Labour blocks parents from knowing what children are taught in schools
The Government has rejected calls to introduce a right for parents to view what children are being taught in schools.
Ministers were among Labour MPs to vote down an amendment to its Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Tuesday that would have ensured parents could view all materials used in the classroom.
The Conservatives, who tabled the amendment, argued that it would have made the content of lessons more transparent. It followed concerns that some schools have blocked parents from seeing sex education materials being taught to their children, citing commercial confidentiality and copyright laws.
Neil O'Brien, the shadow schools minister, told The Telegraph he was 'appalled' by the 'Kafkaesque' decision to topple the amendment, which was defeated with 10 votes to three at a committee stage.
'In recent years, extreme Left-wing groups have been pumping all kinds of bizarre materials into sex education classes and other lessons. Yet, when parents ask to see the materials, the companies hide behind copyright law to deny access,' he said.
'I was appalled that Labour voted down our amendment to allow parents to see what their children are being taught… Labour backbenchers argued that parents should not be allowed to see the materials because they might be angry.
'This is a Kafkaesque argument and underlines exactly why we must end secret lessons and let parents see what their children are being taught.'
Catherine McKinnell, the schools minister, argued during a Commons debate on the subject that enshrining the parental right in law would be burdensome for schools.
She said: 'The new clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of a widespread problem that would justify the extra burden and bureaucracy it would create for schools.
'It is right that parents and carers should be able to access and understand what their child is taught at school, so that they can continue to support their child's learning at home and answer questions. However, that should be achieved in a way that does not increase school and teacher workload.'
It comes after Gillian Keegan, the former Tory education secretary, wrote to schools in October 2023 urging them to allow parents to view material being taught in relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) classes.
Current Department for Education (DfE) guidance states that schools should 'respond positively' if a parent requests to see sex education materials. It adds that parents must still be allowed to view such resources 'on the school premises' even if an external organisation owns the copyright.
Labour is currently reviewing a sex education overhaul drawn up by the Tories. Rishi Sunak's government launched a consultation over its proposed RSHE shake-up, plus separate guidance for gender-questioning children that proposed a ban on teaching gender ideology. A decision on whether to implement the new policies was halted by the general election.
Labour is yet to decide what to do with the Tories' proposals and the party is currently sifting through tens of thousands of responses to the consultation. The Government will make a decision on whether to implement the twin sets of guidance before the summer holidays, The Telegraph understands.
Ministers have also launched a curriculum and assessment review, which is due to publish its initial findings in early 2025.
The review will consider a root-and-branch overhaul of the current education system in England, from the first year of primary school until when the children turn 18. It will mark the first major curriculum revamp in over a decade.
Submissions to the review from leading education groups have called for bold reforms, including making climate change lessons compulsory, decolonising the curriculum and moving classes outdoors.
Tom Hayes, the Labour MP for Bournemouth East, claimed the Tories' amendment to the Schools Bill would have created a platform for parents to complain against teaching material according to their own prejudices.
He cited the case of one parent who demanded to see their child's curriculum after learning their school was touting Marcus Rashford, the English footballer who campaigned for free school meals during the pandemic, as 'a social justice hero'.
Mr Hayes warned that granting parents the right to view such resources could have a 'chilling or stifling effect' on teachers, and prohibit 'their willingness to cite Marcus Rashford as a social justice hero in the future'.
The Government also rejected calls for a ban on smartphones in schools after a separate amendment tabled by the Tories was rejected with 10 votes to six.
The previous Tory government issued guidance backing headteachers in restricting access to phones in schools but stopped short of binding rules. The party later stepped up its position ahead of the general election and pledged to make the guidance statutory.
Damian Hinds, the former shadow education secretary, told the Commons debate on Tuesday that 'the world has continued to change since then', as he called for the Government to issue a statutory ban.
'When it comes to mobile phone use and our worries about children… worries have only deepened and intensified,' he said.
Labour MPs also rejected a further amendment tabled by the Tories demanding a new duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to police.
Latest DfE data show there were 24,121 pupil suspensions in state schools for a 'physical assault against an adult' in the autumn term of 2023/24. Schools also made 770 pupil expulsions citing violence against an adult over the same period.
Mr O'Brien said the Opposition party were 'not looking to criminalise children, but we should not expect teachers to suck up abuse that we would never expect other professionals to'.
'If we log what is going on, we have a chance of avoiding things that can escalate over time,' he said.
Ms McKinnell insisted there were already appropriate provisions in place in schools 'to prevent and respond to violence on their premises'.
Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, said: 'It's a shame that Labour MPs could not put politics aside and back our amendments to ban smartphones in schools, protect teachers by reporting all acts of violence against them to the police & enable parents to see what their children are being taught in schools.
'Once again, Labour have put ideology above children, teachers and parents.'
A DfE spokesman said: 'Our landmark Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will be a seminal moment for the safety and success of our children, with new safeguards for our most vulnerable children and more flexibility and innovation across schools to ensure every child has a core high quality education.
