This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A school (a "faith" school with a "religious ethos") decides that it disagrees with certain scientific topics, so it decides not to teach them.
When the relevant science exam comes along the school blacks out certain exam questions, so that the pupils can't answer them. The pupils thus get zero marks for those parts and thus could well get a lower grade.
When questioned the exam board says it is ok with this practice and doesn't object.
The Department of Education says that the school's action is "proportionate and reasonable".
When a question is asked in Parliament whether the government is ok with this the Children's Commissioner just shrugs, says it is a matter for Ofqual, and says that no complaints have been received.
Meanwhile the mainstream press take no interest in this issue.
Is all this fair on the pupils?
When the relevant science exam comes along the school blacks out certain exam questions, so that the pupils can't answer them. The pupils thus get zero marks for those parts and thus could well get a lower grade.
When questioned the exam board says it is ok with this practice and doesn't object.
The Department of Education says that the school's action is "proportionate and reasonable".
When a question is asked in Parliament whether the government is ok with this the Children's Commissioner just shrugs, says it is a matter for Ofqual, and says that no complaints have been received.
Meanwhile the mainstream press take no interest in this issue.
Is all this fair on the pupils?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Nope in my opinion. If the school wants to take part in UK exams (using UK exam boards) then they should adhere to the syllabus. If not, they can f*ck off and do some other one from another country.
Perhaps if I am opposed to the existence of the electron, as a chemistry teacher (I am not) I would not teach anything involving it (ie. all chemistry)?
Nope in my opinion. If the school wants to take part in UK exams (using UK exam boards) then they should adhere to the syllabus. If not, they can f*ck off and do some other one from another country.
Perhaps if I am opposed to the existence of the electron, as a chemistry teacher (I am not) I would not teach anything involving it (ie. all chemistry)?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
being a faith school they have to abandon some science anyway so why not, if they are willing to teach nonsense to them anyway.
being a faith school they have to abandon some science anyway so why not, if they are willing to teach nonsense to them anyway.
In reply to ow arm:
Why not? Because the taxpayer funds the school to educate the kids in science, so that's what they should do. And because being sent to such a school is not the kids' fault, so they shouldn't lose out in learning about science.
> ... so why not, ...
Why not? Because the taxpayer funds the school to educate the kids in science, so that's what they should do. And because being sent to such a school is not the kids' fault, so they shouldn't lose out in learning about science.
In reply to MG:
Yes. http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/03/government-response-to-exam-censo...
> Has this happened?
Yes. http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/03/government-response-to-exam-censo...
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I thought exam papers were kept in sealed envelopes until the exam, so couldnt be seen /copied /altered by anyone.
Cant see how this is fair or legal. Im also convinced that religion has no place in school other than to learn about all/mainstream religions differences and general beliefs and history. Possibly as a module within the History subject
Im also of the opinion that any parent sending their kids to a school knowing they did this should be looked at very carefully by social services
I thought exam papers were kept in sealed envelopes until the exam, so couldnt be seen /copied /altered by anyone.
Cant see how this is fair or legal. Im also convinced that religion has no place in school other than to learn about all/mainstream religions differences and general beliefs and history. Possibly as a module within the History subject
Im also of the opinion that any parent sending their kids to a school knowing they did this should be looked at very carefully by social services
Post edited at 15:04
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Is that not reasonable? If no one involved is complaining, why is it an issue?
Personally, I feel sorry for all those kids indoctrinated into the world of climbing and outdoor pursuits. Such kids are regularly disadvantaged in social circles because they are not up-to-date in the latest goings on on Home and Away and always get beaten when playing computer games. Their bright and sunny disposition as a result of fresh air makes those who lead an indoor life even more miserable. But then who am I to judge?
> it is a matter for Ofqual, and says that no complaints have been received.
Is that not reasonable? If no one involved is complaining, why is it an issue?
Personally, I feel sorry for all those kids indoctrinated into the world of climbing and outdoor pursuits. Such kids are regularly disadvantaged in social circles because they are not up-to-date in the latest goings on on Home and Away and always get beaten when playing computer games. Their bright and sunny disposition as a result of fresh air makes those who lead an indoor life even more miserable. But then who am I to judge?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That's insane! Are there not grounds for suing the school or exam board over this? A different grade could have life-changing consequences.
That's insane! Are there not grounds for suing the school or exam board over this? A different grade could have life-changing consequences.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And if teachers are allowed to prevent candidates from getting marks, is there any ban helping them get additional marks by annotating the paper in helpful ways?
And if teachers are allowed to prevent candidates from getting marks, is there any ban helping them get additional marks by annotating the paper in helpful ways?
In reply to ByEek:
The people harmed are the children. Such children may not be aware of how they are losing out, and anyway are not in the best position to start making official complaints, especially when they come from families steeped in the same religious ethos. Often it is only well into adulthood that they come to view a highly religious upbringing in some perspective.
> If no one involved is complaining, why is it an issue?
The people harmed are the children. Such children may not be aware of how they are losing out, and anyway are not in the best position to start making official complaints, especially when they come from families steeped in the same religious ethos. Often it is only well into adulthood that they come to view a highly religious upbringing in some perspective.
In reply to MG:
Who would sue?
There's a reason the parents send their kids to these schools in the first place. As far as they're concerned, the exam is being censored in accordance with their god given morals. Pupils know no better either.
> That's insane! Are there not grounds for suing the school or exam board over this? A different grade could have life-changing consequences.
Who would sue?
There's a reason the parents send their kids to these schools in the first place. As far as they're concerned, the exam is being censored in accordance with their god given morals. Pupils know no better either.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I wholeheartedly agree, but we harm our kids in all sorts of ways. In fact, now I think about it, my Physics teacher took a calculated risk and didn't teach us a whole section on the syllabus, instead focussing in more depth on the rest. Alas, his gamble did not pay off and the questions on the missing section came up. Perhaps what he did was no different?
And what about those families who take their kids out of school to go on holiday? Quality family time vs kids must study? Personally, I am with the family time. Given the lack of opportunity in many families who have to work full time.
I wholeheartedly agree, but we harm our kids in all sorts of ways. In fact, now I think about it, my Physics teacher took a calculated risk and didn't teach us a whole section on the syllabus, instead focussing in more depth on the rest. Alas, his gamble did not pay off and the questions on the missing section came up. Perhaps what he did was no different?
And what about those families who take their kids out of school to go on holiday? Quality family time vs kids must study? Personally, I am with the family time. Given the lack of opportunity in many families who have to work full time.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
One of the biggest obstacles to educational attainment is child poverty. This dramatically increased under your beloved Mrs T.
I'll leave it there.
One of the biggest obstacles to educational attainment is child poverty. This dramatically increased under your beloved Mrs T.
I'll leave it there.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Given that for a public examination in a school, the exam boards require that the sealed packs containing the exam papers must be opened in front of the students, must not be opened prior to the examination under any circumstances, and the papers must be distributed unopened immediately to the candidates, I can't see how this can happen. All schools are subject to unannounced "spot checks" by examinations inspectors who go through the whole process with a fine-toothed comb, so if this is going on, somebody is in breach of professional standards and is liable to disciplinary action.
Given that for a public examination in a school, the exam boards require that the sealed packs containing the exam papers must be opened in front of the students, must not be opened prior to the examination under any circumstances, and the papers must be distributed unopened immediately to the candidates, I can't see how this can happen. All schools are subject to unannounced "spot checks" by examinations inspectors who go through the whole process with a fine-toothed comb, so if this is going on, somebody is in breach of professional standards and is liable to disciplinary action.
In reply to MG:
That, I would say would depend on the school and on the particular religious community that they represent. I think several schools would answer yes to both your questions.
> Are all the parents happy (or do they even know) about this?
That, I would say would depend on the school and on the particular religious community that they represent. I think several schools would answer yes to both your questions.
In reply to seankenny:
The relevance of Mrs T to the subject at hand?
> One of the biggest obstacles to educational attainment is child poverty. This dramatically increased under your beloved Mrs T.
> I'll leave it there.
The relevance of Mrs T to the subject at hand?
In reply to seankenny:
You're mistaken, Mrs T is not my "beloved". Anyhow, measures of "poverty" are mostly political propaganda.
> This dramatically increased under your beloved Mrs T.
You're mistaken, Mrs T is not my "beloved". Anyhow, measures of "poverty" are mostly political propaganda.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There's a real issue with teaching biology in the US where some schools refuse to teach evolution. If you want a career in biology then an understanding of the fundamental processes that drive life is essential. Basically, these kids careers are being cut short at the outset.
The press have reported on this though
There's a real issue with teaching biology in the US where some schools refuse to teach evolution. If you want a career in biology then an understanding of the fundamental processes that drive life is essential. Basically, these kids careers are being cut short at the outset.
The press have reported on this though
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You're mistaken, Mrs T is not my "beloved". Anyhow, measures of "poverty" are mostly political propaganda.
Corrected that for you.
No doubt it will help during your Easter competition.
> This dramatically increased under your belusted Mrs T.
You're mistaken, Mrs T is not my "beloved". Anyhow, measures of "poverty" are mostly political propaganda.
Corrected that for you.
No doubt it will help during your Easter competition.
In reply to hang_about:
This is true. But we do this with all aspects of our kids lives. We as climbers are more likely to have kids who are into climbing. You could therefore argue that we are cutting short their careers prospects in the worlds of football or motor racing.
I am not saying what the schools are doing is right, but I am not quite sure where the line should be drawn.
> If you want a career in biology then an understanding of the fundamental processes that drive life is essential. Basically, these kids careers are being cut short at the outset.
This is true. But we do this with all aspects of our kids lives. We as climbers are more likely to have kids who are into climbing. You could therefore argue that we are cutting short their careers prospects in the worlds of football or motor racing.
I am not saying what the schools are doing is right, but I am not quite sure where the line should be drawn.
If we're talking GCSE papers, then they're required to be kept 'securely' and when the sealed packet is opened, a signature of the person responsible and a witness is required, presumably to prevent tampering.
In reply to ByEek:
Coel is sure. Very sure.
Fundos always know where to draw the line and who is on the right side of it.
> I am not quite sure where the line should be drawn.
Coel is sure. Very sure.
Fundos always know where to draw the line and who is on the right side of it.
In reply to seankenny:
Well quite. I must admit I see little difference between the sort of stuff he spouts and that of my Jehovah's Witness relatives. Just at opposite ends of the spectrum.
> Coel is sure. Very sure.
> Fundos always know where to draw the line and who is on the right side of it.
Well quite. I must admit I see little difference between the sort of stuff he spouts and that of my Jehovah's Witness relatives. Just at opposite ends of the spectrum.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Afraid the ultimate responsibility must lie with the parents for choosing to send their kids to this school in the first place (supply and demand).
