Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No158
Themes: the age-inappropriate education in Scottish schools that undermines civilisation and childhood
The Holyrood elections are a week today, so next week will be our election special. Our Manifesto is available to read here or via the ‘manifesto’ tab at the top of the Substack menu bar, and we would love to get your thoughts about it: info@sue.scot
In the Manifesto, SUE’s Dr Penny Lewis has produced something that I think is both substantial but also practical, and we hope that it will generate a genuine discussion about what education in Scotland should be.
One of the central themes of the Manifesto is the need to focus on knowledge. However, especially now that the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) is taking a bit of a kicking (not least of all because of declining standards in schools), almost everyone appears to be giving a nod to this idea that education needs to be about knowledge. But we have to ask – especially when those who have been peddling the knowledge-light CfE for so long have suddenly become converts to knowledge education – what does a knowledge-based curriculum actually mean?
We will be exploring this idea over the coming months. Here, I thought I would say something about this with reference to the idea of childhood and civilisation, largely because both are being undermined today.
We have noticed before that the notion of ‘children’s rights’ is one that confuses the idea of adulthood and childhood. This confusion of what distinguishes a child from an adult is one of the reasons that schools have found themselves facing opposition from parents, and even street protests, about their age-inappropriate sexuality education. Indeed, this was an issue we raised in our very first Substack newsletter.
This confusion is also one of the reasons that transgender ideology is promoted to even primary-aged children, often assisted by false claims made about those who question this ideology.
Transgenderism is not all about sexuality, but it is tightly bound up with it, as it is with the idea of sex, your body and even your genitals. Is this something that should be on the RSHP curriculum for young children?
What is understood to be age-appropriate (something that the vast majority of parents still get) and age-inappropriate (something that far too many educators get wrong) is a cultural accomplishment. The separation of children from adults and the ‘invention of childhood’ came about with the development of society, a shift from the pre-modern to the modern world, and the ideas of the Enlightenment and civilisation.
In medieval times, children from the age of seven were largely treated as mini adults. Over time, however, their overexposure to the adult world was seen, by more enlightened thinkers, as uncivilised and immoral.
This great accomplishment of treating children and adults differently meant that children were not expected to be civilised, educated and mature. Increasingly, children were understood to be innocent. As a result, it was recognised that they should be protected from certain aspects of the adult world.
From Locke to Rousseau, there were many differences in how Enlightenment thinkers addressed the question of raising children. The common strand, however, was that they all understood that there was this thing called childhood, and that it was separate and distinct from adulthood.
In discussions today about what education should be, it feels like we have moved backwards, despite talk of being ‘progressive’. There is, for example, far too much talk about children being ‘creative’, or the need for children to ‘express themselves’, and far too much criticism of knowledge or specifically facts-based learning. The idea that children should receive ‘rote learning’ at school – even for things like their times tables – has come to be seen as unenlightened, backward and almost a form of abuse.
But before we ask children to ‘think critically’, they need something to think with. This is where knowledge (and facts) come in.
School education was, and in the very best schools still is, a civilising process that gives our children the historical legacy of our understanding and achievements: Knowledge education is civilisation transferred from one generation to the next.
Robert Tressell, the working activist, writing in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, put it like this:
The accumulation of knowledge which has come down to us from our forefathers – is the fruit of thousands of years of human thought and toil. It is not the result of the labour of the ancestors of any separate class of people who exist today, and therefore it is by right the common heritage of all. Every little child that is born into the world, no matter whether he is clever or dull, whether he is physically perfect or lame, or blind; no matter how much he may excel or fall short of his fellows in other respects, in one thing at least he is their equal – he is one of the heirs of all the ages that have gone before.
Historically, it was not considered ‘right wing’ to think that children needed to be given this knowledge from their adult educators. Nor was this transfer of knowledge and facts seen as limiting or restricting a child’s imagination or their ingenuity. Rather, it was seen as a vital part of being a child that you needed this knowledge before you could become a mature, educated and thinking adult. To be an ‘heir of all the ages’ you need the inheritance of knowledge.
