Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No18
Newsletter Themes: self-labelling as Cultural Thatcherism, goodbye to the Educational Institute of Scotland, schools need discipline.
SUE is organising a mass meeting in Glasgow to discuss how to challenge the indoctrination taking place in schools.
Speakers include:
Malcolm Clark Emmy-nominated TV producer and co-founder of LGB Alliance
Stuart Baird a secondary school teacher who promotes the idea of the need for teachers to become subject specialist
Peigi Piper a GP and parent of two primary school children whose eyes have been opened to the activism and sexualising nature of primary school education
Dr Stuart Waiton academic and chairperson of the Scottish Union
Tron Church, Bath Street, Thursday 15th June, 6.30pm
Tickets are free to SUE substack paid subscribers.
This week Stuart Waiton explains how the transgender craze has emerged in our hyper-individualised times and describes it as a trend that may be better understood as a form of ‘Cultural Thatcherism’ than Cultural Marxism; Kirsty Miller shares her resignation letter to the increasingly doctrinaire union, the EIS; and Rachel Hobbs assesses the idea of the ‘strict-warm’ school, in which the importance of discipline is understood as a basis for developing rather than curtailing the individual.
We’re all individuals now, but what we need are social rather than solipsistic individuals
Stuart Waiton is Chairperson of SUE
I thought that as part of the build-up to our upcoming public meeting in Glasgow, I would attempt to explain what is so easy and yet so difficult about the explosion in the numbers, and the explosive issue, of trans-identifying children.
The difficulty is that, at one level, what we are experiencing is a clash of two forms of common sense.
The first is one that I need not elaborate on too much, i.e. the common-sense view that there are only two sexes, and really, when it comes down to it, there are no ‘genders’ – there are no such innate identities (100+, according to some sources) possessed by ‘born in the wrong body’ types of people who have simply been craving to express themselves throughout history. Biology is real. Girls and boys are not a social construct. And as Billboard Chris rightly notes, these girls and boys can be any type of girl or boy they like, but they are still girls and boys.
For those who retain this common-sense perspective, as a SUE supporter said to me this week, the whole trans thing is, ‘well, just bollocks!’
It is ‘bollocks’, but if that was all it was it would be hard to explain why governments, companies, schools, institutions and many young people across the Western world have come to embrace transgenderism as a new normal.
Some see a conspiracy and trace it to powerful individuals and groups who have a cunning plan to change the world or reduce the population or develop some kind of Satanic state.
When I talk to these conspiracy theorists, they often laugh while they talk, as if while knowing that what they say is true, it is also beyond belief.
At times I almost wish they were right, because if they were, the problem (even the Satanic takeover) would be easier to resolve than what is really going on.
The other, competing form of common sense is another one that, whether we like it or not, we’re all part of to one degree or another, and that is the trend towards sanctification of the self, or what has come to be called the rise of ‘expressive individualism’. As Carl R. Trueman asserts in his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, ‘we’re all expressive individuals now’.
You may not have heard of expressive individuals, or if you have, you may not like the idea that this is what we are. But ask yourself, who or what authority should direct your life other than yourself?
Some, especially those who are still religious, would react against this idea, and no doubt for some religious individuals there is something beyond the self. However, even here, as Alan Wolfe notes in The Transformation of American Religion, religion and churches have also been transformed by this culture of the self.
Religion, rather than being a difficult doctrine, has come to be adopted as something ‘personal to me’, as something more therapeutic than transcendental, as a thing often expressed in private than through loyalty to an institution. As Wolfe notes, ‘American religion has already become more personalized and individualistic, less doctrinal and devotional, more practical and purposeful, and increasingly at home with the culture surrounding it.’
Wolfe elaborates, ‘Once upon a time, the New Left and the counterculture dispensed with ideas about acting responsibly in favour of living authentically. Now the same idea, and even the same kind of language, has passed over to Christian theologians.’ One could make the same argument about people who used to be or indeed still are political.
Whatever the outlook or form of traditional authority, you find that there has been a hollowing out of duty, loyalty and meaning that gives direction to people’s ‘lived experience’. Indeed, the very rise of this idea of ‘lived experience’, and the weight that society gives to it, tells the tale of the rise and rise of the only game in town – the life, the rights, and the normalisation of the ‘authentic self’. In a flash, the idea of truth disappears and we are left with the new and unquestionable moral norm of ‘your truth’.