Also, putting the matter in context, we must presume the same set of values will be continued in the home and religious community so the schools point of view will seem quite natural to the kids. They literally don't know what they're missing out on.
A friend of mine is a genetics professor. He told me that he recently had some incredibly bright and articulate PHD students that are in absolute denial of evolution (because of their religious views), even when reproducing the process with fruit flies or bacteria.
Afraid the ultimate responsibility must lie with the parents for choosing to send their kids to this school in the first place (supply and demand).
Also, putting the matter in context, we must presume the same set of values will be continued in the home and religious community so the schools point of view will seem quite natural to the kids. They literally don't know what they're missing out on.
A friend of mine is a genetics professor. He told me that he recently had some incredibly bright and articulate PHD students that are in absolute denial of evolution (because of their religious views), even when reproducing the process with fruit flies or bacteria.
In reply to seankenny:
Yes. Schools paid for by the taxpayer should not censor science for religious reasons. I am indeed sure of that.
> Coel is sure. Very sure.
Yes. Schools paid for by the taxpayer should not censor science for religious reasons. I am indeed sure of that.
In reply to ByEek:
Can you give actual examples?
> I must admit I see little difference between the sort of stuff he spouts and that of my Jehovah's Witness relatives.
Can you give actual examples?
In reply to FrankBooth:
Well no, if it were a private school you might have a point, but this is a taxpayer-funded school, and the government has a large responsibility for the schools that it provides and pays for from taxation.
Exactly the problem.
> Afraid the ultimate responsibility must lie with the parents for choosing to send their kids to this school in the first place ...
Well no, if it were a private school you might have a point, but this is a taxpayer-funded school, and the government has a large responsibility for the schools that it provides and pays for from taxation.
> They literally don't know what they're missing out on.
Exactly the problem.
In reply to seankenny:
No, not in state schools.
> Is it okay to censor science for reasons of private profit?
No, not in state schools.
In reply to seankenny:
It that some kind of exciting fondu? Perhaps made with pink elephants instead of cheese?
> Doesn't make you any less of a fundo tho.
It that some kind of exciting fondu? Perhaps made with pink elephants instead of cheese?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Surely the teaching of science, or any other subject, to a minimum standard should be non-negotiable in any school, regardless of who the provider is? Or what's to stop me setting up the Bob Crow Socialist Saarf London Free School in which I teach the children of union leaders that Stalin gave his political opponents lollypops and a big hug?
> Well no, if it were a private school you might have a point
Surely the teaching of science, or any other subject, to a minimum standard should be non-negotiable in any school, regardless of who the provider is? Or what's to stop me setting up the Bob Crow Socialist Saarf London Free School in which I teach the children of union leaders that Stalin gave his political opponents lollypops and a big hug?
In reply to seankenny:
I agree. But I would also think that the acceptable minimum standard for a private school or home schooling could be different from what the government expects in in schools that it pays for.
> Surely the teaching of science, or any other subject, to a minimum standard should be non-negotiable in any school, regardless of who the provider is?
I agree. But I would also think that the acceptable minimum standard for a private school or home schooling could be different from what the government expects in in schools that it pays for.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That position is fine, if you believe that the "market" in education will alone ensure higher standards. Of course it often does, but here is most definitely doesn't, so you either have to concede that the market isn't working properly, or that some children will be educated poorly. Not being ideologically wedded to the supremacy of the markets, for me it's a no-brainer.
That position is fine, if you believe that the "market" in education will alone ensure higher standards. Of course it often does, but here is most definitely doesn't, so you either have to concede that the market isn't working properly, or that some children will be educated poorly. Not being ideologically wedded to the supremacy of the markets, for me it's a no-brainer.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I am not sure I agree. Surely the government is as much responsible for ensuring a minimum standard of education for all as it is for ensuring value for money in education spending.
> I agree. But I would also think that the acceptable minimum standard for a private school or home schooling could be different from what the government expects in in schools that it pays for.
I am not sure I agree. Surely the government is as much responsible for ensuring a minimum standard of education for all as it is for ensuring value for money in education spending.
In reply to seankenny:
You could get Bruce Hooker and Shona in to give guest lectures..
> Surely the teaching of science, or any other subject, to a minimum standard should be non-negotiable in any school, regardless of who the provider is? Or what's to stop me setting up the Bob Crow Socialist Saarf London Free School in which I teach the children of union leaders that Stalin gave his political opponents lollypops and a big hug?
You could get Bruce Hooker and Shona in to give guest lectures..
In reply to FrankBooth:
20 years ago, when I was a physics post-doc, I worked for a time with two others, one of whom is now a professor of physics himself, the other I lost track of. Both were hot shots at the time, publishing in Nature, ably defending themselves against ferocious attacks in seminars etc. Both were also highly religious christians, one born-again (whatever that means), the other an orhodox russian church goer, and both, over lunch together once, vehemently denied to me the possibility of evolution by natural selection. It was surreal, like talking to the most out and out alternative medicine freaks, and especially so when lunch ended, the subject changed and normal physics knockabout resumed.
> A friend of mine is a genetics professor. He told me that he recently had some incredibly bright and articulate PHD students that are in absolute denial of evolution (because of their religious views), even when reproducing the process with fruit flies or bacteria.
20 years ago, when I was a physics post-doc, I worked for a time with two others, one of whom is now a professor of physics himself, the other I lost track of. Both were hot shots at the time, publishing in Nature, ably defending themselves against ferocious attacks in seminars etc. Both were also highly religious christians, one born-again (whatever that means), the other an orhodox russian church goer, and both, over lunch together once, vehemently denied to me the possibility of evolution by natural selection. It was surreal, like talking to the most out and out alternative medicine freaks, and especially so when lunch ended, the subject changed and normal physics knockabout resumed.
Post edited at 18:32
In reply to off-duty:
I've got news for you. Bob Crow was a lifelong apologist for and supporter of capitalism.
On the matter of faith skools, no sane society would tolerate them. Then again, no sane society would tolerate what passes for education in wider society.
I've got news for you. Bob Crow was a lifelong apologist for and supporter of capitalism.
On the matter of faith skools, no sane society would tolerate them. Then again, no sane society would tolerate what passes for education in wider society.
In reply to Chambers:
Apparently he had a very good sense of humour as well.
> I've got news for you. Bob Crow was a lifelong apologist for and supporter of capitalism.
Apparently he had a very good sense of humour as well.
In reply to Chambers:
> I've got news for you. Bob Crow was a lifelong apologist for and supporter of capitalism.
>
Yo, you're back! In reply to off-duty:
Yeah, he spent half his life cracking the same old joke at the expense of workers. 'Of course capitalism can be reformed in your interests, comrades.' About as funny as Arfwit Scargill.
Yeah, he spent half his life cracking the same old joke at the expense of workers. 'Of course capitalism can be reformed in your interests, comrades.' About as funny as Arfwit Scargill.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Absolutely outrageous. Can I assume we are talking about a madresa in Taliban Afghanistan or suchlike?
Absolutely outrageous. Can I assume we are talking about a madresa in Taliban Afghanistan or suchlike?
In reply to Robert Durran:
As it happens, no. It seems to be a girls school in London that's started this. The school is a "voluntary aided school" so part funded by the state, part funded by a religious foundation.
It also seems that it was done with the knowledge of the GCSE exam board and that's probably how they got round the messing with exam papers problem.
As it happens, no. It seems to be a girls school in London that's started this. The school is a "voluntary aided school" so part funded by the state, part funded by a religious foundation.
It also seems that it was done with the knowledge of the GCSE exam board and that's probably how they got round the messing with exam papers problem.
In reply to ByEek:
That's a daft argument, if you don't mind me saying so, this is about providing children with a decent education.
Motor racing is not a key part of a child's education.
> This is true. But we do this with all aspects of our kids lives. We as climbers are more likely to have kids who are into climbing. You could therefore argue that we are cutting short their careers prospects in the worlds of football or motor racing.
> I am not saying what the schools are doing is right, but I am not quite sure where the line should be drawn.
That's a daft argument, if you don't mind me saying so, this is about providing children with a decent education.
Motor racing is not a key part of a child's education.
In reply to seankenny:
You seem determined to take this thread off-topic. What has markets (in education or otherwise) got to do with anything I've said on this thread?
> That position is fine, if you believe that the "market" in education will alone ensure higher standards.
You seem determined to take this thread off-topic. What has markets (in education or otherwise) got to do with anything I've said on this thread?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
How in any way shape or form can it be considered "fair"? The madness of "Faith" knows no bounds, I'm hoping Chris O'Dowd's dream comes true;
O'Dowd has told Britain's GQ magazine: "For most of my life, I've been, 'Hey, I'm not into it, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want'. But as time goes on, weirdly, I'm growing less liberal. I'm more like, 'No, religion is ruining the world, you need to stop!'.
"There's going to be a turning point where it's going to be like racism. You know, 'You're not allowed to say that weird s**t! It's mad! And you're making everybody crazy!'
"And you know, now America can't have a president that doesn't say he believes in God. So we're f**ked! Like, they f**ked everything!
"You wanna go and live in your weird cult and talk about a man who lives in a cloud, you do that, but don't. I mean, you really think that Barack Obama believes in God? No way!"
> Is all this fair on the pupils?
How in any way shape or form can it be considered "fair"? The madness of "Faith" knows no bounds, I'm hoping Chris O'Dowd's dream comes true;
O'Dowd has told Britain's GQ magazine: "For most of my life, I've been, 'Hey, I'm not into it, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want'. But as time goes on, weirdly, I'm growing less liberal. I'm more like, 'No, religion is ruining the world, you need to stop!'.
"There's going to be a turning point where it's going to be like racism. You know, 'You're not allowed to say that weird s**t! It's mad! And you're making everybody crazy!'
"And you know, now America can't have a president that doesn't say he believes in God. So we're f**ked! Like, they f**ked everything!
"You wanna go and live in your weird cult and talk about a man who lives in a cloud, you do that, but don't. I mean, you really think that Barack Obama believes in God? No way!"
Post edited at 22:16
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Following this from when it first broke, the exam board was very bullish about it at the time, as interferring with exam papers is a no-no.
Since then the school have been able to put the case that forcing them to use papers that include religiously offensive words (like Evolution) or forcing them to create their own exam board would be exclusionary and racist.
Everyone then buckled.
Following this from when it first broke, the exam board was very bullish about it at the time, as interferring with exam papers is a no-no.
Since then the school have been able to put the case that forcing them to use papers that include religiously offensive words (like Evolution) or forcing them to create their own exam board would be exclusionary and racist.
