Ship of Fools: Registration of Sunday Schools to Ofsted

Thread: Registration of Sunday Schools to Ofsted Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029627

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Ofsted are considering compulsory registration of all religious groups which involve children and young people, to try to crack down on radicalisation. They say that they will only be inspected if there are complaints.

I have not provided a link as those making the most fuss are sites I wouldn't want to direct anyone to, but what are your thoughts? How real are the dangers of future interference so that 'the state' ultimately decides what can and cannot be told to children? How broad is the extent of the word 'radicalisation'?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I would be happier about the state screening for radicalisaiton if they actually defined it.

I suspect they mean, advocating the armed overthrow of the state - or what used to be called treason. It would be helpful if it were defined like that, rather than in reference to religion.

At some level, it does not make a difference *why* armed overthow is advocated, only that it is.

Whereas, the government mithering about so-called "british values" is a concern, as they are so nebulously defined that it could start to be a route to shut down anything they find inconvience and undermine what remains of the right to peaceful protest.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I am a little surprised and quite glad that this applies to all religions and not just Islam in light of the Prevent programme. However I'm somewhat puzzled as to why it's all religions at a Sunday school (or the equivalent) level but only Islam at university level.

I mean I don't think it's necessary but I am intrigued that the government thinks church Sunday schools potentially breed radicalisation. Does the government see more radicalisation in the church than the church itself does??

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The state can obviously avoid being accused of religious discrimination if the registration process involves more religions than just Islam.

As for higher education, perhaps the Christian chaplains can be relied upon to discourage extremism, or to act as 'secret agents' among Christian groups who are that way inclined?? Even sectarian groups and intransigent CUs usually have some kind of denominational connections that the authorities can work with, AFAIUI.

Muslim groups seem to be less controlled in that sense. Who knows where their visiting imams come from, or which institutions have authorised them? Some groups may have no known connections with any outside mosques or imams at all, in which case what are they teaching each other? Are they getting ideas from websites?

Regarding Sunday Schools, though, this is just one more discouragement for churches that already find it hard to staff and run them. Some struggling churches might find it simpler to disband their small SSs than to go through a registration process.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I read, though I cannot remember where, that it would only apply to religious groups which met for a certain number of hours per week. Our Sunday school classes last for just under an hour per week, below the point at which registration would be required.

My impression was that very few Christian groups would be affected. The Muslim children I know of spend longer at the mosque because they learn Arabic there.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I have Googled. It applies to groups which "provide six or more hours of tuition per week." How many churches have a six hour Sunday school?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...
Muslim groups seem to be less controlled in that sense. Who knows where their visiting imams come from, or which institutions have authorised them? Some groups may have no known connections with any outside mosques or imams at all, in which case what are they teaching each other? Are they getting ideas from websites? ...

Well, "they" do. I think this looks more like the view from outside than the reality in the community. I mean, I've seen the priests at the Catholic church down the hill, but I don't know their names or where they get their ideas from or who hired them or who's invited to preach next Sunday. However, I'm pretty sure my friend Basha would know, since she goes twice a week.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The state can obviously avoid being accused of religious discrimination if the registration process involves more religions than just Islam.

As for higher education, perhaps the Christian chaplains can be relied upon to discourage extremism, or to act as 'secret agents' among Christian groups who are that way inclined?? Even sectarian groups and intransigent CUs usually have some kind of denominational connections that the authorities can work with, AFAIUI.

Muslim groups seem to be less controlled in that sense. Who knows where their visiting imams come from, or which institutions have authorised them? Some groups may have no known connections with any outside mosques or imams at all, in which case what are they teaching each other? Are they getting ideas from websites?

Regarding Sunday Schools, though, this is just one more discouragement for churches that already find it hard to staff and run them. Some struggling churches might find it simpler to disband their small SSs than to go through a registration process.

Uni chaplains usually have little to do with the CU (whether by mutual disinterest or hostility towards a 'liberal' chaplain - obviously there are exceptions). There's UCCF as a sort of governing body, but generally in my experience the more extreme CUs have more contact with local UCCF workers than the more relaxed CUs. In any case at university level, only Muslim student groups are targeted by the government - that was my point.

ISocs are I think a loose association of Islamic Societies rather than totally independent. There's almost always a local imam who acts as a chaplain type figure. And in fairness, visiting speakers at CUs don't have to be authorised by UCCF or vetted by the SU, even less so if it's something like a weekend away held off-campus.

