Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No38
Newsletter Themes: How the Scottish government cultivates ‘educational charities’, is it really ‘time for inclusive education’? What are schools doing when they set out to challenge prejudices?
This week’s Substack looks at Time for Inclusive Education (TIE), an educational charity that delivers teacher training and curriculum content on LGBT themes to schools across Scotland. The Scottish government is using TIE, its format and its evolution, as a ‘campaign model’. TIE is seen as a model for those keen to roll out so-called ‘anti-racist’ education in Scottish schools. Given that the ‘educational charity’ is being held up as good practice, SUE’s editorial group thought it might be useful to look more closely at its history, how it operates, and what it says to teachers and children.
Penny Lewis has looked at the TIE model and here explains that it’s really a quango by another name. A concerned grandparent and teacher shares their research on TIE’s funding and its rapid transformation from small campaign to curriculum content producer. And Rachael Hobbs looks more closely at the ideology implicit in TIE’s teacher training material. One of TIE’s key slogans is ‘The children of tomorrow must grow up without the prejudices of today’. That sounds like a worthy ambition, but what does it actually mean in practice?
A quango by another name
Penny Lewis is a parent and a university lecturer living in Dundee.
For many years charities, campaigning groups and churches have played a role in school life. School visitors provide children with an introduction to the wide range of debates, belief and values that exist in the world beyond their personal experiences at home. We recognise that being exposed to challenging ideas is an important part of growing up and that visits from charities and campaigns help to embed a school in the local community and provide children with a window into the adult world beyond their family and the classroom.
For charities and campaigns, educational activity is one element in their broader campaigning work. When I was at secondary school in the 1970s, we were visited by SPUC (the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), and we were encouraged to, respectfully, disagree with both visitors.
In primary school we had been visited by the police and the road safety officers. Even as a teenager, it was clear to me that the police and road safety officers were representatives of local authority organisations addressing important social concerns on which there was a consensus backed up by the law and my parents. On the other hand, SPUC and CND were campaigning groups which formed part of a ‘civil society’ in which debate, persuasion, and a mix of beliefs and opinions should be tolerated.
Today, schools still get visitors, but increasingly they are from ‘educational charities’. These are a strange new kind of organisation, paid to promote government or local authority agendas, while taking the form of a campaign or civil society grouping. There are a whole range of these groups which are called ‘charities’ or ‘campaigns’ but might better be described as quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). We are all aware of the quangos used to run the ferries and the water system, with their highly paid executives, but what about those other arms-length organisations that are funded by government but look a bit like CND or a 1980s gay rights campaign or even SUE?
The government’s new educational charities look a bit like grassroots organisations, but really, the dynamic is entirely top-down. A quango is defined as semi-public administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which is often involved in its senior appointments. Many of Scotland’s ‘educational charities’ appoint their own directors, but they only really become viable with support from government, and as such they can’t really be seen as independent bodies. Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) the organisation that trains teachers to deliver LGBT themes in Scottish education, is a perfect illustration of this new way of implementing policy while avoiding responsibility for the outcomes. The Scottish government is so pleased with the TIE initiative that it has started talking about the ‘TIE campaign model’. It is using the TIE model to form the basis of its ‘anti-racist’ education programme.
The Scottish government loves to portray itself as an enlightened trailblazer. It really enjoys international publicity which portrays the government as ‘progressive’, particularly when it can be seen as a counterpoint to Westminster’s ‘backward populism’. Back in October 2016, when The New York Times ran a story about ‘Scotland’s Gay Politicians’ and described what was happening in Scotland as a ‘profound cultural shift’, Angus Robertson (then deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, now Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture) declared, ‘I’m very proud to be the leader of the gayest parliamentary group in the world’. The New York Times suggests that by supporting gay rights the SNP were able to bury their reputation for social conservatism and their old nickname ‘Tartan Tories’. The article noted that one of the co-founders of TIE, Liam Stevenson (described as a 38-year-old truck driver with a shaved head and a soccer tattoo) had led the annual Pride parade under the banner to TIE. The following year, in 2017, TIE became part of the Scottish government’s Support and Wellbeing Unit, which became an LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group and later an Implementation Group, and it was publicly endorsed by Nicola Sturgeon. It became a registered charity in September 2018, and at its own admission, would have folded in April 2019 had it not been for government support.