Everyone then buckled.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Absolutely not. And a perfect example of what is wrong with letting niche schools decide on how they teach education
Absolutely not. And a perfect example of what is wrong with letting niche schools decide on how they teach education
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Of course. They knock on doors spreading the "truth"... and handing out copies of The Signal. Every religious thread on here - there you are spreading the "truth", with links and references to material of course. There is no difference. Each is equally unpalatable, predictable, tiresome and dull.
> Can you give actual examples?
Of course. They knock on doors spreading the "truth"... and handing out copies of The Signal. Every religious thread on here - there you are spreading the "truth", with links and references to material of course. There is no difference. Each is equally unpalatable, predictable, tiresome and dull.
Post edited at 08:49
In reply to Timmd:
Why is it a daft argument? When I was a school (standard comp) you only did Physics and Chemistry in year 7. You then did two years of biology at which point you could drop it. I dropped it. So I have little or no biology knowledge. Believe me - I get by. I only did one year of history and one year of Latin. Surely such policies have severely hampered my options to read classics or ancient history? You can't do everything in life and as parents we push and influence our kids in one way or another whether we think we are doing it or not. This is no different.
The only thing that has brought this onto the radar is because it is being motivated by religious beliefs. Any other sort of motivation according to you is just daft.
> That's a daft argument, if you don't mind me saying so, this is about providing children with a decent education.
Why is it a daft argument? When I was a school (standard comp) you only did Physics and Chemistry in year 7. You then did two years of biology at which point you could drop it. I dropped it. So I have little or no biology knowledge. Believe me - I get by. I only did one year of history and one year of Latin. Surely such policies have severely hampered my options to read classics or ancient history? You can't do everything in life and as parents we push and influence our kids in one way or another whether we think we are doing it or not. This is no different.
The only thing that has brought this onto the radar is because it is being motivated by religious beliefs. Any other sort of motivation according to you is just daft.
Post edited at 09:00
In reply to ByEek:
I other words, your school gave you a choice. Censoring an exam paper, having taught a blinkered version of the syllabus, while all the time claiming they're teaching science, is not quite the same thing.
> You then did two years of biology at which point you could drop it. I dropped it.
I other words, your school gave you a choice. Censoring an exam paper, having taught a blinkered version of the syllabus, while all the time claiming they're teaching science, is not quite the same thing.
In reply to knthrak1982:
But it kind of is. As I stated above, my physics teacher missed a whole section so that he could focus on the rest of the syllabus. Similarly, text books are often weighted in favour of one argument or another. Similarly, our parents subliminally persuade us to do one thing but not the other. As parents we have a lot of influence over what our kids learn and how they think. This is only a part of that.
As stated before, I am not justifying it, but it is nothing particularly new and given that there are no complaints from the people involved I don't see why it is an issue.
The only issue is that a school is purposely promoting religious views that you don't agree with. Nothing more and nothing less. Otherwise you would be lambasting my physics teacher for missing out a whole section of the syllabus who effectively did the same thing - just not with a religious context.
> I other words, your school gave you a choice. Censoring an exam paper, having taught a blinkered version of the syllabus, while all the time claiming they're teaching science, is not quite the same thing.
But it kind of is. As I stated above, my physics teacher missed a whole section so that he could focus on the rest of the syllabus. Similarly, text books are often weighted in favour of one argument or another. Similarly, our parents subliminally persuade us to do one thing but not the other. As parents we have a lot of influence over what our kids learn and how they think. This is only a part of that.
As stated before, I am not justifying it, but it is nothing particularly new and given that there are no complaints from the people involved I don't see why it is an issue.
The only issue is that a school is purposely promoting religious views that you don't agree with. Nothing more and nothing less. Otherwise you would be lambasting my physics teacher for missing out a whole section of the syllabus who effectively did the same thing - just not with a religious context.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm all in favour of faith schools having the option of redacting science exams, providing that they can submit evidence against the questions that they disapprove of using scientific method.
I'm all in favour of faith schools having the option of redacting science exams, providing that they can submit evidence against the questions that they disapprove of using scientific method.
In reply to ByEek:
No. I don't care about their religion. My issue is that to redact an exam paper, and to censor any opposed opinion, is fundamentally unscientific and should not be called science. I have a further issue with the government condoning such behaviour.
I would do so, and would hope the government and LEAs would be trying to creak down on such methods.
>
> The only issue is that a school is purposely promoting religious views that you don't agree with. Nothing more and nothing less.
> The only issue is that a school is purposely promoting religious views that you don't agree with. Nothing more and nothing less.
No. I don't care about their religion. My issue is that to redact an exam paper, and to censor any opposed opinion, is fundamentally unscientific and should not be called science. I have a further issue with the government condoning such behaviour.
> Otherwise you would be lambasting my physics teacher for missing out a whole section of the syllabus who effectively did the same thing - just not with a religious context.
I would do so, and would hope the government and LEAs would be trying to creak down on such methods.
In reply to knthrak1982:
So how do you feel about the fact that my physics teacher decided not to teach us a whole section of the syllabus? Or that my physics and chemistry text books were decidedly pro-nuclear power, or that I didn't learn about the holocaust in the two years of history teaching I had or the fact that in 13 years of education, not once was I taught anything about business (something I quite resent)? All purposeful decisions taken by educationalists that impacted on my education or lack of it.
Or is this acceptable because none of these decisions were motivated by religious belief?
> No. I don't care about their religion. My issue is that to redact an exam paper, and to censor any opposed opinion, is fundamentally unscientific and should not be called science. I have a further issue with the government condoning such behaviour.
So how do you feel about the fact that my physics teacher decided not to teach us a whole section of the syllabus? Or that my physics and chemistry text books were decidedly pro-nuclear power, or that I didn't learn about the holocaust in the two years of history teaching I had or the fact that in 13 years of education, not once was I taught anything about business (something I quite resent)? All purposeful decisions taken by educationalists that impacted on my education or lack of it.
Or is this acceptable because none of these decisions were motivated by religious belief?
In reply to ByEek:
No. What you've described is not acceptable, and I haven't said otherwise. Take your nuclear power example. Imagine you were given an exam paper asking you to list its disadvantages. You would quite rightly be annoyed with your school for not presenting a balanced view point and thus not prepared you adequately to sit the exam.
Consider however the exam did ask that question, but your school redacted it. You couldn't even attempt to answer the question because you couldn't read it. Imagine then that the exam board and government saying "Oh we're fine with that. The schools political views out weigh the pupil's right to an all rounded education."
That's the parallel scenario here. The difference is that this behaviour is only condoned so openly when religion is concerned.
No. What you've described is not acceptable, and I haven't said otherwise. Take your nuclear power example. Imagine you were given an exam paper asking you to list its disadvantages. You would quite rightly be annoyed with your school for not presenting a balanced view point and thus not prepared you adequately to sit the exam.
Consider however the exam did ask that question, but your school redacted it. You couldn't even attempt to answer the question because you couldn't read it. Imagine then that the exam board and government saying "Oh we're fine with that. The schools political views out weigh the pupil's right to an all rounded education."
That's the parallel scenario here. The difference is that this behaviour is only condoned so openly when religion is concerned.
In reply to ByEek:
It's probably not the best way to have an unheated debate, to say what somebody has said is daft, so I apologise for that.
Or options to read biology, I suppose.
The important difference is that you were able to choose to drop biology. If some children going to a religious school, who happen to be very interested and talented in science, have their education in science negatively affected due to the policy of the school removing certain things from the exam, can you not see how this is wrong?
I don't understand what you're saying, about my thinking any other motivation is daft? I'm saying I don't think motor racing and science are comparable.
I actually don't think religion is the bad thing which some do on here (and in any case, it isn't going to go away), but I do think the lack of an element of choice on behalf of the children sitting the exams is.
There could be (Will be?) children who are talented at science who are having their educations affected. Though, children being disadvantaged form going to schools which aren't as good isn't fair either, so they both need addressing, I think. I'm not just picking on religion.
It's probably not the best way to have an unheated debate, to say what somebody has said is daft, so I apologise for that.
> Why is it a daft argument? When I was a school (standard comp) you only did Physics and Chemistry in year 7. You then did two years of biology at which point you could drop it. I dropped it. So I have little or no biology knowledge. Believe me - I get by. I only did one year of history and one year of Latin. Surely such policies have severely hampered my options to read classics or ancient history?
Or options to read biology, I suppose.
The important difference is that you were able to choose to drop biology. If some children going to a religious school, who happen to be very interested and talented in science, have their education in science negatively affected due to the policy of the school removing certain things from the exam, can you not see how this is wrong?
> The only thing that has brought this onto the radar is because it is being motivated by religious beliefs. Any other sort of motivation according to you is just daft.
I don't understand what you're saying, about my thinking any other motivation is daft? I'm saying I don't think motor racing and science are comparable.
I actually don't think religion is the bad thing which some do on here (and in any case, it isn't going to go away), but I do think the lack of an element of choice on behalf of the children sitting the exams is.
There could be (Will be?) children who are talented at science who are having their educations affected. Though, children being disadvantaged form going to schools which aren't as good isn't fair either, so they both need addressing, I think. I'm not just picking on religion.
Post edited at 11:42
In reply to knthrak1982:
Exactly. The rub here is that there is a disagreement over how you define "rounded education".
I think the first 1 min 45 of this video from one of my favourite TV science presenters puts my across my view very succinctly.
youtube.com/watch?v=3d23B-R2-qw&
Education will always be biased. Biased towards a particular view, a religious belief, the current trend of thinking. There is no such thing as a rounded education and even if there was, what is it? How do you define it?
> The schools political views out weigh the pupil's right to an all rounded education.
Exactly. The rub here is that there is a disagreement over how you define "rounded education".
I think the first 1 min 45 of this video from one of my favourite TV science presenters puts my across my view very succinctly.
youtube.com/watch?v=3d23B-R2-qw&
Education will always be biased. Biased towards a particular view, a religious belief, the current trend of thinking. There is no such thing as a rounded education and even if there was, what is it? How do you define it?
In reply to ByEek:
I would describe it as an education where opposing points of view are discussed rather than ignored, or worse actively censored.
> There is no such thing as a rounded education and even if there was, what is it? How do you define it?
I would describe it as an education where opposing points of view are discussed rather than ignored, or worse actively censored.
In reply to ByEek:
Shouldn't schools at least be trying to provide a (more) rounded education, though?
> Education will always be biased. Biased towards a particular view, a religious belief, the current trend of thinking. There is no such thing as a rounded education and even if there was, what is it? How do you define it?
Shouldn't schools at least be trying to provide a (more) rounded education, though?
Post edited at 11:54
In reply to knthrak1982:
Exactly.
> I would describe it as an education where opposing points of view are discussed rather than ignored, or worse actively censored.