As it happens, it turns out that most UK churches would be unaffected and I would be concerned about 6 hours or more of Sunday school per week anyway.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm more concerned about public schools. They seem to be turning out Radicalised Tories intent on destroying institutions such as the NHS, the Welfare system and other aspects that are expressions of British values.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

[Overused]

(And I went to one ... but under the old Direct Grant system, to one with a rather more egalitarian approach).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Alan Cresswell

quote:
I'm more concerned about public schools. They seem to be turning out Radicalised Tories intent on destroying institutions such as the NHS, the Welfare system and other aspects that are expressions of British values.

Utter tripe.

1. How many "radicalised tories" do you know: which schools did they attend, and what proof do you have that the curriculum included 'radicalisation' along the lines you imply?

2. Traditionally "British Values" have not been taken to mean the NHS and Welfare State, but rather to be about free speech, fair play, the rule of law, trial by jury, innocence until guilt is proven, etc, etc, etc.

3. Just in case you need reminding, the ideas and first schemes for both NHS and Welfare State came from Lord Dawson (St Paul's School), Lord Addison (Trinity Harrogate) and Henry Willink (Eton), plus Lord Beveridge (Charterhouse).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

L'organist

I think you missed the point.

Seriously, what sort of independent checks would the inspectors apply to determine radicalisation? And is it possible to define radicalisation in an even-handed way?

Speaking as someone who help the design and implementation of a CPS for use in assessement of Sunday School teachers and youthworkers, I can't see anything wrong in principle with checks and inspections in accordance with the law. But the devil is always in the detail of these proposals.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I suspect one's reaction to this depends on whether one instinctively trusts government or doesn't.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I trust religious organisations even less than I trust governments.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I trust religious organisations even less than I trust governments.

Although it's rather easier to leave the jurisdiction of a religious organization than it is to leave the jurisdiction of a government. Particularly if you mean all religious organizations and all governments.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

As it happens, it turns out that most UK churches would be unaffected and I would be concerned about 6 hours or more of Sunday school per week anyway.

The concern is that, according to the proposal, the hours are cumulative. So, say a child goes to a church run uniformed organisation, a Friday night youth club and Sunday school (which isn't unusual) the requirement to register could be triggered. It would also be triggered by a youth weekend away, for example.

(I read this in the literature from a usually somewhat hysterical Christian organisation, but my MP who is against the proposal confirmed that was her understanding)

I find the creeping state quite chilling actually. Registration of religious activities is something that my friend's house church has to deal with in China! Plus, Ofsted seem to be so universally incompetent, I'm really not sure we want to expand their remit.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Sounds like one of those announcements made to make "positive noises" in the ear of a particular constituency (who obviously read this as being a crack-down on Islamic religious schools rather than Boys Brigades and Sunday Schools) but which everyone knows there are no funds to pay for inspectors and no political to ensure it actually happens. These days it seems that sometimes the announcement of some reform is more important than actually ever delivering it.

In other UK political news today, the PM announced the provision of English lessons, particularly aimed at Muslim women - who, we're told, don't speak English and thus might be a risk of having their children go to fight for IS in Syria.

There are several problems with this idea. First, of course, many Muslim-women-without-English have a family background in the Sub-continent, not the Middle-East. As I understand it, therefore, their first language may well not be understood by those trying to recruit from IS (who, I've always thought, have pretty good English and clearly seem to be intent on attracting English-speakers with publications... in English).

Second, I don't think anyone has ever been able to show that there is a link between a parent's poor English and a risk of radicalisation. It seems a bit unlikely to me.

Third, though, is the language that the PM uses. He says we are "One Nation" and that we can only ever have proper cohesion if we all speak good English. Problem is.. there are at least two other major areas of the country where a significant proportion of people speak a British first language which is not English. Are we seriously saying that Welsh people who speak Welsh are somehow a cause of a lack of societal cohesion?

That's the kind of fighting talk that English arseholes used more than 100 years ago when they tried to stamp out Welsh.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Ro'n i'n meddwl hynny y bore 'ma pan clywais i o ar y Radio /I thought that this morning when I heard him on the radio.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Are there actually any Welsh people who can't speak English or who are marginalised in society because of their lack of language skills? I strongly suspect the answer to both questions is 'no'.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Are there actually any Welsh people who can't speak English or who are marginalised in society because of their lack of language skills? I strongly suspect the answer to both questions is 'no'.