To come back to the transgender craze, the logical connection with the rise of what Adam Curtis calls the Century of the Self is that children are being brought up in a world that tells them that the centre of the world is, in fact, themselves: ‘You are all special’, ‘Be the real you’, ‘No one can tell you who you are’, etc. And in its purified form, when there is nothing outside oneself that can provide a sense of meaning, not only does the self become all there is, but the body, increasingly, becomes a site through which we express who we are. Hence the transgender craze.
It is unclear how things will resolve themselves in the future. Most people are more self-referential than they used to be but are still grounded in some form of meaning and sense of duty to their family and community. Tragically, those in authority appear to lack these connections and have adopted a purified form of what I would call hyper-individualism. In this respect, the term Cultural Thatcherism (while being rather forced) is perhaps a more useful way to think about these trends than the idea of Cultural Marxism that obscures more than it reveals.
With this in mind, rather than looking to the young to change the world for the better, perhaps we need to be looking to the ‘old’ – to parents and grandparents, to teachers, preachers, elderly atheists, older gay activists and women’s rights campaigners, to people who still remember a time when there were ideas and ideals that dragged us out of ourselves and helped to create a world of public individuals: The type of individual who instinctively and rationally considers the mystical idea of being born in the wrong body as essentially, ‘bollocks’.
As we can see from the letter from Kirsty Miller below, our old institutions, like our unions, are no longer fit for purpose, and we need to build something new to replace them.
And as Rachel Hobbs suggests, perhaps a starting point in schools is to reignite the need for that apparently anti-individualistic sensibility of discipline and self-discipline – something that when done through the elevation and celebration of that fantastic thing called education, can actually help create meaningful and enlightened individuals with the capacity to rise above the shallow obsession with our ultimately empty inner-identifying existence.
If you would like to help build the Glasgow event on 15 June in the Tron Church, get in touch at info@scottishunionforeducation.co.uk
Goodbye to the Educational Institute of Scotland
Here, Kirsty Miller publishes a letter to her union, the EIS, explaining how and why educators like herself are now leaving this doctrinaire institution. Kirsty is an academic psychologist specialising in teenage mental health. She has taught at various stages in the Scottish education system, including the secondary, further and higher education levels.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Having been a member of the EIS for a number of years, I’ve become increasingly concerned about the organisation’s outputs. Not only are they overtly political, with a number being unrelated to education (commenting for example on migration policy, government policy and capitalism), they are frequently misguided and inaccurate (e.g. campaigns on ‘anti-racism’ and the ‘gender pay gap’; gender inequality being discussed only in relation to women; prevalence of sexual harassment being misrepresented; claims that transwomen are women and that babies are ‘assigned’ a sex).
I first became concerned when I saw the EIS regularly discussing ‘racism’, ‘decolonisation’ and ‘anti-racism’. Contrary to popular belief, ‘anti-racism’ does not mean ‘against racism’ but is in fact a political ideology which is inherently racist towards white people. For any institution to actively endorse racism towards any group is deeply concerning, but when said institution is responsible for the education of children, it is bordering on malpractice.
I have also been horrified to see the organisation’s outright prejudice against men. Here, not only does the organisation proudly announce their prejudice (‘The EIS believes that Scotland is a patriarchal society’), they ignore the significant inequality experienced by men in education (men are hugely under-represented in teaching, and boys have been falling behind girls in education for decades). In addition to blithely ignoring the aforementioned issues, they have also been promoting factually inaccurate political campaigns (regarding, for example, the alleged gender pay gap, and claiming that sexual harassment is ‘endemic in society’ and citing #MeToo as evidence of this). There is also the glaring omission of material regarding men and boys’ welfare (despite the fact that men are disproportionately more likely to experience suicide, homelessness, addiction and imprisonment). This is particularly noticeable given that the welfare and safety of other groups receives constant attention – and indeed, males are frequently demonised and stereotyped in such discussions.
The irony, of course, is that the excessive focus on women’s rights is entirely forgotten in discussion of trans ‘rights’, where men are suddenly encouraged to participate in ‘organising around women’s inequalities’ as well as women’s events and conferences. While the EIS’s campaigns regarding women’s so-called inequality are misguided, they are made almost laughable when the organisation simultaneously releases statements and champions causes that aim to remove women’s rights altogether.