For the political philosopher Hannah Arendt, this separation of childhood and adulthood was liberating for children because it freed them from the responsibility of the world and from the world of politics. It was a time and space for growth, shielded from the ‘merciless glare of the public realm’. A time when the ‘old world’ of human historical knowledge, was passed on to the next generation: the greatest possible building blocks of the best that had been thought and said that allowed emerging adults to stand on the shoulders of giants and to then, as adults, make the world afresh.
If I were to give an age differentiation to childhood and adulthood, I would put it like this: Children up to the age of 16 need to be given the knowledge of the world. Young people, by which I mean between the age of 16 and 18, begin to explore this world for themselves and in higher education (and indeed in the adult world) we develop to become the critical thinkers of tomorrow.
Far too many educators appear to have lost the distinction between childhood and adulthood. We see this in the various age-inappropriate forms of sexualised education in schools, but we also see it in the ‘progressive’ talk about children as ‘active learners’ who are ‘critical and creative’. We also see it in the age-inappropriate politicisation of education by third-party ‘educators’, and the social justice education promoted through our headteachers’ organisation. As we see below, in Diane’s excellent discussion about ‘captured’ librarians, we even see this confusion in the books that our children are being encouraged to read.
The more I look at the ‘progressive’ educators who are degrading Scottish education, the more I am convinced that when they say ‘critical’, what they are really expressing is cynicism. With this as their emotional starting point, they become not the facilitators but the most serious barrier to knowledge, to civilisation, and to childhood.
Stuart Waiton, Chair of SUE
Are librarians a safeguarding threat to children?
Professor Diane Rasmussen is a qualified librarian, a former Professor of Social Informatics, and UK Column’s Commissioning Editor for Written Content. She is a member of the Scottish Union for Education’s Editorial Team, an Advisory Board member of Academics for Academic Freedom, and an Executive Committee member of Common Knowledge Edinburgh.
The Herald recently published an opinion piece by James McEnaney, its education reporter, claiming that ‘Cutting school librarians is a clear threat to pupils’ support systems’ in Scottish schools. At first glance, it would seem to the casual reader that doing so would indeed be detrimental to our children. But is this unquestionably true?
If you believe that librarians should be in the business of providing books with content about rape, suicide, murder, illegal drug use, and coerced underage sex with teachers, then perhaps you agree.
In March, the Daily Mail reported that a Manchester-area secondary school librarian had removed 193 ‘inappropriate’ books based on instructions from the school’s administration. The article gave seemingly innocuous examples of the offending titles, such as Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight and Michelle Obama’s Becoming. The school placed the librarian under investigation for safeguarding concerns because she had provided these books in the first instance, and she eventually resigned before the disciplinary procedure was completed.
The report stated that the school used AI to complete the list of inappropriate titles, which made the story even more interesting; could AI determine what secondary school pupils should not read? The Mail article linked to a more detailed article on the case by Index on Censorship. According to this article, Emily, the librarian involved, said, ‘We have the exact same group of children who come in every single day, and a lot of them are LGBTQ+, a lot of them are neurodivergent, and they come into the library because it’s their safe place.’ The LGBTQ+ inclusion argument is used extensively by librarians and their professional bodies, including the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) in the UK and the American Library Association. This, in my view, is a distraction from the dangerously explicit nature of the content within these books. Much of it has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ material.
Index on Censorship’s report makes it clear what was actually happening behind the story, which is increasingly happening in American libraries and is now coming to the UK, via Emily’s case: librarians are disingenuously using the guise of ‘censorship’ and the manufactured threat of ‘book burning’ to make the public think there is sinister action behind those who seek to limit access to age-inappropriate content. This is an inversion: it is the opposite. Let’s explore this further.
