauk.org/tag/richard-littlejohn/.

There’s an article by Roy Greenslade about the episode at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/21/islam-dailymail.

There’s coverage of Thames Valley Police’s claim it cannot guarantee people’s safety from Islamophobic extremists at, for example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-26351500.

The Mail’s own coverage of the cancellation, making no reference to its own part in inciting criminal phone calls, is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-26351500.

There are general discussions of Islamophobia in the media at http://www.insted.co.uk/islam.html.

Racist and Islamophobic bullying

Interesting article in today’s Independent – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/racist-bullying-farright-agenda-on-immigration-being-taken-into-classrooms-9045148.html. It reports there was a marked increase in 2013 in reports of racist and Islamophobic bullying in schools and speculates this is due to the anti-immigrant and Islamophobic discourse and agendas of right-wing political parties and movements, and the failure of mainstream politicians to lead public opinion rather than pander to it. It speculates further that schools are less willing and able to challenge and prevent racism and Islamophobia than they were in the recent past, and less able and inclined to support and assist young people at the receiving end.

The article contains some moving quotations from children and young people. Also it quotes some extremely weak, lame and unhelpful words from a DfE spokesperson. It does not, unfortunately, mention that substantial advice on this topic was developed and published by the DfE from about 2005 onwards, but in due course totally withdrawn by the coalition government after 2010. However, the advice developed in England is still available in Wales in a slightly modified and improved form and can be accessed through http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/12028/1/Bullying_around_race,_religion_and_culture.pdf.

Much of the original document developed in England can be found at www.insted.co.uk/race.html. Also an excellent set of materials on this topic was produced in 2012-13 by the Crown Prosecution Service with the National Union of Teachers and the Anthony Walker Foundation and can be accessed at http://www.cps.gov.uk/northwest/tackling_crime/hate_crime/schools_project_racist_and_religious_hate_crime/