EDUCATION—SCHOOL—POLITICAL VIEWS

Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Burton J
10 October 2007

The mere distribution by the secretary of state to schools to facilitate their showing of a film regarding global warming, and accompanied by guidance, is not per se, or irremediably, a promotion of partisan political views so as to be contrary to ss 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996 (EA 1996); what is forbidden by the statute is political indoctrination.

Paul Downes and Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the claimant.
Martin Chamberlain (instructed by the treasury solicitor) for the secretary of state.

The claimant was the father of two sons at a state school and was a school governor. He brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the defendant secretary of state to distribute to every state secondary school in the UK a copy of former US vice-president Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) as part of a pack containing four other short films and a cross-reference to an educational website containing a dedicated guidance note. In the event, the film had already been distributed, so injunctive relief was not possible, but no point was taken as to the delay in the claim. According to the claimant, the distribution of the film was in breach of EA 1996, ss 406 and 407. Section 406 prohibited “the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”. Section 407 required the local education authority, governing body and head teacher to “take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils...they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views”. The defendant did not contest the argument that the film presented political views. The dispute concerned the definition of “partisan” in s 406 and the meaning of the duty in s 407.

MR JUSTICE BURTON:

The claimant in his skeleton argument suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether or not the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:

“(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.

(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.

(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.

(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do ‘right’ as opposed to ‘wrong.’”

The claimant submitted that, if the film, which was sent to schools in order to facilitate its showing, was itself a partisan political film—one that promoted partisan political views—and if schools then made available such film to its teachers, who then showed such film to their pupils, then inevitably there was the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, therefore not only not being forbidden by the local education authority, but being positively facilitated by them. Thus he submitted, irrespective of any publication of guidance, the breach of the statute was irremediable.

His lordship did not agree. What was forbidden by the statute was, as the side heading made clear, “political indoctrination”. If a teacher used the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute. If, on the other hand, a teacher, in the course of a school day and as part of the syllabus presented to his pupils, no doubt with the appropriate setting and with proper tuition and debate, a film or document which itself promoted in a partisan way some political view, that could not possibly be the mischief against which the statute was intended to protect pupils. The mere distribution by the defendant to schools to facilitate their showing the film, and accompanied by guidance, was not per se, or irremediably, a promotion of those partisan political views.

His lordship turned to the question of balanced presentation. The issue of whether or not there was facilitated by the defendant something that was forbidden—namely the promotion by the school of partisan political views—depended in substantial part on the context, and in this case on the guidance note on the website. The guidance note was also obviously relevant in relation to s 407.
The claimant stated that in order to comply with s 407, a school had to give what he called “equal air time” to opposing views. His lordship disagreed. The word “balanced” in s 407 meant nothing more than fair and dispassionate.

He turned to the film itself. It was clear that it was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science was used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. His lordship identified nine factual errors within the film. He was satisfied that in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to “influence the opinions of children” but so as to “stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes”, the guidance note had to be incorporated into the pack, and that it was not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.

He concluded that with the guidance note, which had been amended since the beginning of the proceedings, the defendant had set the film into a context in which it could be shown by teachers, and not so that the defendant itself or the schools were promoting partisan views contained in the film, and was putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views could and would be offered.