Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

 Written evidence submitted by Naftoli Friedman to The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee (CWSB228). 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide evidence regarding the suitability of the National Curriculum compared to the education provided within my community.

My name is Naftoli Friedman, and I am an Orthodox Jew (Charedi) residing in Hackney.

I would like to highlight several observed examples which underscore my perspective that the education our children receive is more conducive to fostering wellbeing and positive outcomes than what is often associated with the National Curriculum. I believe the following examples illustrate this point meaningfully:

1. Approximately a year ago, my family and I attended an appointment for my son at Eastman Dental Hospital. Following the appointment, we visited Primark on Oxford Street. To our dismay, we witnessed security personnel chasing groups of 14-15-year-old children through the aisles while yelling aggressively. The chaotic scene resembled a riot, prompting us to ask a security guard what had transpired. He explained that such disturbances were a daily occurrence after school hours. This experience left us astonished and led me to question whether this reflects the outcomes of state school education.

2. Living in Stamford Hill, I have observed that the local Sainsbury's supermarket imposes restrictions on the entry of students from All-Saints Catholic High School, limiting them to one or two at a time after school hours. By contrast, there are no such restrictions placed on Jewish children during the same time frame.

3. On another occasion, I visited a shop on Tottenham High Road near the football stadium. The shopkeeper asked me "where are your boys?" prompting me to recall that he was referring to a Jewish school that had temporarily operated in the area. Initially, I felt apprehensive, unsure of his intent. However, I was both relieved and proud when he remarked, "They are so well-behaved."

4. My wife also had a memorable experience while traveling on a bus through Clapton Common. The driver declined to open the door for a group of non-Jewish schoolboys and later confided to her, "There is nobody like the Jewish kids. They behave beautifully, and I love working in this area."

A few years ago, we participated in a two-week Jewish-organized holiday camp at a university in Huddersfield, attended by over 100 families. Initially, the university stationed security personnel in the vicinity of the accommodations. Within two days, however, the university removed all the security staff after determining their presence was unnecessary. Security guards, accustomed to working there year-round, expressed astonishment at the remarkable difference in behaviour.

These examples illustrate the emphasis within our education system on moral values, discipline, and respect for others. I fail to see how adopting the National Curriculum, often criticized for failing to address behavioural and safety concerns, would be more beneficial for our children. "Suitable education" cannot and should not be equated with incidents of shoplifting, looting, or other concerning behaviours. Furthermore, the prevalence of drugs in schools following the National Curriculum raises additional questions about its suitability in fostering the wellbeing of students.

A notable media report from the Times highlighted the dire state of some schools, stating, "Teachers lock themselves in classrooms for safety at lunchtime." Similar reports have appeared in other outlets, painting a troubling picture of the situation in many state schools. When the education provided in our community is criticized as unsuitable, I struggle to understand the reasoning. Do we truly need guidance on what constitutes education conducive to the wellbeing of children?

Our education system operates without violence and fosters mutual respect and genuine tolerance between students and teachers. These elements are essential to a safe and nurturing educational environment. Despite this, advocates of the Bill argue that our education does not meet the criteria of "suitable education."

The only possible explanation I can infer is an attempt to redefine the meaning of education-shifting it from the process of teaching and learning to an ideological framework. Similarly, it appears that the definition of "suitable" is being altered-from "having the qualities that are right, needed, or appropriate" to "having the qualities that are not right, not needed, or inappropriate."

I respectfully submit this evidence to emphasize the strengths of our education system and to underscore the importance of preserving educational practices that genuinely contribute to the wellbeing and positive development of children.

February 2025.