Yes! I've taught some of them! And my grand-daughter's English is poor enough that she's worried sick about her University work.

So why the lazy assumption that Welsh is a sort of optional extra for people who can function perfectly well in English? It just ain't so!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Are there actually any Welsh people who can't speak English or who are marginalised in society because of their lack of language skills? I strongly suspect the answer to both questions is 'no'.

I'm not sure that this is anything more than a tangent of what I was talking about - namely that Cameron thinks the main important characteristic of being British is speaking English, ignoring that there are other British languages.

However -

There are certainly some people who speak Welsh more often than they speak English, whose English is not as strong as their Welsh and who have never been taught in English.

I'm not sure if that is the same with Gaelic, but I'm guessing it might well be in some parts of Scotland.

Are they marginalised? Well, certainly since the movement to make Wales and Welsh official documents bilingual, I'm guessing that they're less marginalised than they might have been 50 or 100 years ago.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure if that is the same with Gaelic, but I'm guessing it might well be in some parts of Scotland.

Not to the same extent, because the Gaelic speaking areas of Scotland cannot generally support 3-18 Gaelic medium education, either because the schools are too small for separate streams or there are no Gaelic speaking secondary teachers available. Plus not all exam subjects are available in Gaelic. You can't take a science exam in Gaelic, for example. Gaelic is also not spoken fluently by enough of the population in many areas to keep it in constant use.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It does depend on where you are in Scotland. People I know from Barra (who were teachers in the Gaelic medium school my children used to be in before they moved) certainly spoke Gaelic as their first language. Although their English was more than adequate so they were functionally bilingual - whether that would also be the case for their peers and elders who didn't get a university education is another matter.

But, it's not just a matter of functionality. Yes, life would be much easier if we had the same first language. But, it would mean ripping the heart out of other cultures. A lot of culture is heavily dependent upon language - literature, poetry and music being the obvious examples. Suppressing languages is the same as suppressing culture. And, we'd all be a lot poorer without the cultural diversity that is part and parcel of being British.

Multi-culturalism is one of those important British values we're all supposed to be trying to help immigrants to sign up to. Whether that's old cultures (regional foods, beers, dialects - even the cultural diversity of different classes is part of who we are as a nation), or newer cultures - where would Britain be without curry and chips or a doner kebab after the pubs close?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

As it happens, it turns out that most UK churches would be unaffected and I would be concerned about 6 hours or more of Sunday school per week anyway.
The concern is that, according to the proposal, the hours are cumulative. So, say a child goes to a church run uniformed organisation, a Friday night youth club and Sunday school (which isn't unusual) the requirement to register could be triggered. It would also be triggered by a youth weekend away, for example.

(I read this in the literature from a usually somewhat hysterical Christian organisation, but my MP who is against the proposal confirmed that was her understanding)

I find the creeping state quite chilling actually. Registration of religious activities is something that my friend's house church has to deal with in China! Plus, Ofsted seem to be so universally incompetent, I'm really not sure we want to expand their remit.

Ah thanks for that information. I mean I strongly suspect that this is aimed at Those Nasty Muslims but I agree that it is bad news either way.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

As it happens, it turns out that most UK churches would be unaffected and I would be concerned about 6 hours or more of Sunday school per week anyway.
The concern is that, according to the proposal, the hours are cumulative. So, say a child goes to a church run uniformed organisation, a Friday night youth club and Sunday school (which isn't unusual) the requirement to register could be triggered. It would also be triggered by a youth weekend away, for example.

(I read this in the literature from a usually somewhat hysterical Christian organisation, but my MP who is against the proposal confirmed that was her understanding)

I find the creeping state quite chilling actually. Registration of religious activities is something that my friend's house church has to deal with in China! Plus, Ofsted seem to be so universally incompetent, I'm really not sure we want to expand their remit.
Ah thanks for that information. I mean I strongly suspect that this is aimed at Those Nasty Muslims but I agree that it is bad news either way.