Indeed, discussions regarding the Scottish government’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill have acted as the final nail in the coffin in relation to the EIS’s credibility, dramatically demonstrating the organisation’s lack of concern for genuine education. The fact that they regularly refer to legitimate concerns and discussion surrounding trans issues as ‘misinformation’ demonstrates the extent to which they have been brainwashed by activists (indeed, they even refer readers to the activist group Time for Inclusive Education). The EIS’s decision to publicly promote this political activist ideology (one that includes blatant untruths; see the above regarding men being women and the ‘assignment’ of sex) has removed any legitimacy the organisation may have had left. It is emblematic of the fall of Scottish education that an organisation that claims to ‘advance education in Scotland’ promotes ideological propaganda at the expense of truth and evidence.
Bearing in mind the institution’s clear ideological takeover, it seems likely that any member needing support regarding an issue that is not considered ‘politically correct’ would very much be left to fend for themselves. All of this leaves the need for membership of the EIS rather redundant. We can no longer claim that it stands for education, and if it only supports its members under certain circumstances, it is little more than a political mouthpiece for those who want to push their ideology to vulnerable youngsters through the education system.
I would urge other members who value education, facts, logic and evidence to follow me in leaving the EIS. Should you wish to receive legitimate protection in the workplace, or indeed, if you want to ‘advance education in Scotland’, please consider joining the Scottish Union for Education instead, where we guarantee that education will always come first.
Back to basics?
The case for ‘strict-warm’ schools.
Rachel Hobbs is a teaching assistant in England.
A different educational style is emerging in the UK, imported from the USA, under the description of ‘strict-warm’ schooling. Similar in part to the old days of traditional learning, as well as passion for subject knowledge, this is based on teaching practices that obtain the most from pupils, and on teachers’ educational authority as paramount to school culture.
The approach originates from American educator Doug Lemov’s ‘Teach like a champion’ techniques, which are becoming known worldwide. It is a departure from liberal progressive pedagogy, the use of which is causing teachers to leave the profession in droves, often due to feeling unsupported by senior management and the increasing challenges of disruptive pupil behaviour and lack of direction in how to deal with it.
The strict-warm ethos has been adopted in a number of schools across the UK, most notably schools within inner cities and areas of urban deprivation which were struggling, and these have seen major turnarounds.
It is about combining authoritative teaching with kindness, the two themes being very closely aligned rather than being assumed to be divergent styles. High expectations of pupil behaviour are central to the approach, and warnings and punishments are crystal clear, consistent, and always followed through. At the same time, students become absorbed in subject learning through teaching and comprehension methods which reach everyone and encourage focus, understanding, and problem solving together.
For example, teachers ascertain how much of the class is understanding something through subtle poll taking of hands when questions are asked, and work through wrong answers collectively and positively. It is hard for students to be left behind. Simple changes, like leaving longer for students to put their hands up, allows them more thinking time and a chance for more to be involved rather than the same pupils in each case.
All the while, students are required to demonstrate active learning through participation and are reminded of personal presentation: sitting up straight, listening, answering, nodding, tracking the teacher. Classes may be quieter than what we are used to, but collective involvement is remarkable to see.
Different learning groups according to ability still exist in key topics, but the difference is that these can change to recognise that students are individuals who can progress in a topic rather than members of fixed groups with a static level of ability.
Standard rules adopted within the schools include quiet or silent corridors, eye contact with teachers in class, and work-alone detentions for lapses in behaviour. Some of it sounds strict in theory, but looking at recorded examples of lessons guided by this style you can see children gladly compelled to join in and enjoy lessons, thriving under high expectations, and teachers too can grow in their profession.
The ethos is not without demonstrable merit, as it is reaping dramatic improvements within the areas of performance and student behaviour. The majority of schools in the UK using the strict-warm approach are academies, which allow their heads more freedom and authority to shape educational culture.
Academic rigour is the order of the day, and the belief is that once children understand the rules they are free to learn to the highest educational standards and thus thrive within school and beyond.
The approach has been met with some opposition from parent bodies formed across a number of schools. They feel there is an increase in children’s anxiety over punitive measures for slights and mistakes, including incorrect uniform, forgetting homework, or even bringing a non-branded school pen into class. There is question of practices being too rigid. This may, however, be an inaccurate assumption due to an increase in pupils’ commitment to school, and there appears to be a strong sense of belonging and culture within these schools.
Some professionals argue that there is a failure to consider needs of those with difficult backgrounds who may struggle to conform. The child-centred or ‘trauma background’ ethos argues that strict-warm is a ‘shame-based’ approach to teaching and that children first require ‘psychological safety’ in order to meet expectations. Looking at footage of classes though, pupils seem genuinely engaged and no wrong answer is shamed.