Exactly.
It is very simple really, "flat earthers" shouldn't be allowed to run schools - or at the very least shouldn't receive a drop of state funding.
In reply to knthrak1982:
I fair point and well made. But I can't help feeling that some on here feel that there is no compromise over the fact that faith schools should teach evolution as fact and religion as fiction. A view I partially agree with, but the reality is that it simply isn't going to happen. And the bottom line is that if this is what those in that world want to do, there isn't a whole lot you and I can do about it.
I always remember going bowling with a Born Again Christian at sixth form. She was going on to do Biology at Birmingham Uni. I asked her about her views on the then new science of genetic engineering. "I don't want to talk about that" she replied cutting the discussion off dead.
What can you do? If that is her position, no amount of barracking or shouting or asking questions in parliament is going to change things. She was happy with her position and why should I care? Her view is on the margins of what is generally accepted so I don't let it bother me. I have bigger things to worry about.
> I would describe it as an education where opposing points of view are discussed rather than ignored, or worse actively censored.
I fair point and well made. But I can't help feeling that some on here feel that there is no compromise over the fact that faith schools should teach evolution as fact and religion as fiction. A view I partially agree with, but the reality is that it simply isn't going to happen. And the bottom line is that if this is what those in that world want to do, there isn't a whole lot you and I can do about it.
I always remember going bowling with a Born Again Christian at sixth form. She was going on to do Biology at Birmingham Uni. I asked her about her views on the then new science of genetic engineering. "I don't want to talk about that" she replied cutting the discussion off dead.
What can you do? If that is her position, no amount of barracking or shouting or asking questions in parliament is going to change things. She was happy with her position and why should I care? Her view is on the margins of what is generally accepted so I don't let it bother me. I have bigger things to worry about.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Is all this fair on the pupils?
Of course it isn't. But mostly fundamentalist religion is unfair by definition, how on earth we can put up with state funding going towards it baffles me.
Is all this fair on the pupils?
Of course it isn't. But mostly fundamentalist religion is unfair by definition, how on earth we can put up with state funding going towards it baffles me.
In reply to Al Evans:
Agreed. But tradition and a high demand for faith schooling by the people who vote for the people who implement this stuff might go some way to explaining things. Alas, in a democracy we can't have our way all the time.
> Of course it isn't. But mostly fundamentalist religion is unfair by definition, how on earth we can put up with state funding going towards it baffles me.
Agreed. But tradition and a high demand for faith schooling by the people who vote for the people who implement this stuff might go some way to explaining things. Alas, in a democracy we can't have our way all the time.
In reply to ByEek:
No, but we should be able to vote for it!
> Agreed. But tradition and a high demand for faith schooling by the people who vote for the people who implement this stuff might go some way to explaining things. Alas, in a democracy we can't have our way all the time.
No, but we should be able to vote for it!
In reply to Al Evans:
We did. And the Tories got in complete with their pro-faith school stance and the implementation of their manifesto policy on free schools.
Not that I agree with any of this, but democracy is democracy.
> No, but we should be able to vote for it!
We did. And the Tories got in complete with their pro-faith school stance and the implementation of their manifesto policy on free schools.
Not that I agree with any of this, but democracy is democracy.
In reply to Al Evans:
Surely if it's so bad it should have no place in any school, regardless of who funded it?
> Is all this fair on the pupils?
> Of course it isn't. But mostly fundamentalist religion is unfair by definition, how on earth we can put up with state funding going towards it baffles me.
Surely if it's so bad it should have no place in any school, regardless of who funded it?
In reply to ByEek:
On a large range of thread topics, politics for example, one can predict who will choose to participate in the threads and what line they're likely to take. So, by your argument they are all "fundamentalists". I think you make the term pretty meaningless by that argument.
> {JWs] knock on doors spreading the "truth"... and handing out copies of The Signal. Every religious
> thread on here - there you are spreading the "truth", with links and references to material
> of course. There is no difference. Each is equally unpalatable, predictable, tiresome and dull.
> thread on here - there you are spreading the "truth", with links and references to material
> of course. There is no difference. Each is equally unpalatable, predictable, tiresome and dull.
On a large range of thread topics, politics for example, one can predict who will choose to participate in the threads and what line they're likely to take. So, by your argument they are all "fundamentalists". I think you make the term pretty meaningless by that argument.
In reply to seankenny:
There is a big difference between something being not good enough that the state wants to fund it, and so bad that the state wants to ban it entirely.
> Surely if it's so bad it should have no place in any school, regardless of who funded it?
There is a big difference between something being not good enough that the state wants to fund it, and so bad that the state wants to ban it entirely.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Unfair….. the pupils don't get a chance to showcase their knowledge and are therefore disadvantaged.
The redacted science questions should be replaced by alternatives such as formulas for transubstantiation and the turning of water into wine at weddings etc etc.
Unfair….. the pupils don't get a chance to showcase their knowledge and are therefore disadvantaged.
The redacted science questions should be replaced by alternatives such as formulas for transubstantiation and the turning of water into wine at weddings etc etc.
In reply to birdie num num:
It was a jewish school, they'd have more chance just guessing the evilution stuff.
> Unfair….. the pupils don't get a chance to showcase their knowledge and are therefore disadvantaged.
> The redacted science questions should be replaced by alternatives such as formulas for transubstantiation and the turning of water into wine at weddings etc etc.
It was a jewish school, they'd have more chance just guessing the evilution stuff.
In reply to winhill:
Even if they'd not been taught it at school that doesn't mean their parents hadn't taught them at home.
Even if they'd not been taught it at school that doesn't mean their parents hadn't taught them at home.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Do you think that it's fair for pupils to study astrophysics under a tutor who thinks that capitalism - a system of society that is based on the exploitation of the vast majority by a tiny minority who have expropriated the common heritage of all of humanity for themselves - can be adjusted to serve the interests of those that it enslaves?
Do you think that it's fair for pupils to study astrophysics under a tutor who thinks that capitalism - a system of society that is based on the exploitation of the vast majority by a tiny minority who have expropriated the common heritage of all of humanity for themselves - can be adjusted to serve the interests of those that it enslaves?
In reply to Chambers:
Whilst I am far from an expert on astrophysics I suspect it doesnt come up that often in the lectures and hence his views on capitalism are irrelevant.
Could be wrong though, he may talk about a new planet and then start hypothesising that not only does it have life but also capitalism.
> Do you think that it's fair for pupils to study astrophysics under a tutor who thinks that capitalism ........
Whilst I am far from an expert on astrophysics I suspect it doesnt come up that often in the lectures and hence his views on capitalism are irrelevant.
Could be wrong though, he may talk about a new planet and then start hypothesising that not only does it have life but also capitalism.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not quite:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-26437882
but you are right....very little attention.
> Meanwhile the mainstream press take no interest in this issue.
Not quite:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-26437882
but you are right....very little attention.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You are an extremely tedious little man.
No complaints have been made by students or parents. Real faith schools i.e. ones that are very specifically Christian or whatever religion are always completely open about their practises.
Why can't you just accept that people choose to bring up their children how they wish.
We've gathered from previous posts that you have neither children or faith so I'm not quite sure why you have any real interest in this.
You are an extremely tedious little man.
No complaints have been made by students or parents. Real faith schools i.e. ones that are very specifically Christian or whatever religion are always completely open about their practises.
Why can't you just accept that people choose to bring up their children how they wish.
We've gathered from previous posts that you have neither children or faith so I'm not quite sure why you have any real interest in this.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Absolutely yes. and a perfect example of how allowing niche schools to decide how they teach education (within certain confines) allows for a broad and rich scope of upbringing, ideas and perspective which makes our society a better and more tolerant place.
> Absolutely not. And a perfect example of what is wrong with letting niche schools decide on how they teach education
Absolutely yes. and a perfect example of how allowing niche schools to decide how they teach education (within certain confines) allows for a broad and rich scope of upbringing, ideas and perspective which makes our society a better and more tolerant place.
In reply to Clauso:
Perhaps the redaction just appeared, miraculously?
> I'm all in favour of faith schools having the option of redacting science exams, providing that they can submit evidence against the questions that they disapprove of using scientific method.
Perhaps the redaction just appeared, miraculously?
In reply to tatty112:
I take it you didn't go to one yourself?
I don't normally pay much attention to anything you say, but one recent post of yours sticks in my mind:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=579237&v=1#x7688505
"I say give Scotland their independance [sic], withdraw all central government support and services immediately and then we can have a good old laugh at the normal Scots in the street bitching about the cost of living and the level of tax going through the roof for them."
> Absolutely yes. and a perfect example of how allowing niche schools to decide how they teach education (within certain confines) allows for a broad and rich scope of upbringing, ideas and perspective which makes our society a better and more tolerant place.
I take it you didn't go to one yourself?
I don't normally pay much attention to anything you say, but one recent post of yours sticks in my mind:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=579237&v=1#x7688505
"I say give Scotland their independance [sic], withdraw all central government support and services immediately and then we can have a good old laugh at the normal Scots in the street bitching about the cost of living and the level of tax going through the roof for them."
In reply to tatty112:
I think that's unfair. Coel is far from tedious. Can't comment on his physical stature, though.
Look, if it's the case that no parents have complained then that's nothing more than a reflection of how people currently tend not to question the way things are. Is cannibalism acceptable? Or any other inhuman practice that goes on in a particular cultural context?
Is it acceptable for parents to raise stupefied, anti-social children? And are they really choosing?
And why should the fact that someone has no children preclude them from having an opinion on the way in which society is organised?
Now, I have some fundamental disagreements with Coel on what I think are very important questions, not least his defence of an insane social system. And I think that there's a slight inconsistency in his position on this subject. But to suggest that he has nothing to say on the matter because he has no faith nor offspring is quite ridiculous. Does the fact that I am - amongst other things - a militant anti-theist preclude me from having a point of view about the indoctrination of small people with unscientific garbage if that then leads to an inevitable degradation of the human condition? I think not.
I think that's unfair. Coel is far from tedious. Can't comment on his physical stature, though.
Look, if it's the case that no parents have complained then that's nothing more than a reflection of how people currently tend not to question the way things are. Is cannibalism acceptable? Or any other inhuman practice that goes on in a particular cultural context?
Is it acceptable for parents to raise stupefied, anti-social children? And are they really choosing?
And why should the fact that someone has no children preclude them from having an opinion on the way in which society is organised?
Now, I have some fundamental disagreements with Coel on what I think are very important questions, not least his defence of an insane social system. And I think that there's a slight inconsistency in his position on this subject. But to suggest that he has nothing to say on the matter because he has no faith nor offspring is quite ridiculous. Does the fact that I am - amongst other things - a militant anti-theist preclude me from having a point of view about the indoctrination of small people with unscientific garbage if that then leads to an inevitable degradation of the human condition? I think not.