Across America, a new documentary called The Librarians is now being screened in libraries across the country. It is available for free streaming on the PBS through 9 May 2026, although a VPN set to the United States is needed to watch it from within the UK. The film’s website reveals that it has received high praise as an ‘official selection’ at Sundance Film Festival, SXSW, and others. Sarah Jessica Parker is one of its executive producers; it would seem that the funders behind the project need further investigation. The film is filled with emotive content, all of which sides with the supposedly brave librarians who have sacrificed their jobs, their mental health, and indeed their personal safety to fight for the right of children to read without the threat of censorship. The librarians interviewed in the film claim the parents of the children they serve in their libraries seek to vilify the librarians. After all, all the librarians ever wanted was to educate children and support their intellectual and library development, correct? What could possibly be wrong with their intentions?
As a former librarian who also educated future librarians for two decades, a basic tenet of librarianship is to ensure that your library’s services and collections meet the needs of your readers. In a school library, this naturally should involve input from the children’s parents, and public librarians should incorporate the desires of those who pay council tax within their local authority. If parents or other authority figures are asking to have input into children’s collections, librarians should engage in dialogue with those concerned, rather than play the victim and frame themselves as individuals targeted by those who only seek to destroy them. What about the concerns of parents, such as Christians and Muslims, who hold religious views that counter exposure to explicit content? Their views, in the librarians’ claims, are seen as hateful and not inclusive. We again can see the inversion occurring here.
I recently interviewed Bonnie Wallace for UK Column. She is a concerned mum in Texas who has been tirelessly fighting the inclusion of age-inappropriate books in children’s library collections. In the interview, she mentioned books available in children’s collections, such as Pulitzer Prize–winning The Sympathizer, in which a 12-year-old boy ejaculates into a squid, which his mother then cooks. Bonnie also talked about Boy Toy, featuring a 12-year-old boy entering into a sexual relationship with his teacher. The examples became even more graphic as our discussion proceeded, as she read excerpts from other books describing graphic scenes of not only sex involving underage children but also other types of criminal activity.
These books are available in school libraries and children’s sections of public libraries in the US, and also here in the UK. On UK Column, I also have interviewed the brave women of Devon-based Protect & Teach, which leads a growing group of concerned parents who are questioning and fighting the inclusion of explicit materials in schools and libraries. Earlier this year, I interviewed Protect & Teach leaders Cathy Mudge, Jenny Dingsdale, and Gilli Blick about Exeter Library’s 2025 purportedly child-centred event called Queer Fest. From the interview write-up:
Cathy has written an accompanying article for UK Column, ‘Queer Fest at Exeter Library: Devon County Council’s Child Safety Test‘, which outlined the event and clear child safeguarding problems involved. The article includes graphic photographs taken at Queer Fest that provide irrefutable evidence of inappropriate sexual objects and materials being displayed to people of all ages who entered the library on the day.
In this interview, Protect and Teach members detailed the contents of Queer Fest, the concerns they raised with the library manager prior to the event taking place, and how those concerns were dismissed. These included how to measure for the correct condom size, the display of dildos, and explanations of illegal sexual practices such as chemsex. Children who attended Queer Fest were encouraged to provide their contact details via a QR code in exchange for sweets.
The discussion then broadened to the deeper issues underpinning Queer Fest, including the sexualisation of children, the attack on children’s developing minds, how it paves the way for paedophiles, the role of academic queer theory in breaking down boundaries, this misuse of the Equality Act 2010, and the globalist agenda behind it all.
They made a lucid point in the interview: in the past, authorities could determine whether a child had been groomed or otherwise exposed to inappropriate behaviour if they knew about sex. Now, because sexual content is mandated in the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence as well as Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) in England and Wales, social workers can no longer use sexual knowledge for determination for safeguarding because all children who are growing up in the UK are required to learn about it now. The only devolved nation in which parents can remove their children from this content is Northern Ireland, as Hugh McCarthy has reported.
