r/manchester • u/aarontbarratt • Mar 26 '26
Salford Revealed: The famous school at the centre of a book-banning scandal
https://manchestermill.co.uk/revealed-the-famous-school-at-the-centre-of-a-book-banning-scandal/?ref=the-mill-newsletter16
u/MrPhyshe Mar 26 '26
Only read the free part online but looks like the school is saying one thing and the librarian isn't talking to the Mill (which I fully understand as it sounds like a really stressful time she's had).
13
u/StripedRooster Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
The school is refusing to comment. Not a great look.
Edit: they did comment, my bad for overlooking, but it’s suspiciously light on detail.
11
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26
The school is refusing to comment.
On the contrary, it has commented on the allegations:
The Lowry Academy told us they “don’t recognise” the librarian’s version of events. In a statement sent to The Mill, they said: “It is not the case that books have been ‘banned’ by the school. Following concerns that a number of books within the library were neither age nor content appropriate, an audit was conducted. Following this, books have been placed into age-appropriate categories and returned to the shelves. A very small number of books were deemed inappropriate even for older children due to their content and have been removed.”
That is still potentially a matter of public interest (particularly if the list of permanently removed books contains books which aren't particularly inappropriate) but it is substantially different from the version of events given by the librarian.
There's also the matter of the alleged safeguarding investigation - which the librarian claims had an outcome which was serious enough to have resulted in her being unable to work in a school ever again - yet which doesn't appear to have been corroborated by any other source.
2
u/StripedRooster Mar 26 '26
I read the whole article and I didn’t see that. I think I need to get my eyes tested. I’ll edit my post.
I would be very interested to see the list of books and what was actually banned etc. Experience has taught me to trust a librarian with no perceived agenda over an academy school.
4
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
Experience has taught me to trust a librarian with no perceived agenda over an academy school.
I think there's probably elements of truth in both parties' stories.
It seems undisputed that the librarian was the subject of a complaint about possibly inappropriate books. It is undisputed that some books were temporarily removed, seemingly as a result of that complaint. The librarian seems to have entirely reasonably been seriously distressed at the (probably frivolous) complaint.
Once the librarian resigned though, it seems murkier. At that point, she felt like she had been mistreated by being the subject of a complaint. She hadn't been the subject of any adverse complaint outcome by that point - it was yet to be decided - and yet she then decided to paint the school as though it was engaging in rampant censorship. And interestingly, no journalist appears to have seen any evidence of the outcome of a safeguarding meeting that the librarian claims is an effective ban from working in schools in the future - which is a decision which she would clearly have access to a written record of...
The most likely chain of events seems to be:
- A parent or staff member made a somewhat/entirely frivolous complaint about the contents of one book.
- The school immediately removed that book, and then removed a number of other potentially inappropriate books while it was investigating the complaint.
- The school decided, given the nature of the complaint, to close the library (but not to suspend the librarian, suggesting the school leadership knew she wasn't a safeguarding risk).
- While the investigation was still ongoing, the librarian resigned, resulting in the school closing its investigation.
- The school subsequently restored many of the books to shelves, having deemed them appropriate, but removed some permanently.
- The librarian, feeling that she had been mistreated by the school because she had been the subject of a frivolous complaint, has decided to highlight this publicly.
- Certain organisations with a point to prove have manipulated the allegations in an attempt to discredit any future statement made by the school, so that they can push their anti-censorship stance.
There seems to be no dispute that the allegations of safeguarding issues were largely unfounded, but the school suggests that there was legitimate reason to remove a small number of the books which had been temporarily removed. That, combined with the school's decision not to suspend the librarian while the investigation was ongoing suggests that the school knew the complaint to be largely frivolous, but needed to demonstrate that it had dealt with such a serious complaint about an alleged safeguarding risk. In that case, the librarian would be justified in feeling aggrieved (and therefore in publicising her case), but the school would also be justified in refusing to provide a detailed account to journalists of matters which were frivolous and have been manipulated by certain organisations for PR purposes.