Advocates believe that where there is lapse in behaviour, enforcement of consequences is precisely out of care for pupils, not because care is lacking.
It is a fundamental point of difference – and urges the question as to whether our child-centred education often fails to instil what were once absolute givens in expected pupil behaviour.
Surely the demand for ‘inclusivity’ of all children by concerned teachers in the child-centred camp should not assume that those with poor behaviour are exempt, and ironically excluded, from the rewards and learnt skills that come with following the same rules as everyone else.
Emotional ‘self-regulation’ is something many strict-warm critics urge needs to be taught rather than expected. These schools would argue this is what they are teaching, through clear parameters that protect children and mould them.
Concerns reveal perhaps where child-centred education fails. Children from ‘traumatic backgrounds’ need consistency more than anyone. Teachers who are not always applying this for them are letting them down, and over time the child learns that there is no order at school. Boundaries provide the ultimate sense of safety for children.
The Michaela Community School in London is a well-known strict-warm establishment, thanks to outspoken headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh. Hers is a fervent belief in the strategy coupled with disdain for the trauma-centred framework of teaching due to its reductionism, which fails to offer disadvantaged pupils the opportunity to actually flourish. Opposition, she believes, really stems from ‘the offended sensibilities of the middle classes’.
This makes me smile. We have such a problem with the concept of discipline and standards. So much of our current lofty, therapeutic approach to educational culture is increasingly cultivating malaise in the young. The overemphasis on ‘safe spaces’ in schools for supposedly identity-stricken children (thank you, trans lobby); our prolonged gaze at mental health issues that fails to teach navigation and stoicism; endless rights-based, anti-prejudice placarding adorning our school walls. What happened to real education?
Within the aims of strict-warm schools are, instead, and refreshingly, the exalting of character, resilience, and the desire for knowledge to overcome barriers and to succeed – important traits which mainstream schools can often miss in their myopic attachment to adult-projected narratives of self-esteem and the flatlining of ‘embracing who you are’ (translated as, ‘do not strive to be better’).
There is a robustness in these new schools that help protect them from the mistake of ‘liberal’ education and from the elitist ideological obsession with ‘systematic inequality’, something that is both depressing and incredibly limiting for minorities and poorer students.
Mainstream schooling and the child-centred approach risks diminishing the qualities of individual responsibility and the ability to overcome adversity.
The strict-warm ethos is not about a tyrannical approach to teaching. School leaders pioneering the approach ensure staff are consistently versed in how to be excellent teachers and get the most out of all students. Much time is spent reviewing class planning together, strengthening the balance of teacher autonomy with accountability, and working together as a team.
It is clear that schools need strong values, authority and expectation to foster a high standard of learning. We also need a return to key topic learning and teachers as subject matter experts. Good behaviour and unwavering respect for rules provide a reassurance basis for pupils to learn and excel.
Schools can still maintain the spirit of learning within a framework which holds high expectations of its children. Without raising the bar, we are doing them a disservice and, ultimately, failing to lead – which is what children need.