Librarians are trained to protect intellectual freedom and fight censorship, which is certainly a worthy, if difficult, position to take in 2026. With UK government actions such as the dubiously named Online Safety Act 2023 claiming to protect children from harmful content online, which truly impacts Internet users of all ages, freedom of access to information is at risk for everyone in the UK. Scotland led Westminster in these censorious efforts through its Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Humza Yousaf, the then First Minister, wanted people to be arrested for what some, including UK Column’s Brian Gerrish, have called ‘hurty words’, while placing sexual and criminal content in front of children as a national requirement is labelled ‘inclusive’ by the Scottish government. Here, we see the paradox in which ‘misgendering’ via social media a man dressed in make-up and a dress is worse than exposing children as young as eight years old to graphic novels such as Gender Queer, which depicts a young person performing oral sex at the request of an older person.
Just a bit of surface-level research can uncover what the librarians are under the guise of censorship. In all fairness, it is not only the librarians but also the authors who are behind the agenda. On 10 April, EveryLibrary, an activist group affiliated with the American Library Association and that claims it ‘builds support for libraries and helps Americans fight book banning in their communities’, posted a YouTube video of young adult author Katherine Applegate saying that ‘they’ have ‘banned’ her book ‘about trees’ called Wishtree, when there are simply some parents who don’t want their children exposed to gender ideology instantiated by an anthropomorphised plant. Here is a direct quote from the book:
Some trees are male. Some trees are female. And some, like me, are both.
It’s confusing, as is so often the case with nature.
Call me she. Call me he. Anything will work.
Yes, it is confusing, especially to children and their developing minds. Parents, grandparents, and all taxpayers in the country should have a look in their local library to see what books are present in the children’s collections. It is guaranteed that it will not take long to find content containing violence, graphic sex, drug use, and more. Then it is up to us to decide, individually and collectively, whether this is what you believe children should be exposed to – and act accordingly if not.
In my professional opinion, the safety of our children is at stake. Do not let librarians tell you that they are simply protecting children. Based on the definition of safeguarding, they are doing the opposite. If you don’t believe me, watch the official trailer for The Librarians, read the new young adult novel Sibylline by Melissa de la Cruz – in which teenagers have a threesome with a dead body – and then decide for yourself.
News round-up
A selection of the main stories with relevance to Scottish education in the press in recent weeks, by Simon Knight.
https://archive.ph/eOeU3 Louise Eccles, Are you a weak-willed parent? The behaviour tsar wants a word. More children are acting, getting suspended and even biting teachers Tom Bennett says parents should look at themselves before blaming schools. 18/04/26
https://archive.ph/ph9hT Julie Henry, Revealed: How ‘inclusive’ policies risk keeping violent pupils in mainstream education. In an exclusive report, The Telegraph lays bare the fatal consequences of a Left-wing policy that seeks to cut the rate of expulsions. 13/04/26
https://archive.ph/eUm1r Octavia Evans, My daft university issued a trigger warning for chocolate addiction. I hoped to be challenged intellectually at Roehampton but instead its students have been infantilised to the point of farce. 11/04/26
https://www.scotsman.com/education/new-school-for-youngsters-with-trauma-finishes-construction-6790902 Ryan McDougall, New school for youngsters with trauma finishes construction. 20/04/26
https://archive.ph/h098A Rachel Amery, Kezia Dugdale appointed new chair of LGBT+ charity Stonewall. 19/04/26
Jenna A. Robinson, If You Want Readers, Start with Better Books. Before Austen Comes Aesop tackles an essential topic: what should children read to prepare them for the Great Books of Western civilization? 21/04/26
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/6cc0aad5dbe40952 Joanna Williams, The young have been taught that hard work is optional. Robbed of pride and purpose, the economically inactive react not with anger but with passivity. 22/04/26
https://archive.ph/npDQV Peter James, Why is a chatbot deciding what books our children read? 25/04/26
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@sue.scot
Contact SUEs Parents and Supporters Group at psg@sue.scot
Follow SUE on X (FKA Twitter)
Please pass this newsletter on to your friends, family and workmates.