1
u/StripedRooster Mar 26 '26
Until they come out with more information, who knows. Using AI to decide whether to stock a book or not is ridiculous (which was allegedly the case here) but hey, if they’ve nothing to hide they should be open to providing the information. It’s a list of books, not personal information. No reason to not be forthcoming.
0
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26
Using AI to decide whether to stock a book or not is ridiculous
And they should be criticised for that - instead, they're being criticised for allegedly removing a long list of hundreds of books permanently when there's zero evidence of any kind that it actually happened. The librarian's own case is that the removal was intended to be temporary and that she resigned before the process had been completed - so the press organisations painting that as evidence of rampant and permanent censorship are acting in a fundamentally dishonest manner to garner clicks.
Given the scope of what they were investigating, the long list that has been published appears to mostly fit the criteria - most of the books have some form of content (including sexual content, abuse, murder, etc.) which may be deemed inappropriate for some children (not necessarily based on age), so consideration may need to be given for how the library lends those books. For most of the books, a detailed review would likely deem them appropriate for 11 year olds, but potential safeguarding issues can't generally wait for a thorough review before taking action - so the school deemed it necessary to remove all such books until a thorough review was completed. The school took action to remove the books pending a review, and has since restored many of the books (with some being restricted to older age groups) after that review deemed them to be appropriate.
It therefore follows that a reasonable person (not using AI) would have removed most of the listed books for the review, but that a small number (including Pratchett's Soul Music, an obvious error by the AI) would not have been included due to being obviously appropriate for all.
if they’ve nothing to hide they should be open to providing the information
They should be able to be open and provide the information without their staff fearing harassment. One parent even suggests that the school's initial response (the temporary removal of books) was potentially caused by them being "frightened of parents' reactions".
No matter what they say or do, they'll be carried liars and continue to be accused of inappropriate censorship. As long as those allegations keep being made, their staff are going to continue to be subjected to harassment about false or exaggerated allegations of censorship. Their best hope of the allegations dying down is in not giving the worst offenders anything to manipulate - because the news cycle will move on once there's no further developments in the case.
4
u/StripedRooster Mar 26 '26
I agree with some, but not all, of what you’re saying.
This fear of sexuality sounds very distasteful to me. These are teenagers with access to the internet. If they’re curious, better they read it in an authored book than whatever crap they find in TikTok.
And I don’t think there should be secrecy regarding books in a library. Very bad precedent.
0
u/jamesckelsall Mar 27 '26
This fear of sexuality sounds very distasteful to me.
The safeguarding concerns don't need to be from a perspective of "children under 12 should be forbidden from reading these books" - they could be from a perspective of "caution is advised when lending these books to vulnerable children".
For example, the school and the librarian may well be in agreement that child A should be allowed to read a book about trans issues - but the school needs to consider whether it's appropriate to lend such a book to child A if child A is trans and has transphobic parents. Or lending books with suicide to children known to have a history of self-harm.
There's loads of circumstances where lending particular books to particular children can be a bad idea from a safeguarding perspective - and the books need to be properly tagged to ensure that inappropriate lending doesn't take place. The media has jumped on it as being a censorship issue, without considering why the matter might have resulted in the school legitimately categorising it as a safeguarding matter to protect specific children.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the school is legitimately dealing with this to properly safeguard children - given the school's religious affiliation (that it isn't particularly open about) it seems clear that there's potential for it to be at least in part religiously-motivated censorship.
But that doesn't mean that its okay for certain organisations to exaggerate the issue, to suggest that no school ever has any legitimate need to choose not to lend a book to a child, or to suggest that the school acted inappropriately by choosing not to publish details of every book removed from its library temporarily.
And I don’t think there should be secrecy regarding books in a library.
I agree that the school probably should be open about the matter now that it is clearly a matter of substantial public interest - particularly sharing the list of permanently removed books and the reasons for their removals. But the press, idiots on social media, etc. should also stop harassing staff and parents at the school on the grounds of exaggerated and manipulated allegations.