Yes quite. I'm pretty sure all the hysteria about Sunday Schools not teaching Christian values is hyped up by campaigning organisations. The really worrying thing is the "chilling effect." In the area I used to live in, every council youth club had been closed and the one run by the evangelical church was the only one round. It was hard enough for them to resource it - I can't imagine anyone volunteering to lead a youth club if they think they'll have an Ofsted inspection!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
I'm more concerned about public schools. They seem to be turning out Radicalised Tories intent on destroying institutions such as the NHS, the Welfare system and other aspects that are expressions of British values.
Utter tripe.

1. How many "radicalised tories" do you know: which schools did they attend, and what proof do you have that the curriculum included 'radicalisation' along the lines you imply?

Personally, none. Thank God. But, "radicalised" is something to be defined, and without that it's difficult to say much at all. But, I would say that people making, or seeking to make, radical changes to society could reasonably be called "radicals" and therefore "radicalised". The problem is that some radicals we approve of, and others we disapprove of, and often that position of approval changes from the perspective of history. The Suffragettes were radicals, and widely disapproved of by the establishment of the time. Likewise Abolitionists. The founders of the Welfare State and the NHS were radicals as well, though building on decades of slow changes in the years before the war.

And, yes, I would say that the demolision of unions, the systematic destruction of the Welfare State and the NHS, and the increasing tendancy of foreign policy to be "shoot first, think later" are all radical changes to British society. So, radical Tories would include Thatcher and Cameron.

quote:

2. Traditionally "British Values" have not been taken to mean the NHS and Welfare State, but rather to be about free speech, fair play, the rule of law, trial by jury, innocence until guilt is proven, etc, etc, etc.

I agree with your list of British values. Fair play - everyone having a fair chance to better themselves, access to quality education for all, access to health care for all, and a safety net for all should it be needed. These values resulted in the Welfare State, state education, the NHS. As the Tories take us back to quality education for those who can afford it, health care for those who can take out insurance, a safety net that catches bankers but not the poor ... well, that's the exact opposite of fair play, that's favouring the few over the many.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

[...]
As it happens, it turns out that most UK churches would be unaffected and I would be concerned about 6 hours or more of Sunday school per week anyway.

Thanks for your comments about Muslim societies. As for the CUs, I'm aware that they don't necessarily have much to do with the chaplains, but had imagined that they'd at least have connections with clergy from the churches they approved of.

I'm not sure why long hours of Sunday School should be a concern, except that keeping children away from the adults for so long is probably not a good way to integrate them into the common life of the church. (This doesn't seem to be a problem in Islam, though.)

Some of the black-led Pentecostal churches are known for their long Sunday services, but the children aren't expected to remain separated from the adults for the whole period.

Talking of the black-led churches, I'm wondering if the government's idea is to regulate the work of Saturday schools. I don't know how many churches run them now, but some of them still exist. The aim is usually to raise the academic achievement of black children.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

[...]
As it happens, it turns out that most UK churches would be unaffected and I would be concerned about 6 hours or more of Sunday school per week anyway.
Thanks for your comments about Muslim societies. As for the CUs, I'm aware that they don't necessarily have much to do with the chaplains, but had imagined that they'd at least have connections with clergy from the churches they approved of.

I'm not sure why long hours of Sunday School should be a concern, except that keeping children away from the adults for so long is probably not a good way to integrate them into the common life of the church. (This doesn't seem to be a problem in Islam, though.)

Some of the black-led Pentecostal churches are known for their long Sunday services, but the children aren't expected to remain separated from the adults for the whole period.

Talking of the black-led churches, I'm wondering if the government's idea is to regulate the work of Saturday schools. I don't know how many churches run them now, but some of them still exist. The aim is usually to raise the academic achievement of black children.

Leprechaun has clarified the 6 hours or more issue. I think having effectively Sunday school as an entire school day would be concerning, because what are you teaching children that needs that long a session?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think having effectively Sunday school as an entire school day would be concerning, because what are you teaching children that needs that long a session?

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "schooling". Would, for example, children present during a service while there was some all-age teaching taking place be included? Would a standard Sunday School where the children leave during the sermon be counted, even if all they do is colour in some pictures? If it encompasses all activities that either include some teaching or are supervised childrens activities then it's quite easy to reach 6h. It's only because British tradition is for a short service that we don't reach that sort of time in church on a Sunday. If, as is quite common in some cultures, you have a 3h mornign worship, then lunch, 2h in the afternoon of Sunday School (for all, not just children) and then a closing worship service then 6h+ in church on Sunday would be normal.