In reply to tatty112:
And these "confines" don't extend in your view to allowing them to sit unadulterated exam papers?
allows for a broad and rich scope of upbringing, ideas and perspective which makes our society a better and more tolerant place.
How does redacting certain questions and ignoring topics result in "rich...ideas and perspective? It will have just the opposite effect.
> Absolutely yes. and a perfect example of how allowing niche schools to decide how they teach education (within certain confines)
And these "confines" don't extend in your view to allowing them to sit unadulterated exam papers?
allows for a broad and rich scope of upbringing, ideas and perspective which makes our society a better and more tolerant place.
How does redacting certain questions and ignoring topics result in "rich...ideas and perspective? It will have just the opposite effect.
In reply to tatty112:
Including refusing them medical treatment, flogging them half-to-death, sending them to work in sweatshops at age 8, et cetera? Sorry, but we've moved beyond those times. Children have rights of their own.
> Why can't you just accept that people choose to bring up their children how they wish.
Including refusing them medical treatment, flogging them half-to-death, sending them to work in sweatshops at age 8, et cetera? Sorry, but we've moved beyond those times. Children have rights of their own.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Why ask the question? It's completely bone headed for all sorts of reasons. Of course science topics shouldn't be excluded, so they should be being taught, exam Q answered, and then marked! However, the exam board are undermining pupils if they also say it's okay for the questions to be blacked out and then awards no marks to those pupils?! It's not the damn pupils fault! I'd have thought being okay with it, would mean excluding such questions in final marking of those student papers.
Why ask the question? It's completely bone headed for all sorts of reasons. Of course science topics shouldn't be excluded, so they should be being taught, exam Q answered, and then marked! However, the exam board are undermining pupils if they also say it's okay for the questions to be blacked out and then awards no marks to those pupils?! It's not the damn pupils fault! I'd have thought being okay with it, would mean excluding such questions in final marking of those student papers.
In reply to Chambers:
I'm impressed by the attempts to steer this thread towards markets and capitalism!
However: the idea that we are 99% destitute serfs and 1% fat-cat capitalist masters may have been roughly true in Victorian times but is true no longer. Today the vast swathe of the middle classes have a vast swathe of wealth and influence. Further, capitalist/market economies may not be perfect, but no other system has been demonstrated to produce better results.
> ... capitalism - a system of society that is based on the exploitation of the vast majority by a tiny minority who have expropriated the common heritage of all of humanity for themselves
I'm impressed by the attempts to steer this thread towards markets and capitalism!
However: the idea that we are 99% destitute serfs and 1% fat-cat capitalist masters may have been roughly true in Victorian times but is true no longer. Today the vast swathe of the middle classes have a vast swathe of wealth and influence. Further, capitalist/market economies may not be perfect, but no other system has been demonstrated to produce better results.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You're clearly too libertarian for your own blood pressure.
> There is a big difference between something being not good enough that the state wants to fund it, and so bad that the state wants to ban it entirely.
You're clearly too libertarian for your own blood pressure.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't think it's right that exam questions be censored for faith reasons. I'm not religious but I happened to attend a Church of England junior school because it was the nearest one. They would do a religious based assembly most mornings and teach about the bible - mostly new testament. I can't say I agreed that Jesus was the son of God but some of the moral principles make a lot of sense. My school kept this completely separate from normal lessons so I don't see why this 'faith' school can't do the same.
I don't think it's right that exam questions be censored for faith reasons. I'm not religious but I happened to attend a Church of England junior school because it was the nearest one. They would do a religious based assembly most mornings and teach about the bible - mostly new testament. I can't say I agreed that Jesus was the son of God but some of the moral principles make a lot of sense. My school kept this completely separate from normal lessons so I don't see why this 'faith' school can't do the same.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Have just read up on this and I see the complainant was the head of the secularist society.
So no one involved in the school in any way - or indeed the exam board had an issue.
The issue here in my mind is whether parents have a right to control what their children are exposed to. Some parents of faith may prefer their not to be exposed to theories of evolution in the school context, just like some parents don't like their children being exposed to sex ed lessons, or even, the children of atheists not being allowed into assemblies that are about God (- it does happen.)
I am happy for my children to listen to a christian assembly because i think it's a good thing. You might not want your children to be in a christian assembly and thats fine by me - it's your choice as that childs parent
Have just read up on this and I see the complainant was the head of the secularist society.
So no one involved in the school in any way - or indeed the exam board had an issue.
The issue here in my mind is whether parents have a right to control what their children are exposed to. Some parents of faith may prefer their not to be exposed to theories of evolution in the school context, just like some parents don't like their children being exposed to sex ed lessons, or even, the children of atheists not being allowed into assemblies that are about God (- it does happen.)
I am happy for my children to listen to a christian assembly because i think it's a good thing. You might not want your children to be in a christian assembly and thats fine by me - it's your choice as that childs parent
In reply to tatty112:
Well, that's one issue, yes. Countering that parental right is the child's right to an education.
There is another issue here, which is about what happens in a state school funded by the taxpayer. The government has specified certain standards about the range of the curriculum and the standards they expect, and have set up exam boards and inspection regimes to that end. Thus the issue is whether a taxpayer-funded school should be allowed to omit parts of science that it doesn't like for religious reasons.
Are there many cases of parents "not allowing" their children into such assemblies? Or is it more often that they exempt their children from the legal compulsion to worship the Christian god?
> The issue here in my mind is whether parents have a right to control what their children are exposed to.
Well, that's one issue, yes. Countering that parental right is the child's right to an education.
There is another issue here, which is about what happens in a state school funded by the taxpayer. The government has specified certain standards about the range of the curriculum and the standards they expect, and have set up exam boards and inspection regimes to that end. Thus the issue is whether a taxpayer-funded school should be allowed to omit parts of science that it doesn't like for religious reasons.
> the children of atheists not being allowed into assemblies that are about God (- it does happen.)
Are there many cases of parents "not allowing" their children into such assemblies? Or is it more often that they exempt their children from the legal compulsion to worship the Christian god?
In reply to tatty112:
'The issue here in my mind is whether parents have a right to control what their children are exposed to'
A curious choice of phrase, and the fact is parents don't have an absolute right. They do not have the right to prevent a child having an adequate education - a parent who tried to prevent his child learning basic sums would eventually end up in clink. Basic science should have the same status.
'The issue here in my mind is whether parents have a right to control what their children are exposed to'
A curious choice of phrase, and the fact is parents don't have an absolute right. They do not have the right to prevent a child having an adequate education - a parent who tried to prevent his child learning basic sums would eventually end up in clink. Basic science should have the same status.
In reply to tatty112:
I'm interested, by the way, in how far you think parental rights extend over children's rights. You've already shown reluctance to condemn FGM, how about "faith healing" as an alternative to medical care?
In the US these days there are several instances a year of children dying from treatable illnesses because their highly religious parents believe in praying over them rather than taking them to the doctor. Here's just one example: http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death...
Is this parental practice acceptable to you, or do you side with the duty of the state to intervene in the child's interests?
I'm interested, by the way, in how far you think parental rights extend over children's rights. You've already shown reluctance to condemn FGM, how about "faith healing" as an alternative to medical care?
In the US these days there are several instances a year of children dying from treatable illnesses because their highly religious parents believe in praying over them rather than taking them to the doctor. Here's just one example: http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death...
Is this parental practice acceptable to you, or do you side with the duty of the state to intervene in the child's interests?
In reply to tatty112:
Not much tolerance of ideas and perspective in that school, is there?
> ...ideas and perspective which makes our society a better and more tolerant
place.Not much tolerance of ideas and perspective in that school, is there?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
as a (responsible) parent you have to weigh up every decision you take to ensure you are doing the best for your children - In order for me to do the best for my children I think it's important to take them to church every week, you might disagree but it's my 'right' to make that decision.
As my children get older, they have the 'right' to refuse to go. As they are my children, until they are 18 I have the 'right' to insist they go within acceptable boundaries (i.e. I'm not going to hit them to make them go or tie them up and take them - you get the point)
That's simply not true. but typical of you trying to present others in a bad light
I'm not inclined to support it as 'faith healing' strikes me as 'testing God' (you shall not put the lord your god to the test - Deuteronomy)
When it comes to what is compulsory to be taught and what is not in schools your getting into murky waters.
Academies, for example, are publicly funded but they are not under any obligation to teach in line with the national curriculum (they only have to teach a broad and balanced curriculum). You can huff and puff all you like about it but I visit a lot of schools as a subject specialist and lots of them, in practise, now don't teach all areas of the national curriculum within a variety of subjects. So there are plenty of 'publicly funded schools' that are not teaching the national curriculum fully in a whole range of subjects.
Why don't you get on your high horse about the fact the national curriculum says that in DT all students should experience CAM and yet quite a lot of schools can't afford to, so don't - why are you only bothered about anything connected to religious matters?
> I'm interested, by the way, in how far you think parental rights extend over children's rights.
as a (responsible) parent you have to weigh up every decision you take to ensure you are doing the best for your children - In order for me to do the best for my children I think it's important to take them to church every week, you might disagree but it's my 'right' to make that decision.
As my children get older, they have the 'right' to refuse to go. As they are my children, until they are 18 I have the 'right' to insist they go within acceptable boundaries (i.e. I'm not going to hit them to make them go or tie them up and take them - you get the point)
> You've already shown reluctance to condemn FGM,
That's simply not true. but typical of you trying to present others in a bad light
> how about "faith healing" as an alternative to medical care?
I'm not inclined to support it as 'faith healing' strikes me as 'testing God' (you shall not put the lord your god to the test - Deuteronomy)
When it comes to what is compulsory to be taught and what is not in schools your getting into murky waters.
Academies, for example, are publicly funded but they are not under any obligation to teach in line with the national curriculum (they only have to teach a broad and balanced curriculum). You can huff and puff all you like about it but I visit a lot of schools as a subject specialist and lots of them, in practise, now don't teach all areas of the national curriculum within a variety of subjects. So there are plenty of 'publicly funded schools' that are not teaching the national curriculum fully in a whole range of subjects.
Why don't you get on your high horse about the fact the national curriculum says that in DT all students should experience CAM and yet quite a lot of schools can't afford to, so don't - why are you only bothered about anything connected to religious matters?
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I enjoyed the fact you think it's possible to 'prevent' children learning about things if they want to.
