Latest news with #KatharineBirbalsingh
Telegraph
04-08-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Being English is not a matter of your ancestry
'You can't teach someone to be English', called a heckler at the end of a conference last month on How to Save England. 'Of course you can,' I replied. 'That's how we all learn it.' 'Rubbish,' he replied: for him, Englishness seemed to be (I couldn't quite hear) about 'ancestry'. This brief debate was unfortunately stopped by the chair so that we could go to the pub. But the day's discussion got huge numbers of viewers on YouTube, a longish report in The Spectator, and a rather overwrought follow-up article in The Critic magazine accusing me (along with other 'self-identifying conservatives' such as Fraser Nelson and Niall Ferguson) of being a defender of multiculturalism, and by implication of mass migration. Frankly, I thought this was laughable, and have been joking with friends about being a Lefty. But in the present fraught climate, the issue needs to be addressed. I should explain that my intellectual sins had been to praise Katharine Birbalsingh (invariably though inadequately described as 'Britain's strictest headmistress') and to have commented that to see little girls in headscarves reciting Kipling and singing the national anthem showed that 'becoming English was possible', on the condition that it was encouraged, taught, and indeed required. Is this 'multiculturalism'? I can't see how. Progressives would reject it as 'monoculturalism', as it involves inculcating a common English culture: poetry certainly, and also Shakespeare, the classics, history, mathematics, science, and indeed as many as possible of the educational riches that those same progressives reject as 'colonialist'. This is a completely separate issue from mass immigration. Uncontrolled, non-selective and far beyond rational limits, it becomes economically ruinous and socially divisive. It corrupts democracy, affronts sovereignty and law, and pulverises national solidarity. I favour narrow limits and strict enforcement. But the question of integration and eventual assimilation is no less urgent. There are now, and in the future will be, many children in England who were born elsewhere, or who are descended from a foreign-born parent. Many will have darker skin than mine. We have a very clear choice. Either we do everything possible to make them and their eventual descendants part of our nation. Or we treat them as perpetual outsiders, 'ethnic minorities' in a tribalised England. I am speaking of England rather than Britain. Being British is primarily legal and political. Many newcomers are happy to be 'British'. But we are also English (or Welsh, Scottish or Irish), and that is a deeper kind of belonging. The United Kingdom is technically a 'state nation'. England is a 'culture nation', based on shared history, customs and emotions. Without these, the UK is an empty shell.
Time of India
20-07-2025
- General
- Time of India
Is tough love wiser than gentle parenting? New study questions the pampering style popular among Gen Z parents
In a world increasingly guided by empathy-driven parenting philosophies , 'gentle parenting' has become a buzzword of the millennial and Gen Z households. It promises calm corrections, thoughtful negotiations, and a friend-like approach to raising children. But just as this new-age method is finding its roots in nurseries across the globe, a comprehensive new study is shaking the foundations of this popular style—raising a serious question: are today's parents too soft? Gentle Doesn't Always Mean Great According to a report from Daily Mail, for years, gentle parenting has been portrayed as the enlightened path to raising emotionally intelligent children. Its core principle is simple—nurture with empathy, guide without punishment, and never raise your voice. Celebrities have often openly endorsed it, further boosting its appeal among young, educated parents. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category But a fresh report by the National Centre for Social Research, which tracked the development of nearly 6,000 children in England over a decade, tells a different story. The researchers found that children who experienced more 'authoritative' parenting—a style marked by warmth combined with firm boundaries—performed significantly better academically up to the age of 11. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo 'The higher the parental limit-setting, the greater the likelihood of children achieving the expected level in reading, writing and maths,' the report noted. In contrast, children exposed only to gentle parenting often lacked structure, which could be undermining their success in the classroom. Why Setting Boundaries Works Authoritative parenting—distinct from the harshness of authoritarian styles—strikes a balance between empathy and discipline. It's less about yelling and more about clearly defined rules that are consistently enforced. According to experts, it allows children to explore freely within limits, creating a stable foundation to thrive both emotionally and academically. You Might Also Like: Silent damage: How parental screen time is rewiring young minds and fueling mental chaos? Study reveals Psychologist Professor Vivien Hill from UCL's Institute of Education voiced her concerns in an interview with The Telegraph, highlighting how children raised under lenient parenting may struggle in real-world environments. 