What would you be teaching? The Christian faith, of course. Is it reasonable to expect anyone to learn much about the faith from a 10-15 minute homily once a week? Does it not demand more of our intellects than that? Why don't we routinely have a Sunday School for adults where we can all learn together?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think having effectively Sunday school as an entire school day would be concerning, because what are you teaching children that needs that long a session?

The same could be said about going to school from Monday to Friday! What are they kids learning there that takes up so much time?? Our expectations of how and what children should learn, and in what sort of context, are all cultural.

This article suggests that Muslims hope that their kids will get a lot of pretty solid input at the madrassas they attend. Many fall short regarding teaching methods and emphasis, but in terms of the amount of content offered it's clear that Sunday Schools as most of us know them hardly compete at all.

A cynic might say there's really no need to 'inspect' a Sunday School, because nothing of any interest is likely to be found there! (With apologies to those of you who are aware of some really high quality Sunday schools!)
[Devil]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

As it happens, it turns out that most UK churches would be unaffected and I would be concerned about 6 hours or more of Sunday school per week anyway.
The concern is that, according to the proposal, the hours are cumulative. So, say a child goes to a church run uniformed organisation, a Friday night youth club and Sunday school (which isn't unusual) the requirement to register could be triggered. It would also be triggered by a youth weekend away, for example.

and one wonders if this isn't an unintended consequence of trying to target muslims without saying so - it's not unusual for some muslim children to go to the mosque for several hours every week in order to be taught arabic and koranic recitation.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think having effectively Sunday school as an entire school day would be concerning, because what are you teaching children that needs that long a session?
I suppose it depends on what is meant by "schooling". Would, for example, children present during a service while there was some all-age teaching taking place be included? Would a standard Sunday School where the children leave during the sermon be counted, even if all they do is colour in some pictures? If it encompasses all activities that either include some teaching or are supervised childrens activities then it's quite easy to reach 6h. It's only because British tradition is for a short service that we don't reach that sort of time in church on a Sunday. If, as is quite common in some cultures, you have a 3h mornign worship, then lunch, 2h in the afternoon of Sunday School (for all, not just children) and then a closing worship service then 6h+ in church on Sunday would be normal.

What would you be teaching? The Christian faith, of course. Is it reasonable to expect anyone to learn much about the faith from a 10-15 minute homily once a week? Does it not demand more of our intellects than that? Why don't we routinely have a Sunday School for adults where we can all learn together?

I believe that is actually quite common in the US, to the extent that I have found some pond difference communication issues when talking about Sunday school with Americans - but I don't know how much it is a denominational thing.

I suppose any unease with a whole-day (or several hours long) Sunday school is that it's quite distinctly outside of mainstream UK church culture.....not that it's a bad thing in itself in the right context, but it feels quite extreme and so I feel like it would be part of more extreme denominations/churches.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

It seems to me that the UK government is doing what has been brought up on the Donald Trump thread: frighten people by identifying a threat and propose strong measures to eliminate the threat.

Presumably the perceived threat is that some young British Muslims become inspired to go and join ISIS, and that may be a result of their becoming radicalised at a local mosque or madrassa.
So in order to have an excuse to keep an eye on what’s happening in Muslim religious schools without appearing to focus on one faith (which would be contrary to British standards of justice and fair play etc) you announce that *all* teaching of young people in religious contexts will be monitored.
Given that it has been acknowledged that some young English people have been infected with radical ideas in some Islamic environments, and have subsequently reported pride in taking part in appalling violence and cruelty, or have been identified on TV doing so, what alternative action might be suggested?

GG

[ 18. January 2016, 21:38: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Plenty of questions arose in my mind as to how the hours are calculated, especially at a large church such as ours with plenty of meetings for different age groups, either simultaneously or on different evenings. Then there’s also the Baden-Powell pseudo paramilitary groups.

My expectation is that if it becomes law, the ‘above board’ organisations will comply – creating a mountain of bureaucracy and demand on stretched public funds, but the trouble-makers will find loopholes or not bother. After all, how many new churches bother to declare themselves to Christian Copyright Licensing? Imagine trying to find the Police or OFSTED resources needed to stalk and investigate them all. And how much radicalisation can be expressed in 5.99 hours.