'It is right that parents are able to see what their children are being taught. Schools are already required to publish details of their curriculum content online and set out where parents and carers can find out more information.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An end to deep sea dredging
Sir David Attenborough has condemned the damage inflicted on the ocean floor by trawling, calling it 'unspeakably awful'. He was speaking to the Prince of Wales ahead of this week's UN conference on the oceans in Nice which is seeking international support for a new High Seas Treaty. Prince William backed this up in a speech in Monaco, calling the devastation 'heartbreaking'. The destruction of the deep ocean by dredging has been known for decades but it never becomes a major political issue because the impact is unseen. In a new documentary, Ocean, Sir David highlights the potential damage to marine life from some fishing practices, like bottom trawling. Were the same desecration to be inflicted on, say, the Maasai Mara or some other visible and valued eco-system the world reaction would stop it. As Sir David said: 'If you did anything remotely like it on land, everybody would be up in arms.' The UN treaty was signed two years ago and needs to be ratified by 60 countries to take legal effect. It would offer marine protected area (MPA) status to 30 per cent of the world's oceans to let them recover. So far just 32 have done so, including France and Spain – but not the UK, which still allows bottom dredging in MPAs around our shores. In a bid to 'reset' relationships with the EU, French and Spanish trawlers will be allowed access to UK waters for a longer post-Brexit period, a decision that has been denounced in fishing communities as a 'betrayal'. But why should French and Spanish boats be allowed to carry out trawling practices in British waters that their own governments do not want to see in their own? The UK Government has dragged its feet over ratifying this treaty. It needs to get on with it. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Peers vote to defy government over copyright threat from AI
Defiant peers have delivered an ultimatum to the government – calling on it to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies or risk losing a key piece of legislation. The government suffered a fifth defeat in the House of Lords over controversial plans to allow the AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning Elton John Speaking at an awards event after the vote, Elton John said copyright protection was an 'existential issue' for artists and urged the government 'to do the right thing'. He added: 'We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning.' Wednesday night's vote prolongs a lengthy standoff between the Commons and Lords over the data bill, which has been used as a vehicle by campaigners to oppose the government's proposed copyright reforms. Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber. The data bill now faces the prospect of being shelved unless the Commons accepts the Kidron amendment or proposes an alternative. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, had urged peers to vote against the Kidron amendment after the government offered last-minute concessions in an attempt to stave off another defeat. Before the vote, Jones said peers were 'choosing whether they want the entire bill to fall' and that by voting for Kidron's amendment they would 'countenance the unprecedented – to try to collapse a bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law' but included other important measures including to combat sexually explicit deepfake images. Kidron told peers: 'This is our last chance to ask the government to provide a meaningful solution' and urged ministers to set out concrete steps to subject AI companies to copyright rules. 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the house widespread theft. 'We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Several peers pushed back against the suggestion that the Lords' move was unprecedented and said the government was itself breaking precedent by not compromising. Tim Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the digital economy, offered his party's 'staunch support' for Kidron's amendment. The Lords' move puts the data bill in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment or offer an alternative. A bill falling is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European parliamentary elections bill in the 1997-98 session. Under parliamentary convention, the Commons has primacy as the elected house, and in rare instances where the Lords refuses to back down ministers can resort to the Parliament Act to pass the bill in the next parliamentary session. This would significantly delay the legislation. In concessions offered to peers on Tuesday night, the government said it would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' Jones said in her letter, reiterating that ministers regretted the way the Lords rebels had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data after the death of a child. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UK ministers delay AI regulation amid plans for more ‘comprehensive' bill
Proposals to regulate artificial intelligence have been delayed by at least a year as UK ministers plan a bumper bill to regulate the technology and its use of copyrighted material. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, intends to introduce a 'comprehensive' AI bill in the next parliamentary session to address concerns about issues including safety and copyright. This will not be ready before the next king's speech, and is likely to trigger concerns about delays to regulating the technology. The date for the next king's speech has not been set but several sources said it could take place in May 2026. Labour had originally planned to introduce a short, narrowly drafted AI bill within months of entering office that would have been focused on large language models, such as ChatGPT. The legislation would have required companies to hand over their models for testing by the UK's AI Security Institute. It was intended to address concerns that AI models could become so advanced that they posed a risk to humanity. This bill was delayed, with ministers choosing to wait and align with Donald Trump's administration in the US because of concerns that any regulation might weaken the UK's attractiveness to AI companies. Ministers now want to include copyright rules for AI companies as part of the AI bill. 'We feel we can use that vehicle to find a solution on copyright,' a government source said. 'We've been having meetings with both creators and tech people and there are interesting ideas on moving forward. That work will begin in earnest once the data bill passes.' The government is already locked in a standoff with the House of Lords over copyright rules in a separate data bill. It would allow AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material unless the rights holder opts out. It has caused a fierce backlash from the creative sector, with artists including Elton John, Paul McCartney and Kate Bush throwing their weight behind a campaign to oppose the changes. This week, peers backed an amendment to the data bill that would require AI companies to disclose if they were using copyrighted material to train their models, in an attempt to enforce current copyright law. Ministers have refused to back down, however, even though Kyle has expressed regret about the way the government has gone about the changes. The government insists the data bill is not the right vehicle for the copyright issue and has promised to publish an economic impact assessment and series of technical reports on copyright and AI issues. In a letter to MPs on Saturday, Kyle made a further commitment to establish a cross-party working group of parliamentarians on AI and copyright. Beeban Kidron, the film director and cross-bench peer who has been campaigning on behalf of the creative sector, said on Friday that ministers 'have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second-biggest industrial sector'. Kyle told the Commons last month that AI and copyright should be dealt with as part of a separate 'comprehensive' bill. Most of the UK public (88%) believe the government should have the power to stop the use of an AI product if it is deemed to pose a serious risk, according to a survey published by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute in March. More than 75% said the government or regulators should oversee AI safety rather than private companies alone. Scott Singer, an AI expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: 'The UK is strategically positioning itself between the US and EU. Like the US, Britain is attempting to avoid overly aggressive regulation that could harm innovation while exploring ways to meaningfully protect consumers. That's the balancing act here.'