'That child is going to be entering the world of school where a teacher has to be able to control and teach 30 children. Nobody has the capacity to negotiate in that environment,' she said. The Risk of Over-Correction Of course, the intention behind gentle parenting is noble—who doesn't want to raise a kind and self-aware human being? But some critics argue that the movement may be overcorrecting the harshness of past generations. Britain's famously strict educator Katharine Birbalsingh argued that today's culture has 'infantilised' parents, stripping them of the authority children actually need. On the flip side, gentle parenting advocates like author Sarah Ockwell-Smith maintain that the approach results in 'calmer, happier children' who feel heard and respected. Yet, the study's findings show a more complex reality—one where empathy alone may not prepare children for the structure and expectations of the real world. In the end, this research doesn't entirely dismiss gentle parenting—but it suggests that perhaps it needs redefinition. Could a hybrid approach—warmth laced with consistent boundaries—be the answer? You Might Also Like: From dual-income, with no kids couples to big families with no income: Thyrocare founder Velumani's take on modern parenthood You Might Also Like: 'Parents, stop pampering your kids': Rs 5,000 crore Thyrocare founder shares real story about a rich kid he gave home tuitions
Daily Mail
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Baffled Question Time viewers call out glaring issue with BBC panel in special episode
Baffled Question Time viewers called out a glaring issue with the BBC panel in a special episode on Thursday. The most recent instalment of the programme saw Fiona Bruce, 61, return to our screens to host a special about the challenges of growing up in the 21st century. She was joined by headmistress Katharine Birbalsingh, 52, Adolescence writer Jack Thorne, 46, YouTuber TommyInnit, 21, the secretary of state for science and technology Peter Kyle, 54, and MP Lord Willetts, 69. While watching, some viewers shared how odd they thought it was that only one person on the panel was under the age of 45. Many took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to share their thoughts. 'I thought the Youth focused #bbcqt was a great and overdue idea. Until I saw the panel had an average age older than me.' 'Next generation you say?' 'Why is there only 1 actual youngish person on this panel? Comedy.' 'The average age of the panellists debating what it's like being young in Britain today? 48. Farcical.' At the start of the episode, Fiona said: 'For tonight's question time, we're asking a specially convened panel and audience about the challenges of growing up in the 21st century and what it means for all of us. 'Roughly half our audience is from what very generation - under 30 or mostly Gen Z and the rest are just a little bit older, but like every other week, they reflect the range of political views across the country. 'Welcome to Question Time - the next generation - from Greenford in West London on BBC, iPlayer and Sounds.' Despite their ages, the guests do all have their own opinions from their fields about the matter. Katharine Birbalsingh is a headteacher at the Michaela Community School. Many took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to share their thoughts She is known to be the 'UK's strictest headmistress'. Meanwhile Jack's latest Netflix hit Adolescence hit headlines earlier this year. Back in April it was revealed that 114 million people had watched the drama - which follows the story of a boy called Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper), who murdered his female classmate. It brought misogyny among young boys to light. TommyInnit - real name Thomas Michael Simons - has 15.1M subscribers on YouTube. Meanwhile Peter Kyle and Lord Willetts are figures in the political sphere.
Telegraph
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Stop teaching white children to feel guilty
If Katharine Birbalsingh could be cloned and a Birbal-bot placed at the head of every school in the country, almost all our problems could be fixed – the future ours for the taking. I honestly don't think ' Britain's strictest headteacher ' has ever said anything I disagree with. In fact, when I read her statements, I sometimes find myself light-headed with relief. In a landscape so thickly forested with absurdity, perversity and plain idiocy, a nugget of common sense shines like a stray diamond – and to follow that common sense with action is rarer still. Yesterday was a case in point. Speaking at a conference for the Family Education Trust at the weekend, Birbalsingh – who runs the Michaela Community School in Wembley, north-west London – criticised schools for focusing on diversity to such an extent that any 'sense of British history' is lost. 'You've got various 'diversity days' bringing all different foods, etc. I am the most diverse person you'll ever find in terms of my background,' explained the 51-year-old daughter of an Indo-Guyanese academic and a Jamaican nurse, who was born in New Zealand and raised in Canada. 'But the fact is that there's nothing unifying the school.' She added: 'If there are no values that everyone buys into – whatever their background, whatever their religion – then there's nothing to hold them together.' Also: 'Why are they not learning algebra? That's what I'd like to know.' They are not learning algebra, or indeed grammar, because of the moral high grounders who have decided that their virtue-signalling agenda is more important. Because once you're done explaining the legitimacy of every one of the 72 genders, that all white people are racist and that, as Brits, we should all be ashamed of our colonialist past, there's not much time left in the school day for the solving of equations. Never mind that we could consequently be launching illiterate and innumerate children into the world. These two things can devastate an adult's life chances and happiness, limiting their access to basic services alongside better-paying and more-rewarding jobs, and perpetuating an intergenerational cycle of poverty. Let's get stuck into 'white privilege', into self-flagellation and societal division! Setting aside the gaps of knowledge these children may be left with (and the skewed historical perspectives they will be stuck with), how is any of this about diversity? How did a concept based on