Many of the educational charities that now direct the content of Scottish education have often been brought to life by those in or around government with the aim of generating something that looks and smells like civil society but has very little genuine relationship with the local community or national public and political debate. These organisations are called ‘campaigns’, a word associated with protest and public demands for change, but they have more in common with an ‘advertising campaign’ – an orchestrated initiative to achieve a specific goal in which the public are just consumers.
These new educational quangos are heralded as ‘groundbreaking’, but the ground that they are breaking is not that they are changing government policy (this is already decided in its favour). If you look at TIE, its innovative role is to end prejudice by speaking directly to their kids when parents aren’t around. So this is a government-led project supported by a group which has become, wittingly or unwittingly, little more than an extension of government. It is as if we are playacting a zombie version of civil society in order to retain the fiction that we live in a tolerant and pluralistic world.
TIE describes itself and its educational activities as ‘a powerful tool’ for change, but you won’t find TIE standing for election or arguing for its new curriculum reforms in the Scotsman or the Daily Record. These are not democrats campaigning for social change – these are people who think the barrier to progress is old minds and old prejudices. One of TIE’s key slogans is ‘The children of tomorrow must grow up without the prejudices of today’. In other words, every new generation must be insulated from the ideas of their parents and grandparents. TIE say that ‘Education is the most powerful tool we have to address prejudice’, but the truth is that for TIE, going into schools is the only tool available because the organisation was set up specifically to embed LGBT into all parts of the curriculum to ensure that no child would experience homophobic bullying.
Back in the early days of devolution when the SNP were not in power, they promised a bonfire of the quangos, complaining that these government-funded organisations were acting as part of the administration without any democratic accountability. Since the SNP have been in power, government has cultivated new arms-length bodies and put financial pressure on pre-existing civil society organisations to fall into line politically. TIE is one of these new organisations; they didn’t form it exactly, but it is wholly dependent on government and fulfils a useful role of performing a function of government without government needing to take responsibility for what it does. The organisation looks like an old-fashioned campaign group, but really it is funded to implement government policy. It appears to be involved in visiting schools and bringing the values of society into school for discussion, but in truth is designing part of the national curriculum and delivering materials to teachers which are ideologically loaded. This material is delivered as training rather than presented as subjects up for debate.
These distinctions between quangos and campaigns, government and civil society, training and education, are not just semantics; its not just a question of the words we use. We need to understand precisely what is happening – what is changing in Scottish education. It represents a complete shift in the way we think about schools and their relationship to government and society.
Is it time for inclusive education?
A concerned grandparent and teacher has placed the ‘educational charity’ Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) under some careful scrutiny.
In November 2018, former Deputy First Minister John Swinney, said: ‘Scotland is already considered one of the most progressive countries in Europe for LGBTI equality. I am delighted to announce we will be the first country in the world to have LGBTI inclusive education embedded within the curriculum.’ In a response to that announcement, Jordan Daly, Co-Founder of TIE, said, ‘After three years of campaigning, we are delighted that LGBTI inclusive education will now become a reality in all of Scotland’s state schools. This is a monumental victory for our campaign, and a historic moment for our country.’ Let’s pause for a moment and take a closer look at this ‘historic moment’ by going back in time...
From humble beginnings
After a chance meeting at a fundraiser for a foodbank in 2015, Liam Stevenson, a petrol tanker driver, and Jordan Daly, a student at Glasgow University, both campaigners for Scottish independence, instantly connected and felt compelled to start another campaign; this time to change the curriculum in Scottish education. In June of that year, the pair launched Time for Inclusive Education (TIE). In September 2018, TIE received charitable status and by 2021, with strong endorsement and generous funding from the Scottish government, their financial position had changed considerably.
For the year ended September 2020, the financial accounts reported a meagre rent payment of £2087 for their registered address at Big Issue Invest, Bath Street, Glasgow, and no employees. In contrast, by March 2022, the accounts report a rent expense of £20,748 for their registered address at Savoy Tower, Renfrew Street, Glasgow, and five employees (four full-time) at a cost of £210,578, covering salaries, pensions and training costs. It was over this time period that Mr Stevenson and Mr Daly resigned their trustee positions to become employed directors. The accounting statements for 2023 are due by 31 December 2023.