There is a movement of parents who have their children at home (not home schoolers) who allow their children to learn and do what they want.... haven't seen any of them in 'clink'. We have experience of parents who take their children out of school to 'home school' them and then don't bother - they're not in 'clink' either
> A curious choice of phrase, and the fact is parents don't have an absolute right. They do not have the right to prevent a child having an adequate education - a parent who tried to prevent his child learning basic sums would eventually end up in clink.
I enjoyed the fact you think it's possible to 'prevent' children learning about things if they want to.
There is a movement of parents who have their children at home (not home schoolers) who allow their children to learn and do what they want.... haven't seen any of them in 'clink'. We have experience of parents who take their children out of school to 'home school' them and then don't bother - they're not in 'clink' either
In reply to Tony Naylor:
I think tatty is using the special definition of tolerance which some people subscribe to. Namely its for others to tolerate their religious beliefs and thats as far as tolerance goes.
> Not much tolerance of ideas and perspective in that school, is there?
I think tatty is using the special definition of tolerance which some people subscribe to. Namely its for others to tolerate their religious beliefs and thats as far as tolerance goes.
In reply to tatty112:
You'd seriously 'force' them (within reason) to attend church up to the age of 18? Wow. If any of them gets to thinking for themselves, you're going to have a struggle on your hands...
Lack of money to buy expensive equipment is the same as religious censorship? Dude, you're struggling here....
> As my children get older, they have the 'right' to refuse to go. As they are my children, until they are 18 I have the 'right' to insist they go within acceptable boundaries
You'd seriously 'force' them (within reason) to attend church up to the age of 18? Wow. If any of them gets to thinking for themselves, you're going to have a struggle on your hands...
> ...the national curriculum says that in DT all students should experience CAM and yet quite a lot of schools can't afford to, so don't - why are you only bothered about anything connected to religious matters?
Lack of money to buy expensive equipment is the same as religious censorship? Dude, you're struggling here....
In reply to Tony Naylor:
My parents did it with us - it's about respect, we were 6 boys and we all respected our parents enough to see it was important to them. I hope my children will have the same respect when the time comes.
The software is not expensive (and that's all you need to provide 'experience') - saying 'can't afford to' was the wrong way of phrasing it - I should have said 'it's not seen as worth bothering with'
> You'd seriously 'force' them (within reason) to attend church up to the age of 18? Wow. If any of them gets to thinking for themselves, you're going to have a struggle on your hands...
My parents did it with us - it's about respect, we were 6 boys and we all respected our parents enough to see it was important to them. I hope my children will have the same respect when the time comes.
> Lack of money to buy expensive equipment is the same as religious censorship? Dude, you're struggling here....
The software is not expensive (and that's all you need to provide 'experience') - saying 'can't afford to' was the wrong way of phrasing it - I should have said 'it's not seen as worth bothering with'
In reply to dissonance:
Yeah, that's what I thought. I still can't properly get a grip on this idea that I should respect peoples religious views. I respect their *right* to hold religious views, but respect the views themselves? That's a hoot!
> I think tatty is using the special definition of tolerance which some people subscribe to. Namely its for others to tolerate their religious beliefs and thats as far as tolerance goes.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I still can't properly get a grip on this idea that I should respect peoples religious views. I respect their *right* to hold religious views, but respect the views themselves? That's a hoot!
In reply to tatty112:
Kids respecting their parents? I'm all for it. How about parents having a bit of respect for their kids, too? Like, for instance, by not cramming their heads full of claptrap while they're still young enough to believe anything? Not much respect in the act of indoctrination, is there?
Thanks for clarifying. OK, so it's not a money issue. But not teaching CAM is still not equivalent to religious censorship.
> My parents did it with us - it's about respect
Kids respecting their parents? I'm all for it. How about parents having a bit of respect for their kids, too? Like, for instance, by not cramming their heads full of claptrap while they're still young enough to believe anything? Not much respect in the act of indoctrination, is there?
> The software is not expensive (and that's all you need to provide 'experience') - saying 'can't afford to' was the wrong way of phrasing it - I should have said 'it's not seen as worth bothering with'
Thanks for clarifying. OK, so it's not a money issue. But not teaching CAM is still not equivalent to religious censorship.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
We supposedly had RE teaching as a compulsory part of the curiculum (sp) but I made it clear to the teacher that I was an atheist after second form and did not want to attend his classes, he was a good bloke and never welched on me for wagging off his lessons.
In the end I had read the bible and the GCE was all about writing essays, so I took the exam which was compulsory, and got my second highest grade at GCE of all the subjects I took.
We supposedly had RE teaching as a compulsory part of the curiculum (sp) but I made it clear to the teacher that I was an atheist after second form and did not want to attend his classes, he was a good bloke and never welched on me for wagging off his lessons.
In the end I had read the bible and the GCE was all about writing essays, so I took the exam which was compulsory, and got my second highest grade at GCE of all the subjects I took.
In reply to tatty112:
The nastiness is unnecessary.
Complaints by parents are unlikely given that it was their idea to lie the children in the first place.
Parents do have the right to lie to their children. Whether this should be allowed to extend to messing about with public exam papers is a reasonable debate.
The nastiness is unnecessary.
Complaints by parents are unlikely given that it was their idea to lie the children in the first place.
Parents do have the right to lie to their children. Whether this should be allowed to extend to messing about with public exam papers is a reasonable debate.
In reply to Tony Naylor:
I have pointed out that by not teaching evolution and blacking out the question, no law has been broken, no rights have been infringed and coel has picked on a faith issue again, when he could have picked on any number of curriculum issues that are not being taught at all or taught properly.
I guess this all depends on your definition of respect and what you hold to be important. I suspect you indoctrinated your kids that climbing was great whilst they were still young enough to believe anything, not much respect in the act of indoctrination, is there?
I have pointed out that by not teaching evolution and blacking out the question, no law has been broken, no rights have been infringed and coel has picked on a faith issue again, when he could have picked on any number of curriculum issues that are not being taught at all or taught properly.
> Kids respecting their parents? I'm all for it. How about parents having a bit of respect for their kids, too? Like, for instance, by not cramming their heads full of claptrap while they're still young enough to believe anything? Not much respect in the act of indoctrination, is there?
I guess this all depends on your definition of respect and what you hold to be important. I suspect you indoctrinated your kids that climbing was great whilst they were still young enough to believe anything, not much respect in the act of indoctrination, is there?
In reply to tatty112:
and to wreck the employment prospects of their pupils by refraining from teaching them the latest advances in science.
and to wreck the employment prospects of their pupils by refraining from teaching them the latest advances in science.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
That is a joke isn't it?
> and to wreck the employment prospects of their pupils by refraining from teaching them the latest advances in science.
That is a joke isn't it?
In reply to Al Evans:
Now what you should have done is said it offended you and got all the questions you didnt like removed.
Could be a good commercial opportunity here. Why bother with calculus when you can join Dissonances Church of Harmony which is against anything more than simple addition and subtraction.
> In the end I had read the bible and the GCE was all about writing essays, so I took the exam which was compulsory, and got my second highest grade at GCE of all the subjects I took.
Now what you should have done is said it offended you and got all the questions you didnt like removed.
Could be a good commercial opportunity here. Why bother with calculus when you can join Dissonances Church of Harmony which is against anything more than simple addition and subtraction.
In reply to tatty112:
>> You've already shown reluctance to condemn FGM,
Oh but it is true, and a fair summary of your comments on a recent thread.
>> how about "faith healing" as an alternative to medical care?
So if parents have a deeply held religious conviction that they should pray over their sick child and not seek medical aid, then you are ok with the state over-ruling that?
>> You've already shown reluctance to condemn FGM,
> That's simply not true. but typical of you trying to present others in a bad light
Oh but it is true, and a fair summary of your comments on a recent thread.
>> how about "faith healing" as an alternative to medical care?
> I'm not inclined to support it as ...
So if parents have a deeply held religious conviction that they should pray over their sick child and not seek medical aid, then you are ok with the state over-ruling that?
In reply to tatty112:
You may be correct about the former, but I would have to disagree with the latter.
Intentionally denying your child the opportunity to learn about basic scientific principles because of your own religious opinions, I think, can safely be filed under 'bad parenting'; it isn't ideal but probably has to be accepted given a parent's right to raise their own children. After all, the child will have the opportunity to learn on their own if they are really interested.
Not allowing them to even see the question in an exam that they are made to sit and that could have real effects on their future is obviously crossing the line where your rights as a parent are outweighed by the rights of the child.
> I have pointed out that by not teaching evolution and blacking out the question, no law has been broken, no rights have been infringed...
You may be correct about the former, but I would have to disagree with the latter.
Intentionally denying your child the opportunity to learn about basic scientific principles because of your own religious opinions, I think, can safely be filed under 'bad parenting'; it isn't ideal but probably has to be accepted given a parent's right to raise their own children. After all, the child will have the opportunity to learn on their own if they are really interested.
Not allowing them to even see the question in an exam that they are made to sit and that could have real effects on their future is obviously crossing the line where your rights as a parent are outweighed by the rights of the child.
Post edited at 21:37
In reply to RCC:
This didn't happen at the Catholic school I went to in my early teens (I changed at age 12), evolution wasn't absent from what we were taught.
I've never really understood why the timings in the Bible can't be seen as a 'best guess' for when things happened, with the interpretation being that god is behind evolution too.
If people do believe in god and can see the logic in evolution, it doesn't seem so different to me from not agreeing with stoning people, or the many other things which aren't adhered to anymore.
It's possibly what I'd do if I was religious, I think.
This didn't happen at the Catholic school I went to in my early teens (I changed at age 12), evolution wasn't absent from what we were taught.
I've never really understood why the timings in the Bible can't be seen as a 'best guess' for when things happened, with the interpretation being that god is behind evolution too.
If people do believe in god and can see the logic in evolution, it doesn't seem so different to me from not agreeing with stoning people, or the many other things which aren't adhered to anymore.
It's possibly what I'd do if I was religious, I think.
Post edited at 21:58
In reply to Timmd:
I would expect that in a catholic school. I think that what you describe is very close to the attitude of the catholic church towards science (as far as I know the catholic church has never opposed evolution). From my experience of speaking to catholic clergy (some relatively senior), they are usually very interested in science and generally have a genuine respect for the work of scientists. They see their own job as something entirely different.
> This didn't happen at the Catholic school I went to in my early teens (I changed at age 12), evolution wasn't absent from what we were taught.
> I've never really understood why the timings in the Bible can't be seen as a 'best guess' for when things happened, with the interpretation being that god is behind evolution too.
> I've never really understood why the timings in the Bible can't be seen as a 'best guess' for when things happened, with the interpretation being that god is behind evolution too.
I would expect that in a catholic school. I think that what you describe is very close to the attitude of the catholic church towards science (as far as I know the catholic church has never opposed evolution). From my experience of speaking to catholic clergy (some relatively senior), they are usually very interested in science and generally have a genuine respect for the work of scientists. They see their own job as something entirely different.