embracing variety and inclusion become about promoting division – about blame, guilt, and building walls where there were none? We see it everywhere in adult life. As one gay, Asian friend told me: 'After a lifetime of nobody commenting on either my gayness or my Asian-ness, people are now ever keen to point out both, even in a professional context. They think it makes them 'progressive'. To me, it feels extremely regressive.' In schools, Birbalsingh has seen the same thing happen, she says: children being split into ethnic, religious or LGBTQ+ groups, young people having their differences highlighted, purely so that they can be used to demonstrate how OK we all are with those differences. Not just OK but thrilled for them! This is 'wrong', but British teachers are mired in 'white guilt', she explains. So let them enjoy a night in with a hair shirt and a knotted cord – why bring the children into it? What do you think the psychological impact of telling a generation of children that they are inherently bad will be? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking: not good. The teaching of ' toxic masculinity ' wasn't a massive success, was it? I mean, if the resulting disaffection, social dislocation, poor academic performance, and mental health epidemic is anything to go by. And the ' white privilege ' narrative is scarily similar: you're toxic, not because of your gender this time, but your skin colour and your country of birth. In her book, The Power of Culture, Birbalsingh explains why what is taught by those who stand in front of a classroom is actually pretty similar to 'battling for the future of a civilisation'. 'For if the culture of our schools affects the character of our pupils, and the character of our pupils then eventually shapes the culture of our society, undoubtedly what we teach our pupils does make a genuine difference to the world around us.'
Telegraph
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour under fire for touchscreen assessment plans for four-year-olds
Bridget Phillipson has come under fire over guidance calling for children as young as four to be tested using touchscreen devices. The Department for Education (DfE) has written new guidelines, to come into effect from the next term, requiring schools to assess reception-age pupils using screens. Campaigners have said that the change 'implicitly endorses and normalises device use in reception classes' and risks 'undermining the rights of parents' to restrict their children's screen time. Politicians, teachers and campaigners sent a letter to the Education Secretary and Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, urging that the guidance be immediately revoked. Signatories include Katharine Birbalsingh, known as Britain's strictest headteacher, Justine Roberts, the founder of Mumsnet, and Sophie Winkleman. The letter said: 'We are united in our deep concern at this retrograde step which pushes our youngest schoolchildren, the majority of whom will be just four years old, on to touchscreen devices, and which implicitly endorses and normalises device use in reception classes.' The new statutory Reception Baseline Assessment will involve a teacher using a device to conduct the assessment, with the child carrying out the test with a second touchscreen device. The assessment, done within six weeks of a child starting at reception, has usually involved the use of toys and teddy bears. The Government now says: 'Your child will complete the assessment by: using a touchscreen device; answering questions verbally with the teacher; working with materials given to them by the school.' A spokesman for the DfE defended the guidance, telling The Telegraph that 'digital assessments reduce the administrative burden on teachers, freeing up their time to focus more on teaching and supporting pupils' learning.' Campaigners said that, with some exceptions for children with special educational needs, a screen-based assessment 'can only be inferior' to the previous model. They added that doing so risks 'undermining the rights of parents to raise their children in a screen-free, or 'screen-lite', environment, as many are now choosing to do'. 'Protect childhood' The letter has also been backed by Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, as well as other MPs from the Conservatives, Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats. Ms Trott told The Telegraph: 'Testing children as young as four on screens, instead of using books or physical objects, undermines their development. The evidence of lasting damage to children so young is now overwhelming. We must change course and protect childhood. 'We've sleepwalked into a society where children are increasingly glued to screens rather than engaging with the world and each other.' The Conservatives are working to ban smartphones in schools and stop exam boards from shifting assessments to online-only. Ms Trott said: 'If we don't act now, future generations will not forgive us.' Mr Kyle has repeatedly stated the Government's aim to protect children from online harms, including restricting their time on social media. Earlier this month, it was reported that he was considering introducing a time limit on social media apps for children and a 10pm curfew. A spokesman for the DfE said: 'Giving every child the best start in life is central to our mission to break the link between background and success, and our Plan for Change will help get thousands more children school-ready by age five. 'These assessments give a clear picture of children's abilities when they start reception to measure progress by the end of primary school. They are carried out one-on-one with a teacher, so for children who are unable to use a device, verbal responses can be input by their teacher, and paper-based versions are available. 'Digital assessments reduce the administrative burden on teachers, freeing up their time to focus more on teaching and supporting pupils' learning.'