I’m intrigued to learn how the Government thinks these controls could be enforced in universities. As another poster has alluded, campus religious groups are not part of the university either legally, constitutionally or managerially. Nor for that matter are student unions, in many cases. The Charities Commission required many of them to become autonomous due to their commercial activities conflicting with charitable objectives and giving unfair business advantage.

The radical campus groups are merely a meeting of friends, sometimes on University premises. A university can control how its premises are used – and who books them – but it can’t prevent a campus rabble-rouser group booking a function room upstairs at the Red Lion down the road.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

On second thoughts, if we had Ofsted up here, we could have a problem with this.

In-service days (Inset days) can be a problem for parents, and our church sometimes runs a fun day to provide childcare. We have a mixture of games and crafts with a Biblical theme.

If this were made any more time consuming for volunteers than it already is, we wouldn't do it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

But, it's not just a matter of functionality. Yes, life would be much easier if we had the same first language.

But from the point of view of having some kind of national cohesion, the important thing is that we all speak a common language. This doesn't require the Welsh to not speak Welsh, any more than it requires immigrant families to not speak Punjabi, Somali, or whatever other language they speak. But it does require a common language, so we can all join in a common public debate. And for the UK, that language is English.

Being bilingual is a good thing. That's not the problem. It would be a problem if there were entire communities where nobody spoke anything but Welsh. If the national dialogue is in English, a monoglot Welsh speaker can't effectively participate.

Monoglot Welsh communities don't exist, but older immigrants, and particularly women, often have trouble learning the local language. Having children translate for their parents is pretty common.

[ 19. January 2016, 02:25: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, anecdotally, in parts of the western Highlands and Islands it is common for children to act as translators for parents who speak gaelic but very little English. Which is why Government documents and forms are available in gaelic as well as English, why there are gaelic language TV and radio stations, etc. And, that language is essential to the local culture.

Now, don't get me wrong. Of course I think it is good for people to be able to communicate in a common language, which common sense says would be English in the UK. But, to make ability to speak English (or, at least willingness to attempt to learn) an essential requirement to demonstrate an acceptance of "British Values™", whatever they are, is pushing things too far - and a denial of the essentially British value of multiculturalism.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Plenty of questions arose in my mind as to how the hours are calculated, especially at a large church such as ours with plenty of meetings for different age groups, either simultaneously or on different evenings. Then there’s also the Baden-Powell pseudo paramilitary groups. ...

As a matter of curiosity, will this apply to Scouts, Guides etc and their rather odd left wing obverse, the Woodcraft Folk? And would it apply to things run for children by humanists or political parties? If not, why not? It seems a bit discriminatory that religious bodies are being singled out.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Problem is.. there are at least two other major areas of the country where a significant proportion of people speak a British first language which is not English. Are we seriously saying that Welsh people who speak Welsh are somehow a cause of a lack of societal cohesion?

Not if they also speak English, no. Which has been the case for every single Welsh speaker I have met thus far.

While the bit about potential radicalisation is clearly rubbish, I don't see what's so wrong with requiring everybody who lives in this country to learn how to speak English. It's not like they're being prohibited from also speaking any other language(s) they like.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not if they also speak English, no. Which has been the case for every single Welsh speaker I have met thus far.

There are Welsh speakers who don't speak English often, are not confident in English and usually speak Welsh.

Your personal experience of meeting Welsh people is not really particularly helpful in this instance.

quote:
While the bit about potential radicalisation is clearly rubbish, I don't see what's so wrong with requiring everybody who lives in this country to learn how to speak English. It's not like they're being prohibited from also speaking any other language(s) they like.

The problem is with the "requirement" - which makes it sound like other languages, including Welsh and Gaelic, are not "British" and are not promoting the One Nation cohesion that Cameron seems to think is entirely necessary to prevent radicalisation.

It seems to me, as I explained above, that this makes English more of a "British" language than Gaelic and Welsh.

On the point about women who do not speak English, I have a bit of experience of this from previous work with a community of women near Manchester who were isolated due to their cultural/religious group. The long-and-the-short of this was that they were not encouraged to work outside of the home and did not have much opportunity to interact with people who did not speak their language.

Which certainly was a problem. I doubt very much it was a problem leading to radicalisation, and as far as I am aware their children are fluent English speakers.