Delivery of services
The charity’s objectives are to combat homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in schools and communities with LGBT Inclusive Education, and through the TIE and LGBT Education Scot website, provide the following services:
staff continuous professional development
initial teacher training
primary school workshops
assemblies
secondary school workshops
teaching resources.
These are partly delivered by three teachers employed by TIE. One has primary level registration and has taught P3 to P7, and two have secondary level registration and have taught history, RME, dance, drama and English. The General Teaching Council for Scotland state that teachers can only teach the level or the subjects in which they have achieved full registration. However, ‘(Additional) Registration allows teachers who hold Full Registration in Primary or Secondary (subject) categories to add additional subjects/sectors to their registration.’ This application process requires the individual to complete a probationary period to meet both academic requirements, and for registration in a different category, i.e. secondary or primary, applicants are expected to meet the Standard for Provisional Registration. Therefore, it would be expected that teachers involved in the delivery of the services listed above would stay in lane, have achieved additional registration, or procured the services of specialist teachers to deliver any areas in which they themselves are untrained.
Teaching resources, whether created in-house or by external organisations, need to be of the highest standard and go through a rigorous quality assurance procedure before they are used in the classroom. Poorly written resources, rather than facilitate progress, create a barrier to learning. This level one maths question on money, aimed at P2 to P4 pupils and on the TIE website, is one such example.
Below the original text the question has been rewritten, correcting any grammatical errors; it requires pupils to answer three structured questions. Aligning the language in the question to the specific Benchmarks, Experiences and Outcomes assists in the accurate recording of individual attainment.
The biographies of the two co-founders and directors state that they, like the three teachers, also take an active role in the delivery of services. Mr Daly has ‘responsibility for developing and delivering the national policy of LGBT Inclusive Education. His remit also includes ‘contributing to educational policy, and broader resource development ... TIE inputs, secondary assemblies, and workplace learning.’ Mr Stevenson has ‘responsibility for developing and delivering the national policy of LGBT Inclusive Education ... secondary assemblies, workplace learning, and our educational inputs to football clubs.’
Mr Stevenson and Mr Daly were members of the influential LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group, created in 2017, which reports to the Scottish ministers with recommendations for Scottish education. It is unclear at this time what professional qualifications, training, experience and expertise in the education sector both Mr Stevenson and Mr Daly have, or the due diligence carried out by the Scottish government as part of their decision-making process to endorse and fund TIE to deliver these services.
Trustees
Charity trustees play a key role in determining and delivering the aims and objectives of the organisation. Currently, TIE have six trustees listed on their website, three of whom have sat on the board since the charity’s registration in 2018.
Professor Ian Rivers – Associate Principal and Executive Dean Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Strathclyde. He is also a trustee and an honorary member of LGBT Youth Scotland. He has worked closely with the Scottish government, sitting on the COVID-19 Advisory Sub-Groups on Education and Children’s Issues, and Universities and Colleges. He is also a member of the First Minister’s Task Force on Gender Equality in Education and Learning. More recently, he has become interested in the ways in which marginalised young people engage with political movements to bring about change.
Aamer Anwar is a British political activist and lawyer. He is the principal solicitor at Aamer Anwar & Co., providing a range of specialist legal services including those related to immigration, extradition and international crime. He was a keen supporter of the Yes Campaign for Scottish independence. He is also Humza Yousaf’s lawyer, recently defending the First Minister over a row on the accusation that Humza Yousaf deliberately missed a key vote on same-sex marriage by arranging a ministerial meeting at the same time.
Rhiannon Spear (Chairperson of TIE) is a trainee solicitor at Aamer Anwar & Co. Rhiannon was elected as a Glasgow City Councillor for the SNP in 2015, and after being touted as a ‘rising star’ left politics after it was reported she was being chased for council tax. In 2022 she was cleared by the standards watchdog over a tweet about the European Song Contest which said ‘Scotland hates the United Kingdom’.
