It's now very unlikely there will be a new statutory duty imposed on schools this September... but it's coming.

Posted: June 2010

This news should come as some relief to schools who were bracing themselves for yet another layer of procedural obligations extending outward from racist incident reporting and into recording all prejudice-based verbal and physical abuse according to type (i.e. race, religion or culture, disability or special educational needs, sexuality, gender or gender identity).  But if any of us who work in the real world of children behaving childishly were quietly hoping Michael Gove will put a stop to this corrosive policy, we better not hold our breath.

The single line contained in 'The Coalition: our programme for government (p29): "We will help schools tackle bullying in schools, especially homophobic bullying" could be taken to mean less state interference (i.e. allowing schools to operate their own policy as they see fit).  However, despite Lib-Con rhetoric on rolling back state regulation and handing power back to schools, when it comes to being tough on bullying, homophobia, racism – making schools safer places, this is a box they all want to tick.    The new Department of Education is likely to wave this one through.

For now though, it might be a good time to ask the new DfE to remind us what exactly this policy is for?  First, what evidence is there of a problem over and above the inevitable rough and tumble world of children in schools?  And why, if evidence isn’t there, should this policy simply fallback on the precautionary principle which insists the state must continually scan the life of schools lest a problem comes sneaking in?  

                                         Second, have policymakers considered the mismatch between their adult-centred conception of bullying/prejudice-related incidents and the sphere of child development?   (They should at least have some response to the expertise which asserts how vital it is that kids experience conflict and thereby develop resilience).  And is it not the case that these policies generate victimhood?

                                         Last, why is it that schools and, specifically, teachers cannot be trusted to use their ground-level professional skills to deal with rare instances of serious real bullying.  (Again, policymakers should have some response to the many teachers and head-teachers who complain that these policies cramp school life, placing an endless bureaucratic burden on them whilst, paradoxically, fostering division amongst children).