I think their isolation does indeed need attention and work to help them develop as people - but the solution is surely not to have White Men telling them that they Must Do Something to prevent something else which is nothing to do with them. If nothing else, learning a new language in middle age is hard. Add into the mix the fact that they live in deprived areas, have limited education... etc etc etc.. and this simple solution sounds like another Tory attempt to beat the weakest in society.

Clearly what they really need are advocates, counsellors and workers who will help them. Unfortunately almost all of these kinds of service have been cut due to funding shortages.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But from the point of view of having some kind of national cohesion, the important thing is that we all speak a common language.

I dunno, ISTM that attempts to impose a common language tend to reduce national cohesion in that they cause speakers of minority languages to push back. Most recently in Eastern Ukraine, but historically in places like Catalonia and the Basque Country.

Conversely plenty of large states are multilingual by policy, in that even if they have a common 'federal' official languages, much of the population may not speak it, and other languages have official status at the regional level. Examples being India and Russia, and China to a lesser extent (Switzerland doesn't count as large I guess).

[ 19. January 2016, 12:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I can’t see the problem in trying to make sure that everybody can speak the local language, well enough to function, in the society in which they live. Of course some people will not find this possible for many reasons but we can help them to try.

There is little point in making women in London learn Welsh or Gaelic – to function across the whole of uk they need to speak English.

It empowers them in all their life choices and decision such as their health choices and interacting with their children’s education for starters.

The issue is how well would it be funded and how accessible would it be.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But from the point of view of having some kind of national cohesion, the important thing is that we all speak a common language.
I dunno, ISTM that attempts to impose a common language tend to reduce national cohesion in that they cause speakers of minority languages to push back. Most recently in Eastern Ukraine, but historically in places like Catalonia and the Basque Country.

And indeed, to a smaller extent in Cornwall.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
And indeed, to a smaller extent in Cornwall.

? ! Hardly. The last first language Cornish speaker is reputed to have died as long ago as the 1770s.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

But surely this is not about imposing a common language but rather about making sure that all people who live here, have the opportunity to share one language for their own sake.

Nobody is suggesting, as was tried in the past, that their own languages are eradicated, just that everybody had the opportunity to be able to function in this land, from Lands End to John O’Groats and even further….

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

If this were made any more time consuming for volunteers than it already is, we wouldn't do it.

This is, as I described, the "chilling effect." Along with the cuts to actual funded services it's extremely...depressing.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I knew I could rely on the posters here to bring some sensible perspective to this question, thank you all.

I don't find it to be extremely depressing. I would find it concerning if it were to add onerous additional administration to the work of volunteers, more so if it were to become compulsory to teach against one's own beliefs or face a penalty, as with secular schooling.

I don't know why the government doesn't already know of the existence of every religious schooling group through the current system of vetting everyone who has contact with children.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

I don't know why the government doesn't already know of the existence of every religious schooling group through the current system of vetting everyone who has contact with children.

Good point. Either way it will be a box-ticking exercise. They don't have the wo/man power for it to be any more than that.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The problem is with the "requirement" - which makes it sound like other languages, including Welsh and Gaelic, are not "British" and are not promoting the One Nation cohesion that Cameron seems to think is entirely necessary to prevent radicalisation.

It seems to me, as I explained above, that this makes English more of a "British" language than Gaelic and Welsh.

But in many ways it is, isn't it? I can order a cup of tea in English in Anglesey. I can't order a Big Mac in Welsh in Lowestoft.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
And indeed, to a smaller extent in Cornwall.
? ! Hardly. The last first language Cornish speaker is reputed to have died as long ago as the 1770s.

And? That has nothing to do with minority language speakers pushing back. The Cornish separatist movement is alive and well - there may not be first language Cornish speakers, but there are Cornish speakers.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
And indeed, to a smaller extent in Cornwall.
? ! Hardly. The last first language Cornish speaker is reputed to have died as long ago as the 1770s.
And? That has nothing to do with minority language speakers pushing back. The Cornish separatist movement is alive and well - there may not be first language Cornish speakers, but there are Cornish speakers.

...who can speak fluent English.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

My response to the registration of Sunday Schools etc in order to stop possible radicalisation opportunities in some Islamic schools got kind of swamped with the language thing.

But I am curious – does anyone have any other practical solution to the detection and eradication of the radicalisation threat?

From news snippets, it does seem that undercover operations are actually doing quite a good job, though of course by their nature we don't hear about them.