It is important that any charitable organisation in receipt of taxpayers’ money, who have been afforded the most privileged position of being able influence young people and their educators, is not commandeered as a vehicle by those furthering their own ideology. Ideally, any board of trustees should include a range of social, political and religious perspectives.
Going forward
Is it time for inclusive education? Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. The questions we should be asking are:
What impact is inclusive education having on the physical, social, emotional and economic wellbeing of children and young people in school and beyond?
How will this impact be measured?
What is the professional standing and background of individuals in third-party organisations employed to deliver this education and teacher training?
Currently, neither the quality indicators within the framework of How Good is Our School 4, nor the experiences and outcomes outlined in Curriculum for Excellence, have the capacity to identify any meaningful data and analysis over the long term. We are ‘flying blind’, using the noble adjectives of respect, equality, diversity and inclusivity as a smokescreen for a social engineering experiment: an experiment without informed consent from its participants and lacking in any quality scientifically backed research. For the sake of our children and young people, it’s time to let kids be kids, it’s time to let parents be parents, and it is most definitely time to let teachers educate not indoctrinate.
Anti-prejudice: how LGBTQ+ refuses to release its grip on schools
Rachael Hobbs is a teaching assistant in England.
If you thought ‘equality’ crusades from our noble establishments, filling the well-lined pockets of activist lobbies, had been done to death now and that a natural and welcome demise was imminent, you’d be very wrong. You might think that the spiritual cup of we, the unenlightened citizens, is by now filled up by the state’s guidance on how to respect one another, following the endless splurge of ‘rights’-obsessed virtue-signalling. Schools are now subject to most of the relentless, ‘anti-prejudice’ continuum. How have our children merited this constant moral bombardment?
There’s something ill-matched about ‘campaigns’ aimed at kids, including early years and primary-aged children, when it comes to complex and grown-up matters of prejudice, ‘identity’ or ethics. It’s a worrying spectacle in schools that does not match the reach or suitability of the audience. If we look to Scotland, we can rely on the SNP, third-party ‘educational suppliers’, and the bureaucrats working for them, thinking up more inclusion themes to keep themselves in jobs so they can run with ‘fighting prejudice’ for a long time.
Most notable is the latest SNP national campaign holding schools to ransom, led by the lobby group Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) - just when you thought it was time it ended. The campaign presents itself under the premise of ‘breaking down stereotypes’, more accurately translated as introducing and normalising adult sexual identity representations to the young. TIE works ‘in partnership’ with many other interest groups orchestrating deficits in schools (including LGBTQ Scotland, LGBT Education Scot and LGBT Youth Scotland – that underrepresented behemoth) to ‘roll out’ or rather steamroll campaigns to our lucky children.
TIE has been granted by the SNP the finance (see above) and power to deliver early years, primary and secondary ‘LGBTI inclusion training’ in a campaign to heavily permeate the curriculum. (Note: replacement of ‘Q+’ with the more marketable ‘I’ for Intersex; the iota of persons with rare variations in sex development being dragged into trans narratives to add false legitimacy to the social creation of gender identity.)
TIE does this by transforming problem-solving narratives into identity-induced ones, across learning material. For example, unsuspecting pupils coming across a TIE worksheet about codes and Alan Turing, in maths. TIE’s reframing offers a bit of maths and at the end a cheery bubble that reads ‘In his own time, Alan was treated terribly. He was gay at a time when that was illegal, and he was arrested after the war. He was sentenced to a brutal punishment which led him to die of suicide in 1954. He was 41.’ [1]
This is what happens when lobby groups try to teach children: introducing suicide and time- and place-inappropriate topics of sexuality and persecution. You get the picture – there are lots of TIE worksheet available on its website, but transgender ones are not shown.
Controversy is compounded when we know that the transgender debate is distinctly unsettled in adult society, including concerns among LGB individuals and groups, let alone children’s education. The legitimacy of the transgender paradigm within education is highly controversial, yet the SNP is sweeping it into schools at a time when gender identity ideology is a critical safeguarding matter – due to social contagion of young minds and where that leads.
More than subliminal sexual identity politics for children’s eyes only, TIE is also to provide inclusion e-learning to schools, for teachers and pupils. ‘LGBTQ+ history and rights’ are to be inserted into social sciences, along with cyclical presentations to classes and lessons around prejudice and discrimination.