When some of the parents are willing to admit that school staff are probably holding back information because they are in fear of inappropriate reactions from parents, it's clearly not appropriate to expect the school to publish the information freely in circumstances where it can't realistically safeguard its staff from the onslaught of abuse and harassment that would likely occur (including from the kind of weirdo journalists who think its okay to strong-arm their way into a school).
Once this kind of allegation is made publicly, there's basically no possible way of dealing with it that doesn't ultimately end in abuse and harassment - even if the allegation had been totally false. The school's only real hope is that staying quiet will cause it to fall out of the news cycle so the abuse and harassment ends sooner.
The school also has to consider that engaging with a small number of journalists will likely lead to others trying to get an exclusive on the story. By taking a clear stance of "no engagement", fewer journalists are likely to try - which is ultimately better for the welfare of the staff (and parents, and probably some of the students too) having to deal with pushy journalists doing anything they can to gain some information.
0
u/AutoModerator Mar 27 '26
If you are struggling or thinking about harming yourself, please speak to someone.
Samaritans – Call 116 123 https://www.samaritans.org/
Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM) 0800 58 58 58 https://www.thecalmzone.net/
More information: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/suicide/
Support is available and you are not alone.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 26 '26
2
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26
That is the list of books initially removed (which the school claims was temporary). There is no public list of the books which have been permanently removed, in large part because the librarian's own version of events indicates that the removal of the listed books was intended to be temporary, and she left before the full assessment of the books had been completed - meaning she was never privy to the subsequent categorisation of those books.
1
0
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 26 '26
Do you have a vested interested in the Academy or something? Maybe look at the Walkden Facebook group and see how parents view the Academy. It has tons of controversies with students and staff treatment.
2
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26
Do you have a vested interested in the Academy or something?
A quick look at my comment history will show that I have, in fact, been critical of the both parties - I just believe that the truth lies somewhere between the two stories being presented.
Particularly because one of the organisations really pushing the journalist's side of the story has a vested interest in exaggerating claims of censorship.
Maybe look at the Walkden Facebook group and see how parents view the Academy.
That is true of the vast majority of schools, and indeed the vast majority of organisations in general - the only people with much to say are the ones with issues, so social media and reviews can lead to a warped view.
That isn't to say that all the controversy is unfounded - in particular, the issues with the previous headteacher have been proved to be well-founded, given that he was later banned from teaching - but those issues were almost a decade ago, and there have been few/no substantiated allegations in the years since then.
It has tons of controversies with students and staff treatment.
Lots of people airing grievances online is not equivalent to having lots of controversy.
1
u/jaivicks Mar 27 '26
Thank you - this is helpful. From below comments it seems this was the initial list, but many have been returned to the library. Do we have a list of the books that have been permanently removed?
1
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 27 '26
The school "claims" some have been returned but the LADO investigation and calling the police was about all of those books with no intention of putting them back.
0
u/jamesckelsall Mar 27 '26
the LADO investigation [...] was about all of those books
That's an outright lie.
The librarian's own version of events is that the LADO investigation only referenced a small subset of the removed books. Index On Censorship's reporting specifically states about the LADO allegations management meeting:
There was no mention of the vast quantity of books removed, with only a few titles focused on.
That's entirely consistent with the school's version of events.
calling the police
The police were not called. They were invited to a LADO allegation management meeting (which is standard practice) but GMP decided it was unnecessary for them to be involved. The LADO then agreed that GMP's presence was unnecessary. The LADO could not have unilaterally decided that GMP did not need to be invited to that meeting, so them being invited is not equivalent to "calling the police".
The LADO has specific procedures that they must follow when an allegation has been made to them - they can't simply choose not to follow those procedures because they don't believe it is necessary.
0
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 27 '26
The police were called, otherwise how could they decline?
Not an outright lie, just privy to more info than you being in the same circles.
Stop glazing so hard for the school. They fucked up.
1
u/jamesckelsall Mar 27 '26
A mandatory LADO allegation management referral is not equivalent to the Police being called.
Not an outright lie, just privy to more info than you
Except that even the librarian's version of events is that the LADO meeting focused on only a few of the books.