News Round-up
A selection of the main stories with relevance to Scottish education in the press in recent weeks.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/covid-changed-culture-in-scottish-schools-as-violent-incidents-reach-highest-level-in-five-years STV News, ‘Covid changed culture in schools’ amid rise in violent incidents. Disturbing videos of attacks involving pupils shared on social media have caused widespread shock. 22/05/23
Lisa Selin Davis, How Therapists Became Social Justice Warriors. ‘They are training people who will not be able to see half the population as human beings who need compassionate treatment.’ 17/05/23
https://archive.is/2023.05.20-213813/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/20/sex-education-rishi-sunak-age-appropriate-rejects-unesco/ Michael Murphy, Rishi Sunak promises to protect ‘our precious children’ amid sex education concerns. The government is distancing itself from UN sex education guidance that has caused widespread concern among MPs. 20/05/23
https://news.sky.com/story/the-ghost-children-thousands-are-missing-school-and-covid-made-the-problem-worse-12883440 Nick Martin, The ‘ghost children’: Thousands are missing school - and COVID made the problem worse. 19/05/23
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12091229/The-moment-realised-terribly-wrong-Tavistock-Nurse-Sue-Evans-reveals.html Kathryn Knight, The stomach-drop moment I realised there was something terribly wrong at the Tavistock gender clinic: Nurse reveals why she blew the whistle on ‘experimental’ treatment on children as young as ten. 16/05/23
Dr Julia Mason, Low-quality gender research abuses the trust that good medicine demands. 24/05/23
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12117017/MAYA-FORSTATER-despicable-witch-hunt-trans-lobby-against-fine-principled-woman.html?ito=email_share_article-top Maya Forstater: This is a despicable witch-hunt by the trans lobby against a fine and principled woman. 23/05/23
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-mom-asks-catholic-school-board-why-fourth-graders-are-playing-sexual-grooming-games-in-class/ Clare Marie Merkowsky, Ontario mom asks Catholic school board why fourth graders are playing ‘sexual grooming’ games in class. 25/05/23
https://archive.is/2023.05.27-215531/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/27/civil-service-whistleblower-settlement-political-activism/ Louisa Clarence Smith, Civil servant who blew the whistle on political activism wins £100,000 settlement. Anna Thomas raised the alarm over a number on concerns, including a police jobseekers’ event that excluded white men. 27/05/23
https://archive.md/2023.05.29-105517/https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/judges-warned-on-gender-protocols/news-story/cd785c19ceb9a826e2c28cc2f0d092c3?amp&nk=7dd139d749cc4efe5f5b27a23fd1fe8a-1685357759 Ellie Dudley and Natasha Robinson, Judges warned on gender protocols. 29/05/23
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
Please pass this newsletter on to your friends, family and workmates.
May I please share a few thoughts here?
I first delved into the topic of gender dysphoria during 1978-9 while writing a dissertation as part of a psychology degree. The small research study that I undertook and described was prefaced by a distillation of ideas and findings in the introduction section which came from moderately extensive background reading of the scientific literature.
I am also writing from the remembered insights and understanding acquired from involvement in multidisciplinary assessment and from providing support in therapeutic sessions with a very small number of adult patients who presented with gender dysphoria when I worked as a clinical psychologist within an NHS generic adult mental health service and from the context of reading a scholarly article on "intersex" conditions published years ago in "The Psychologist", the main publication of the British Psychological Society.
Much more recently, I briefly consulted Google to explore if anything has changed significantly in terms of knowledge and understanding of the topic within the scientific community. It seems not.
Firstly, I would like to share with you, as many members of SUE probably know, that there exist several, relatively uncommon conditions of genetic abnormality which may contribute to the development of ambiguity regarding the physical characteristics of biological sex, ambiguity or complexity regarding gender identification and the condition known as "gender dysphoria". These include Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Exposure in the womb to gonadal hormones, especially testosterone, and/or certain psychosocial (environmental) experiences may be considered to be additional influences on the development and persistence of gender dysphoria in some cases, even when no chromosomal abnormalities are found.
Research with human populations is ongoing and in need of further refinement (as with all all research endeavours) due to various methodological issues.
Is it possible for a person to have long believed that they were born into the wrong body? Are there more than 2 biological sexes?
When one or more of the above-mentioned broad factors is taken carefully into account, thinking also of historic and cross-cultural perspectives, discussion papers and studies, it certainly seems plausible that both statements are valid. I believe that we should have open minds, accordingly, and adopt tolerant attitudes. This is NOT to say that I support the role of schools in indoctrinating pupils and promoting a political agenda, however.
Where the dominating cultural emphasis on excessive individualism is concerned, with somewhat solipsistic or even narcissistic implications, I suppose that there are multiple contributing influences on the development and maintenance of this social phenomenon. Commentators often refer, for example, to the possible influence of Maslow's theory of self-actualisation, the impact of the philosophical theories of Existentialism and postmodernism and the widespread polemical assaults on the West which appears to have lost confidence as a result in embodying and promulgating certain concepts and teachings that are deeply grounded in the "Judaeo-Christian Tradition".
Among these teachings, as we know, are the importance of contributing to the acts of helping and supporting one's family, community and broader society where possible and balancing a mindset oriented towards personal rights with conscientiousness about our responsibilities to each other (e.g. opposing oppression, concern for social justice, honouring human equality as we are "all made in God's image", respecting other people's dignity as well as our own and following "The Golden Rule").