Parents might want to know what all that entails. Beyond law practitioners, who decides what discrimination is, and are teachers going to impart what the lobby tells them? Let us assume it will almost certainly introduce transgender ‘rights’ to children, in a society grappling mindlessly with biological sex versus recent invention of ‘gender identities’. And we know LGBTQ+’s track record in presenting contested ideas as fact, to pupils under relationships and sexual health education (RSHE).
TIE also gets to deliver the new ‘LGBTI inclusive’ initial teacher training and continuous professional development, a further unwelcome diversion for pressured teachers, who need to learn about how to teach effectively.
Unsurprisingly, when teaching groups were mildly consulted about the TIE programme, prior to its approval in 2018, the government ignored feedback showing huge concern. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) reported that teachers were already facing enormous demands on their time and that their understanding of rights was ‘likely to be gained and updated through information provided by schools and career-long professional learning.’ [2]
The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) were as bold as to declare that ‘practitioners are skilled in recognising their own professional learning needs’ and rightly went on to express concern about religious parents and teachers. This was met with hysterical social media backlash, where they were forced to put out a subservient statement affirming their commitment to TIE [2].
The last aspect of the TIE programme is policy that all Scottish schools record all ‘incidents’ of homophobia, biphobia and ‘transphobia’. Again, how this gets decided is anyone’s guess. Schools will have to work out whether to record ‘transphobia’ if a child cannot grasp the idea of a student suddenly changing sex. This policy is a topic worthy of more time and space; but the policy is fraught with contradictions and would be impossible for schools to implement. It is important for parents to see that LGBTQ+ do not put all their eggs into the one basket of RSHE lessons anymore. The equality guise changes shape and form, largely to sustain itself. Perhaps lobbies realise that too many parents are finding out about the choose-your-own-sex drivel being presented in RSHE or sex education.
‘Anti-bullying’ or ‘anti-prejudice’ is a wonderful re-entry back into classrooms. The TIE campaign provides for itself and all associated ‘partners’ a plentiful route back into the abyss of ‘inclusion’ and its sustained and easy target, children. The Scottish government presents it as ‘national embedding of inclusive education across all schools’. You know more social control by the state is pending whenever the SNP wishes to ‘embed’ anything. That means equality themes already marinating school policy and values are considered not sufficient. This is about a more pernicious regulation to bombard children via over representation of ‘identity’ into every available narrative in the curriculum, to force a moral code that panders incessantly to an activist minority.
Indeed, one of TIE’s bugbears in the past was how LGBTQ+ was only ‘tagged’ within RSHE and not taken seriously (one would hope, but we know that it did rather more than that, with children taught that sex is something arbitrarily ‘assigned’). Nevertheless, the lobby is probably more than aware that it represents exceptions to the rule, or norms. Until ‘inclusion’ came along. It has taken excellent advantage of the mainstream’s desire to over-embrace the minority, no matter what the cost, and as such has vastly overextended itself into education. This is because education is also being misused in Scotland as a big stick with which to ‘encourage’ children on their way to adopting the government’s fanatical, rights-based caricature of civic society.
Importantly, the ‘evidence’ given by TIE as the basis for some outstanding need for their programme was based on highly loaded questions, largely to young people already in contact with LGBTQ+ groups. TIE dramatically introduced its demands based on a statement with no foundation: ‘There are alarmingly high rates of bullying, self harm and attempted suicide among LGBT young people and homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic language, attitudes and behaviours are commonplace within school communities across the country.’ [3]
TIE’s data of school leavers was based on just 287 young people, over a quarter of whom were at school pre-2010, which does not represent current culture. It also included 62 respondents from a Pride 2016 event which cannot be authenticated in terms of targeted audience. Questions were heavily loaded, which could only hint towards the desired answer. Do you think ‘inclusion’ in schools is the right way forward? Of course.