Post edited at 22:08
In reply to RCC:
It just seems simpler to accommodate science.
I'm very happily ex-Catholic mind you, I've not come across a more effective way of making people feel guilty.
I'm freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
It just seems simpler to accommodate science.
I'm very happily ex-Catholic mind you, I've not come across a more effective way of making people feel guilty.
I'm freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Post edited at 22:16
In reply to seankenny:
Much as I disliked MT, ( she snatched my milk, but can't say she ruined my education) but I see kids in poor countries around the world getting schooled in very basic conditions, and being greatfull to be there, and keen to learn, and also poor countries have also produced world beating athletes with rag tag facilities, my view, right or wrong is the incentive to succeed often overtakes well fed kids with modern advantages.
Why is it your view that OUR poor and hungry do badly, and other countries poor are incentivised.
> One of the biggest obstacles to educational attainment is child poverty. This dramatically increased under your beloved Mrs T.
Much as I disliked MT, ( she snatched my milk, but can't say she ruined my education) but I see kids in poor countries around the world getting schooled in very basic conditions, and being greatfull to be there, and keen to learn, and also poor countries have also produced world beating athletes with rag tag facilities, my view, right or wrong is the incentive to succeed often overtakes well fed kids with modern advantages.
Why is it your view that OUR poor and hungry do badly, and other countries poor are incentivised.
In reply to tatty112:
Yup, no law has been broken (AFAIK). No rights have been infringed? Hmm... if you're talking about legal rights, I dunno, so it's moot. If you're talking about morality, then yeah, big infringement. Censoring the idea that evolution is a fact is a real biggie.
And you're still ignoring the fact that religious censorship is not the same as failing to teach, say, Greek poetry. You naughty fellow.
Cool suspicions, no basis in fact. No worries, though, I know 'fact' is a dirty word to yer average sky fairy enthusiast
BTW, I'm being nice and friendly here because I'm a sympathetic sort of fellow. I know you've got this cognitive dissonance thing going on, because you're too intelligent to really believe the things you're saying, but all that intelligence is overwhelmed (and it would be in most people, including me) by the abuse you suffered as a child being indoctrinated by your parents.
> I have pointed out that by not teaching evolution and blacking out the question, no law has been broken, no rights have been infringed and coel has picked on a faith issue again, when he could have picked on any number of curriculum issues that are not being taught at all or taught properly.
Yup, no law has been broken (AFAIK). No rights have been infringed? Hmm... if you're talking about legal rights, I dunno, so it's moot. If you're talking about morality, then yeah, big infringement. Censoring the idea that evolution is a fact is a real biggie.
And you're still ignoring the fact that religious censorship is not the same as failing to teach, say, Greek poetry. You naughty fellow.
> I guess this all depends on your definition of respect and what you hold to be important. I suspect you indoctrinated your kids that climbing was great whilst they were still young enough to believe anything, not much respect in the act of indoctrination, is there?
Cool suspicions, no basis in fact. No worries, though, I know 'fact' is a dirty word to yer average sky fairy enthusiast
BTW, I'm being nice and friendly here because I'm a sympathetic sort of fellow. I know you've got this cognitive dissonance thing going on, because you're too intelligent to really believe the things you're saying, but all that intelligence is overwhelmed (and it would be in most people, including me) by the abuse you suffered as a child being indoctrinated by your parents.
In reply to Timmd:
I've never understood this one, either. Evolution just is. You can see it in the fossil record and you can do it yourself in week in a petri dish with a bunch of bacteria.
If you're going to hang on to the sky fairy idea, what's the big deal with saying, "Evolution? Yeah, 100% accurate. My big guy sky fairy invented it. That one's ours. You want proof? Have a look at the fossil record. Or get a petri dish and a mouth swab. Evolution - right there and comin' at ya. Praise the Lord."
> I've never really understood why the timings in the Bible can't be seen as a 'best guess' for when things happened, with the interpretation being that god is behind evolution too.
I've never understood this one, either. Evolution just is. You can see it in the fossil record and you can do it yourself in week in a petri dish with a bunch of bacteria.
If you're going to hang on to the sky fairy idea, what's the big deal with saying, "Evolution? Yeah, 100% accurate. My big guy sky fairy invented it. That one's ours. You want proof? Have a look at the fossil record. Or get a petri dish and a mouth swab. Evolution - right there and comin' at ya. Praise the Lord."
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Maybe on one of the planets you've been looking at through your telescope, Coel, but on Earth capitalism - whether state or private - has consistently shown itself to be a system that that impoverishes the vast majority of people whilst enriching a tiny minority. The fact that there is a greater proportion of the population today living in poverty - 80% living on under $10 a day - and that wealth is continually being concentrated in fewer hands shows clearly that what you say is simply not true. (It's common for those who defend market economies to argue that workers in developed nations benefit from capitalism, but this is an insular perspective that takes no account of the global nature of capitalism.)
As far as attempting to 'steer' the thread is concerned, I'd suggest that the problem that you are concerned about in this thread cannot be settled within capitalism. Not least because the 'middle classes' as you call them do not have anything like the influence that you suggest.
> I'm impressed by the attempts to steer this thread towards markets and capitalism!
> However: the idea that we are 99% destitute serfs and 1% fat-cat capitalist masters may have been roughly true in Victorian times but is true no longer. Today the vast swathe of the middle classes have a vast swathe of wealth and influence. Further, capitalist/market economies may not be perfect, but no other system has been demonstrated to produce better results.
Maybe on one of the planets you've been looking at through your telescope, Coel, but on Earth capitalism - whether state or private - has consistently shown itself to be a system that that impoverishes the vast majority of people whilst enriching a tiny minority. The fact that there is a greater proportion of the population today living in poverty - 80% living on under $10 a day - and that wealth is continually being concentrated in fewer hands shows clearly that what you say is simply not true. (It's common for those who defend market economies to argue that workers in developed nations benefit from capitalism, but this is an insular perspective that takes no account of the global nature of capitalism.)
As far as attempting to 'steer' the thread is concerned, I'd suggest that the problem that you are concerned about in this thread cannot be settled within capitalism. Not least because the 'middle classes' as you call them do not have anything like the influence that you suggest.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Well, you must realise that saying:
1. 'Evolution is a 'latest advance' in science'
2.'not covering evolution in Science lessons will wreck employment prospects'
are two ludicrous statements which may show:
1.You're not aware of what the latest advances in science are - that are being taught at secondary school level
2.You're not very aware that knowledge of Evolution has little (if any) relevance to students future employment prospects - even in Science based careers
3. By choosing not to teach about Evolution in your faith based school you don't STOP children learning about evolution you just choose not to teach them about it
> and to wreck the employment prospects of their pupils by refraining from teaching them the latest advances in science.
Well, you must realise that saying:
1. 'Evolution is a 'latest advance' in science'
2.'not covering evolution in Science lessons will wreck employment prospects'
are two ludicrous statements which may show:
1.You're not aware of what the latest advances in science are - that are being taught at secondary school level
2.You're not very aware that knowledge of Evolution has little (if any) relevance to students future employment prospects - even in Science based careers
3. By choosing not to teach about Evolution in your faith based school you don't STOP children learning about evolution you just choose not to teach them about it
In reply to Tony Naylor:
1. I can assure you no legal rights have been infringed
2. I guess the faith based school would disagree with you about evolution being a fact
We're talking about censorship of learning experiences that students have a 'right' to
I am quite happy to admit that I have tried to indoctrinate my children about climbing from a young age - sadly they have rebelled
I like it, a back handed compliment and insult both at the same time.....
> Yup, no law has been broken (AFAIK). No rights have been infringed? Hmm... if you're talking about legal rights, I dunno, so it's moot. If you're talking about morality, then yeah, big infringement. Censoring the idea that evolution is a fact is a real biggie.
1. I can assure you no legal rights have been infringed
2. I guess the faith based school would disagree with you about evolution being a fact
> And you're still ignoring the fact that religious censorship is not the same as failing to teach, say, Greek poetry. You naughty fellow.
We're talking about censorship of learning experiences that students have a 'right' to
> Cool suspicions, no basis in fact. No worries, though, I know 'fact' is a dirty word to yer average sky fairy enthusiast
I am quite happy to admit that I have tried to indoctrinate my children about climbing from a young age - sadly they have rebelled
> BTW, I'm being nice and friendly here because I'm a sympathetic sort of fellow. I know you've got this cognitive dissonance thing going on, because you're too intelligent to really believe the things you're saying, but all that intelligence is overwhelmed (and it would be in most people, including me) by the abuse you suffered as a child being indoctrinated by your parents.
I like it, a back handed compliment and insult both at the same time.....
In reply to tatty112:
The clue is in the name our understanding of evolution is changing all the time as new discoveries are made
Well not if you want to work a check out at Tescos it won't but if you want a career in biology then it leaves them a lot of catching up to do if they want to escape a medieval mindset.
Well evidently not those in biology from what you are saying
How can you even say that with a straight face? Does the word genome have any meaning to you?
That is very disingenuous. Because you are giving a one sided view. I am not against teaching religion in schools, in fact I think it is important for kids to have a rounded education. But to NOT teach something so central to life on this planet is in my view wilfully negligent. Not just because it is not being taught but because the opposite erroneous creationist view is being taught in its stead. Or are you saying that faith based schools do not talk about Genesis in their religious classes?
You falsely pretend that you are giving them a choice while taking it away from them.
> Well, you must realise that saying:
> 1. 'Evolution is a 'latest advance' in science'
The clue is in the name our understanding of evolution is changing all the time as new discoveries are made
> 2.'not covering evolution in Science lessons will wreck employment prospects'
Well not if you want to work a check out at Tescos it won't but if you want a career in biology then it leaves them a lot of catching up to do if they want to escape a medieval mindset.
> 1.You're not aware of what the latest advances in science are - that are being taught at secondary school level
Well evidently not those in biology from what you are saying
> 2.You're not very aware that knowledge of Evolution has little (if any) relevance to students future employment prospects - even in Science based careers
How can you even say that with a straight face? Does the word genome have any meaning to you?
> 3. By choosing not to teach about Evolution in your faith based school you don't STOP children learning about evolution you just choose not to teach them about it
That is very disingenuous. Because you are giving a one sided view. I am not against teaching religion in schools, in fact I think it is important for kids to have a rounded education. But to NOT teach something so central to life on this planet is in my view wilfully negligent. Not just because it is not being taught but because the opposite erroneous creationist view is being taught in its stead. Or are you saying that faith based schools do not talk about Genesis in their religious classes?
You falsely pretend that you are giving them a choice while taking it away from them.