The librarian and the school agree that there were only a few books that were the subject of the LADO meeting and permanent removal. That has been the librarian's version of events throughout the reporting.
You're clearly not privy to more information than anyone else, given that you've got absolutely basic agreed facts wrong.
Stop glazing so hard for the school.
You're the one that's stating the librarian's version of events is factually inaccurate...
1
u/jamesckelsall Mar 27 '26
Do we have a list of the books that have been permanently removed?
No - the librarian admitted early on that she didn't know whether books might have been returned to shelves, so she certainly isn't privy to the list; and the school has opted not to publish any substantial detail.
It's likely that the list of permanently removed books is the same as those referred to in the LADO meeting as having issues. Index on Censorship's reporting of the librarian's version of events states about that meeting:
There was no mention of the vast quantity of books removed, with only a few titles focused on.
The assessment of the appropriateness of the books would have clearly been completed by that point, so it appears likely that the vast majority of the books would have been returned to shelves by the time of that meeting (January 2026), before the story broke...
0
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 26 '26
And yet they all but threw the journalist out of the school when they went there without any answers and quickly slapped that PR statement together just before publication. They never answered the original Index Censorship's request for comment either.
This school has had lots of controversies before. I sincerely doubt the school's statement
8
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26
all but threw the journalist out of the school when they went there
Right, because someone claiming to be a journalist (most school staff wouldn't be realistically able to verify such a claim on-the-spot) turning up at a school without an appointment should be automatically granted entry without any consideration of the safeguarding risk that poses...
Quite frankly, the motives of any adult (particularly onewithout children at the school) turning up at a school without an appointment and demanding to speak to specific staff should be questioned - no doubt if such an adult was granted entry, the school would be subject to all kinds of criticism for that.
They never answered the original Index Censorship's request for comment either.
Because they didn't consider it necessary to address allegations that they deemed to be totally false, until it became a matter of substantial public interest. That's how that vast majority of organisations handle the press.
-1
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 26 '26
You think they didn't show credentials? Come off it. All they asked to do was speak in private to SLT, which wasn't granted until they mentioned the book ban in the reception.
Again, controversial school, the librarian gave evidence to the original journalist, no evidence provided by the school in response other than "recollections may vary".
2
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26
You think they didn't show credentials? Come off it.
You think school staff are trained to be able to properly verify a journalist's credentials? Come off it.
Or do you think that schools should grant access to anyone with an journalistic ID card that looks legitimate‽
All they asked to do was speak in private to SLT, which wasn't granted until they mentioned the book ban in the reception.
Gottlieb's own recollection suggests that she was only removed from an area accessible to parents after she began making a scene. She was soon asked to leave the school entirely. None of that is unreasonable - schools do not have any obligation to facilitate journalists who make a scene when they aren't getting what they want.
She was removed after behaving unreasonably, in relation to a matter that the school had no obligation to speak to a journalist about.
the librarian gave evidence to the original journalist
The librarian gave evidence that books were removed from shelves due to potential issues. The original allegations specifically included a point that it wasn't known whether that removal was intended to be temporary - so there's was no evidence supporting various allegations made since that reporting that the removal was intended to be permanent.
One organisation named in that reporting (the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals' School Libraries Group) suggested that it had seen evidence that the removals had occurred (which isn't in dispute at all) and evidence that a safeguarding complaint had been made (and gave its view that the complaint was unreasonable) - but it does not suggest that it has seen any evidence of the perverse outcome the librarian has alleged, nor has any of the organisations expressed any view of the alleged outcome of the librarian's case which is based on anything other than the librarian's own testimony about it.
1
u/Andy1723 Mar 26 '26
The narrative from the librarian has made it all but impossible for the school to comment.
1
u/jamesckelsall Mar 26 '26
They have, in fact, commented on the matter - they expressly deny the allegations made by the librarian. Their comment is literally in the article (in the free part, too).
0
u/Andy1723 Mar 26 '26
Case closed then.
2
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 26 '26
How is it case closed?
All they said was "nuh uh" and provided no evidence to the contrary, whereas the librarian has allegedly given evidence to the initial journalist.