Within an inclusive framework, where pupils come from a wide array of religious or spiritual backgrounds or no such distinctive background, including one of atheism, can schools not continue to discuss and promote these ideas a little as a desirable blueprint for the sake of pupils' own personal growth and welfare as well as for the sake of others? Why not convey both at the same time? The psychological literature (theories, discussion papers and growing, if flawed, evidence base from research studies) on the subject of resilience and associated with various subjects examined under the conceptual umbrella of "Positive Psychology" seems to lend support not only to the idea that we should continue to value both but that they are highly likely to be dynamically interconnected.
Lastly, discipline. Parenting videos glimpsed on Facebook often suggest to me that there may be a swing of the pendulum away from giving children too much free rein. It is uplifting to watch individuals of varying approximate ages advocating discipline in the form of firm and consistent boundary-setting along with warm and kind expressions of empathy for and validation of children's feelings. This skillfully blended approach within the home environment seems wise and likely to aid child psychological development. As at home, so at school!
May I please share a few thoughts here?
I first delved into the topic of gender dysphoria during 1978-9 while writing a dissertation as part of a psychology degree. The small research study that I undertook and described was prefaced by a distillation of ideas and findings in the introduction section which came from moderately extensive background reading of the scientific literature.
I am also writing from the remembered insights and understanding acquired from involvement in multidisciplinary assessment and from providing support in therapeutic sessions with a very small number of adult patients who presented with gender dysphoria when I worked as a clinical psychologist within an NHS generic adult mental health service and from the context of reading a scholarly article on "intersex" conditions published years ago in "The Psychologist", the main publication of the British Psychological Society.
Much more recently, I briefly consulted Google to explore if anything has changed significantly in terms of knowledge and understanding of the topic within the scientific community. It seems not.
Firstly, I would like to share with you, as many members of SUE probably know, that there exist several, relatively uncommon conditions of genetic abnormality which may contribute to the development of ambiguity regarding the physical characteristics of biological sex, ambiguity or complexity regarding gender identification and the condition known as "gender dysphoria". These include Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Exposure in the womb to gonadal hormones, especially testosterone, and/or certain psychosocial (environmental) experiences may be considered to be additional influences on the development and persistence of gender dysphoria in some cases, even when no chromosomal abnormalities are found.
Research with human populations is ongoing and in need of further refinement (as with all all research endeavours) due to various methodological issues.
Is it possible for a person to have long believed that they were born into the wrong body? Are there more than 2 biological sexes?
When one or more of the above-mentioned broad factors is taken carefully into account, thinking also of historic and cross-cultural perspectives, discussion papers and studies, it certainly seems plausible that both statements are valid. I believe that we should have open minds, accordingly, and adopt tolerant attitudes. This is NOT to say that I support the role of schools in indoctrinating pupils and promoting a political agenda, however.
Where the dominating cultural emphasis on excessive individualism is concerned, with somewhat solipsistic or even narcissistic implications, I suppose that there are multiple contributing influences on the development and maintenance of this social phenomenon. Commentators often refer, for example, to the possible influence of Maslow's theory of self-actualisation, the impact of the philosophical theories of Existentialism and postmodernism and the widespread polemical assaults on the West which appears to have lost confidence as a result in embodying and promulgating certain concepts and teachings that are deeply grounded in the "Judaeo-Christian Tradition".
Among these teachings, as we know, are the importance of contributing to the acts of helping and supporting one's family, community and broader society where possible and balancing a mindset oriented towards personal rights with conscientiousness about our responsibilities to each other (e.g. opposing oppression, concern for social justice, honouring human equality as we are "all made in God's image", respecting other people's dignity as well as our own and following "The Golden Rule").
Within an inclusive framework, where pupils come from a wide array of religious or spiritual backgrounds or no such distinctive background, including one of atheism, can schools not continue to discuss and promote these ideas a little as a desirable blueprint for the sake of pupils' own personal growth and welfare as well as for the sake of others? Why not convey both at the same time? The psychological literature (theories, discussion papers and growing, if flawed, evidence base from research studies) on the subject of resilience and associated with various subjects examined under the conceptual umbrella of "Positive Psychology" seems to lend support not only to the idea that we should continue to value both but that they are highly likely to be dynamically interconnected.
Lastly, discipline. Parenting videos glimpsed on Facebook often suggest to me that there may be a swing of the pendulum away from giving children too much free rein. It is uplifting to watch individuals of varying approximate ages advocating discipline in the form of firm and consistent boundary-setting along with warm and kind expressions of empathy for and validation of children's feelings. This skillfully blended approach within the home environment seems wise and likely to aid child psychological development. As at home, so at school!