GG

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

The government has it’s ‘Prevent’ programme – all teachers and school governors have to be trained in recognising radicalisation and have duty to report it

It lead to this situation in December.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-35354061

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I can’t see the problem in trying to make sure that everybody can speak the local language, well enough to function, in the society in which they live. Of course some people will not find this possible for many reasons but we can help them to try.

There is little point in making women in London learn Welsh or Gaelic – to function across the whole of uk they need to speak English.

But Cameron wasn't speaking specifically about women in London. He was talking about women in the UK as a whole.

And in some parts of it, English is not the first language. He missed that point, as English politicians often do.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
And indeed, to a smaller extent in Cornwall.
? ! Hardly. The last first language Cornish speaker is reputed to have died as long ago as the 1770s.
And? That has nothing to do with minority language speakers pushing back. The Cornish separatist movement is alive and well - there may not be first language Cornish speakers, but there are Cornish speakers.
...who can speak fluent English.

Ironically, the phrase with which Dolly Pentreath is most associated with was "Me ne vidn cewsel Sawznek!" - "I don't want to speak English".

Which is rather the point with minority language speakers. It's not that they can't speak the prestige language; it's that they don't consider it their language and prefer to be able to conduct their lives in the language they do consider theirs.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I can’t see the problem in trying to make sure that everybody can speak the local language, well enough to function, in the society in which they live. Of course some people will not find this possible for many reasons but we can help them to try.

There is little point in making women in London learn Welsh or Gaelic – to function across the whole of uk they need to speak English.

But Cameron wasn't speaking specifically about women in London. He was talking about women in the UK as a whole.

And in some parts of it, English is not the first language. He missed that point, as English politicians often do.

I used London as an example, the point is that to be able to function anywhere and everywhere in the uk you need to speak english.

there is no point people learning a language that will only allow them to funtion in a small part of the country, it doesn't even give them the language skills to watch the national news

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on :

The school where I am a governor has around 65% of children who speak a language other than English at home. Quite a large number of them have parents, especially mothers, who speak little or no English. In consequence many of those who arrive in our Reception class can themselves speak little English even if they have been born in the UK, as many have. Not all of them have had important vaccinations, some have undiagnosed health problems, not least because their non-English speaking parents have difficulties dealing with any kind of officialdom, accessing services etc.

The school has been running lunchtime and after school classes where some of these parents have been learning English. I have met a few of them and they have been very pleased with the fact that can now manage some basic English. They report that it increases their confidence in dealing with officials, and helps them to socialise with other mums at the school gate other than those who happen to come from the same country. The school benefits too: these mums can make sense of the letters sent home to parents, call the school office if their child is ill (so staff don't have to go and find out why they aren't in school) etc.

We don't regard this as an important part of our Prevent Strategy, but as a fairly successful part of our social integration strategy. We don't expect or want these parents not to speak Somali, Bengali or whatever, but we do want them to be able to function in English for their own good and that of the children in school.

We're in England so the question doesn't really arise. But I think that even if we were in one of those parts of Wales, Gwynedd say, where a majority speak at least some Welsh, pragmatically it would still be English lessons that we would offer.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Which is rather the point with minority language speakers. It's not that they can't speak the prestige language; it's that they don't consider it their language and prefer to be able to conduct their lives in the language they do consider theirs.

Depending on what you mean by "conduct their lives", this limits them. Sure - if you're a Welsh speaker in a Welsh-speaking part of Wales, you might well speak Welsh at home, speak Welsh to the shopkeeper when you do your shopping, watch S4C in Welsh, and expect to interact with your local poltical representatives in Welsh. But you're limited to the Welsh-speaking part of Wales if you do that, and you're limited to only interacting with other Welsh speakers.

If you want to interact with a community wider than your part of Wales, you won't get far speaking Welsh - you'll need to speak something that other people speak.

And, IMO, the thing that makes "cohesive national communities" is that interaction. If you have a group of X speakers on one corner, and a group of Y speakers in the other corner, and they never speak to each other, then they aren't the same community.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:

We don't regard this as an important part of our Prevent Strategy, but as a fairly successful part of our social integration strategy.

This issue gains salience because of a couple of things that have been in the news recently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35360375
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-35354061

It's basically categorised a form of thought crime, implemented it badly, and aimed it a minority with bad PR to satisfy government supporters that 'something is being done'.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0