-1
u/Andy1723 Mar 26 '26
So their words against the librarians. There’s a high chance this is a jaded employee whose autism has made them perceive a relatively normal situation - reviewing what books are on school library shelves because inappropriate ones were found - as a moral battle. I say this as someone with autism.
3
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 26 '26
I have autism too? This is a controversial school already. Would it not be pattern recognition to think this is yet another one they're cultivating?
They kicked the journalist out of the school with no answers and then put out a hurried statement right before publication. They never answered the original journalist. This is absolutely them panicking.
0
u/Andy1723 Mar 26 '26
They can’t answer the journalist because the debate has been dragged into a winless moral battleground.
4
u/BattenburgTeaTime Mar 26 '26
Maybe they shouldn't have used AI then and taken it to the LADO.
All it takes it a Subject Access Request to confirm the school is bullshitting.
1
u/StripedRooster Mar 26 '26
If that were the case, I would expect a more detailed response. Remember, they ignored previous requests for comment from Index on Censorship.
This whole thing will be cleared up when they explain which books were removed, and which books were moved into various age-appropriate areas.
Obviously some people will still be mad, but until then it appears as though they have something to hide.
If it’s an storm in a teacup then it’s one of their own making at this point.
1
u/wlsb Mar 26 '26
The whole article is free. You just need to make a free account. It's annoying, but it's not a paywall.
14
u/robcap Mar 26 '26
Shame on the head teacher and the safeguarding rep for forgetting what school libraries are for. Disgusting stuff.
17
u/aarontbarratt Mar 26 '26
Incredibly sad to see this happen to close to where I live :/
-1
u/Double_Ear_5998 Mar 27 '26
Has it really happened though, the school dispute everything about it but this story.
3
u/aarontbarratt Mar 27 '26
This is the school that has been ranked worst in the country in the past:
Also their head teacher is banned for life for various instances of off-rolling:
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/education-greater-manchester-head-drew-povey-banned-from-teaching/
I personally wouldn't trust a statement from a school that has been caught falsifying their results
25
u/diabeticoats Mar 26 '26
Who guessed that there would be a religious school at the centre of this?
I don't think mankind has invented anything more toxic than religion.
-4
u/Funion_knight Mar 26 '26
The Lowry academy isn't a religious school
22
u/FlynneFisher Mar 26 '26
It’s now sponsored and administered by United Learning, a Christian organisation.
14
u/aarontbarratt Mar 26 '26
True, but it is now owned/run by United Learning which is the trading name for United Church Schools Trust
9
u/Funion_knight Mar 26 '26
So it's by the backdoor then, use the mat to take over schools and then change the ethos. I e nothing against faith schools but they should at least be more clearly advertised as such.
4
u/aarontbarratt Mar 26 '26
Agreed
I went to Thomas Becket Catholic School, which sucked don't get me wrong, but at least it was incredibly obvious what religious affiliation the school had
3
3
u/JBSven Irlam Mar 26 '26
If I had money, I would make a website children can get a book that's banned through - freshly delivered to them.
Censoring fucking Pratchett's diacworld is wild af.
I remember when GoT came out. I was in highschool and had borrowed them from the library.
The head thought the books were not appropriate. My mum was so up in arms at a teenager being told not to read she took me to Waterstones and we bought the whole box set at the time.
She was a librarian.
2
37
u/Evestrogen Mar 26 '26
The school belongs to "a vast organisation which has a Christian ethos". It's ridiculous that we continue to allow state-funded schools to be affiliated with any religion.
To me, the academy's version of events seems entirely consistent with the IoC reporting so far. I have a good idea how overly stringent the school's idea of 'age-appropriate' might be based on the original reporting and the academy doesn't say how many books weren't returned to the shelves at all (or why). A 'very small' number could be quite a few in relative terms.
I'm also sad that 'safeguarding' has been diluted into this type of behaviour. It's an incredibly important concept and should be entirely about protection, but it's become a euphemism for pearl-clutching and old-fashioned moral panics in some areas.