During 2017, the LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group, which worked with TIE and other lobbies, pre-approval, went as far as to provide as part of their recommendations, a delightful inclusion of the fictional ‘intersex’ Scottish population in an attempt to create the illusion of need where none exists:
‘Maintaining an awareness of emergent understandings of prejudice and discrimination against people with variations of sex characteristics/intersex bodies and how this may manifest in school environments. There is currently little understanding of how this materialises in schools; what prejudice and bullying might look like, what form it takes and how it is tackled.’ [4]
Nobly, TIE’s founders have committed that their work will not be over ‘until we live in a society where we are no longer required’. How this posits them as firmly entrenched in schools is a mystery.
Prior to any ‘data’, TIE claimed during their petitioning to government that the lack of LGBT education in schools was a ‘national disgrace’, demanding that ‘education is an absolutely vital tool to tackle homophobia, biphobic and transphobic behaviours, and discrimination, and it must be utilised.’ (my emphasis in bold) [2].
LGBTQ+ is not an ‘education’; it is a group of divergent identity interests. And ‘education’ here sounds more like a call to arms, i.e. a form of control. Herein, is where we see beneath the virtue of the ‘anti-prejudice’ agenda, which in reality transforms ‘education’ into a hostile project, against the intellectual freedom and natural integrity of the young. And above all, why do lobbies have any say at all in what is taught in schools?
What is going on is not actually a programme of well-needed intervention into the sensibilities of young people, but an adoption of a mission by the SNP, because it in the end fits into the party’s own social and cultural strategy of redefining convention, norms, collective judgements and safeguards. It does this via the crowbarring of educational parameters to let in ideologies that do not belong in schooling at all. Within LGBTQ+, TIE and all associated beneficiaries, the Scottish government’s alignment is with an agenda which is full of its own virtue at the expense of real education, collective and democratic values, and ultimately, public and parental consent.
References
1. https://tie.scot/secondary/secondary-resources/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_for_Inclusive_Education
3. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/757377/response/1813739/attach/html/3/TIE%20Attitudes%20Towards%20LGBT%20in%20Scottish%20Education.pdf.html
4. https://www.gov.scot/publications/lgbti-inclusive-education-working-group-report/pages/8/
News round-up
A selection of the main stories with relevance to Scottish education in the press in recent weeks, by Simon Knight
https://substack.com/inbox/post/137848246 Malcolm Clark, Conversion Therapy, Blockers and a Big Brain Mystery. 12/10/23
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/bridget-phillipson-full-text-of-labour-conference-2023-speech/ Bridget Phillipson: Full text of Labour conference 2023 speech. 17/10/23
https://archive.ph/2023.10.11-232848/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-rights-crowd-assaulted-guests-at-gender-book-launch-ggn9qdtf7 Mike Wade, Trans rights crowd ‘assaulted’ guests at gender book launch. 12/10/23
https://substack.com/inbox/post/137981501 Marion Felder, Dissolving Biological Bonds. Freedom or irresponsibility? 15/10/23
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/frances-teachers-are-scared/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=LNCH%20%2020231016%20%20House%20ads%20%20JO+CID_7e213016f4095e98fc3d40dae28956ed Gavin Mortimer, France’s teachers are scared. 16/10/23
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/03/warning-unconscious-bias-working-class-pupils-schools-england Sally Weale, Warning over unconscious bias against working-class pupils in English schools. Social mobility expert says mindset in many schools requires children to be ‘middle-class clones’ to succeed. 03/10/23
Forthcoming events
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/debating-matters-social-egg-freezing-empowers-women/ Schools debating competition with SUE Board member Linda Murdoch as a judge. Saturday 28 October.
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/scotland-progressive-agenda-a-warning/ Discussion event in London, Battle of Ideas, featuring SUE Board members Dr Stuart Waiton and Dr Simon Knight. Sunday 29 October.
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/politicisation-of-therapy/ Discussion event in London, Battle of Ideas, featuring SUE Board member Dr Jenny Cunningham. Sunday 29 October.
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/battle-for-the-classroom-education-or-indoctrination/ Discussion event in London, Battle of Ideas, featuring SUE Board member Penny Lewis. Saturday 25 November.
Thanks for reading the SUE Newsletter.
Please visit our Substack
Please join the union and get in touch with our organisers.
Email us at info@scottishunionforeducation.co.uk
Contact SUEs Parents and Supporters Group at PSG@scottishunionforeducation.co.uk
Please pass this newsletter on to your friends, family and workmates.