In reply to tatty112:
What are these certain confines then?
> Absolutely yes. and a perfect example of how allowing niche schools to decide how they teach education (within certain confines) allows for a broad and rich scope of upbringing, ideas and perspective which makes our society a better and more tolerant place.
What are these certain confines then?
In reply to tatty112:
Then they shouldn't pretend that they are capable of teaching science.
> 2. I guess the faith based school would disagree with you about evolution being a fact
Then they shouldn't pretend that they are capable of teaching science.
In reply to tatty112:
Of course they would. The point is, they're wrong.
> 2. I guess the faith based school would disagree with you about evolution being a fact
Of course they would. The point is, they're wrong.
In reply to Jim C:
This is all very complex stuff! So, going from memory, and without time to put a coherent argument together, here are some points:
First off - there's an undenable link between poverty and educational attainment in the UK. I'm guessing your real question is - whose fault is this? Is it the parents', or is it something in broader society?
Education in a lot of poor countries isn't necessarily very good. Kids may be going to school, and keen to be there (for really obvious econimic reasons), but that doesn't always equate to educational achievment. This is particularly the case in very poor rural areas, where attracting qualified teachers is very difficult and teachers may not have much more than a basic secondary education themselves.
The levels of education kids in an average Lagos or Mumbia school are getting is probably pretty good for the kind of heavy industrial work and basic clerical tasks that the rich world has off-shored. A lot of poor kids in this country are probably easily well-educated enough to do this work (again, no stats and I'm not an expert - feel free to contradict me). However our economy has moved quicker than the social attitudes in many parts of the country. A lot of parents are still inculcating their kids with the kind of educational aspirations that they themselves hold/were given, which are totally inappropriate to the modern world we have.
Can we compare the educational *outcomes* of a bunch of mustard-keen kids in rural Uganda with those of a group of slacking youth from rural South Wales? I have no idea if this is possible, or even useful. What they need and what our kids need are totally different.
Something that I've read a bit about lately is the attainment of schoolchildren in London: "At their most extreme the figures suggest a child from the top-performing borough, Westminster, would outperform a similar child from a similar neighbourhood in Hull by two grades in every subject." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19151471
So our poor kids don't necessarily do badly. Maybe London's parents are more ambitious for their children, or maybe the immigrant factor is at work here. From memory, the later is true, but it's not the whole story, and again from memory, surveys show London's parents are a bit more ambitious for their kids but not greatly so. This would point, at a guess, to it being a mixture of slightly more pushy parents combined with systemic changes. Being in the most active part of the UK economy probably helps too.
As an aside, there were long-standing working class educational institutions in the UK. Jim Perrin mentions some of these in his writing about Snowdonia's slate miners. But self-sustaining, self-created working class institutions have withered, along with the stable industrial jobs and the unions which were their bedrock.
As for world-beating atheletes from poor countries, this is really interesting. Have you read Matthew Syed's book "Bounce"? It has quite a lot on this subject. I don't really know much about it at all but suspect social stratification is really key. Kenya and India are both poor countries with loads of social problems. Kenya produces loads of world class athletes, India has a dismal Olympic record. Some academics say social mobility is part of this:
"...the paper contends that social mobility is the key to countries' success at the Olympics. Populations that are better informed and better connected to opportunities, in societies where information and access are widespread "tend to win a higher share of Olympic medals", they said.
They point out that India has low social mobility, and say that in villages in two Indian states where 300 children had graduated from high school, only four had found well-paying, white-collar jobs. "Advancing information and enabling access are as much a critical part of raising Olympic achievement as they are of enhancing development success," the authors conclude." This is from a 2008 Guardian article - I can't link to it I'm afraid!
Still, on average throwing lots of money at a sport helps create world-beating athletes or sports teams - incentive and desire aren't the only story.
That's not an argument, nor is it intended to be. Just some ideas, please do take them apart. Preferably with references.
> Much as I disliked MT, ( she snatched my milk, but can't say she ruined my education) but I see kids in poor countries around the world getting schooled in very basic conditions, and being greatfull to be there, and keen to learn, and also poor countries have also produced world beating athletes with rag tag facilities, my view, right or wrong is the incentive to succeed often overtakes well fed kids with modern advantages.
> Why is it your view that OUR poor and hungry do badly, and other countries poor are incentivised.
This is all very complex stuff! So, going from memory, and without time to put a coherent argument together, here are some points:
First off - there's an undenable link between poverty and educational attainment in the UK. I'm guessing your real question is - whose fault is this? Is it the parents', or is it something in broader society?
Education in a lot of poor countries isn't necessarily very good. Kids may be going to school, and keen to be there (for really obvious econimic reasons), but that doesn't always equate to educational achievment. This is particularly the case in very poor rural areas, where attracting qualified teachers is very difficult and teachers may not have much more than a basic secondary education themselves.
The levels of education kids in an average Lagos or Mumbia school are getting is probably pretty good for the kind of heavy industrial work and basic clerical tasks that the rich world has off-shored. A lot of poor kids in this country are probably easily well-educated enough to do this work (again, no stats and I'm not an expert - feel free to contradict me). However our economy has moved quicker than the social attitudes in many parts of the country. A lot of parents are still inculcating their kids with the kind of educational aspirations that they themselves hold/were given, which are totally inappropriate to the modern world we have.
Can we compare the educational *outcomes* of a bunch of mustard-keen kids in rural Uganda with those of a group of slacking youth from rural South Wales? I have no idea if this is possible, or even useful. What they need and what our kids need are totally different.
Something that I've read a bit about lately is the attainment of schoolchildren in London: "At their most extreme the figures suggest a child from the top-performing borough, Westminster, would outperform a similar child from a similar neighbourhood in Hull by two grades in every subject." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19151471
So our poor kids don't necessarily do badly. Maybe London's parents are more ambitious for their children, or maybe the immigrant factor is at work here. From memory, the later is true, but it's not the whole story, and again from memory, surveys show London's parents are a bit more ambitious for their kids but not greatly so. This would point, at a guess, to it being a mixture of slightly more pushy parents combined with systemic changes. Being in the most active part of the UK economy probably helps too.
As an aside, there were long-standing working class educational institutions in the UK. Jim Perrin mentions some of these in his writing about Snowdonia's slate miners. But self-sustaining, self-created working class institutions have withered, along with the stable industrial jobs and the unions which were their bedrock.
As for world-beating atheletes from poor countries, this is really interesting. Have you read Matthew Syed's book "Bounce"? It has quite a lot on this subject. I don't really know much about it at all but suspect social stratification is really key. Kenya and India are both poor countries with loads of social problems. Kenya produces loads of world class athletes, India has a dismal Olympic record. Some academics say social mobility is part of this:
"...the paper contends that social mobility is the key to countries' success at the Olympics. Populations that are better informed and better connected to opportunities, in societies where information and access are widespread "tend to win a higher share of Olympic medals", they said.
They point out that India has low social mobility, and say that in villages in two Indian states where 300 children had graduated from high school, only four had found well-paying, white-collar jobs. "Advancing information and enabling access are as much a critical part of raising Olympic achievement as they are of enhancing development success," the authors conclude." This is from a 2008 Guardian article - I can't link to it I'm afraid!
Still, on average throwing lots of money at a sport helps create world-beating athletes or sports teams - incentive and desire aren't the only story.
That's not an argument, nor is it intended to be. Just some ideas, please do take them apart. Preferably with references.
Post edited at 11:33
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
All school Biology departments are teaching bioogy that is 10 years out of date - just look at the text books being used
Again a silly comment - Not learning about evolution at school hardly leaves a massive knowledge gap, i think you need a reality check on that
whats laughable is you thinking that the evolution taught in schools has much relevance to latest scientific research.
Most people go through life not caring about evolution or evolutionary theory so i'm surprised you find it so centrally important - you're almost claiming people can't function properly without knowing about evolution
> The clue is in the name our understanding of evolution is changing all the time as new discoveries are made
All school Biology departments are teaching bioogy that is 10 years out of date - just look at the text books being used
> Well not if you want to work a check out at Tescos it won't but if you want a career in biology then it leaves them a lot of catching up to do if they want to escape a medieval mindset.
Again a silly comment - Not learning about evolution at school hardly leaves a massive knowledge gap, i think you need a reality check on that
> How can you even say that with a straight face? Does the word genome have any meaning to you?
whats laughable is you thinking that the evolution taught in schools has much relevance to latest scientific research.
Most people go through life not caring about evolution or evolutionary theory so i'm surprised you find it so centrally important - you're almost claiming people can't function properly without knowing about evolution
In reply to tatty112:
you're almost claiming people can't function properly without knowing about evolution
To counter that, isn't the sole reason for not teaching it and instead teaching creationism in its place, an attempt to reinforce in young developing minds the power of religion?
you're almost claiming people can't function properly without knowing about evolution
To counter that, isn't the sole reason for not teaching it and instead teaching creationism in its place, an attempt to reinforce in young developing minds the power of religion?
In reply to tatty112:
Like most material that is taught at school it is not cutting edge, but it is certainly foundational. You couldn't claim to have an education in biology without understanding evolution; it really is that central.
> whats laughable is you thinking that the evolution taught in schools has much relevance to latest scientific research.
Like most material that is taught at school it is not cutting edge, but it is certainly foundational. You couldn't claim to have an education in biology without understanding evolution; it really is that central.
In reply to RCC:
Quite right you wouldn't start to teach a child quantum theory without touching on Newtonian science first.
> Like most material that is taught at school it is not cutting edge, but it is certainly foundational. You couldn't claim to have an education in biology without understanding evolution; it really is that central.
Quite right you wouldn't start to teach a child quantum theory without touching on Newtonian science first.
In reply to tatty112:
10 years out of date is better than 2000 years
I think that comment says more about your knowledge gap than anything else. Evolution is central to a modern understanding of biology
What I am saying is that if you are going to teach science then not teaching crucial bits of it because it clashes with ideas put forward several thousand years ago is at best a disservice to those one teaches. What next? Not teaching about cosmology because you believe the sun moves round the earth.
10 years out of date is better than 2000 years
I think that comment says more about your knowledge gap than anything else. Evolution is central to a modern understanding of biology
What I am saying is that if you are going to teach science then not teaching crucial bits of it because it clashes with ideas put forward several thousand years ago is at best a disservice to those one teaches. What next? Not teaching about cosmology because you believe the sun moves round the earth.
In reply to tatty112:
Many people seem to go through life without showing much interest or caring about anything of any real significance at all. Education, especially science education is, to a considerable degree, about doing something about that and opening up young people's minds to the wonderful world around them. Evolution is one of the most powerful ideas of science and has shaped an incredibly important part of that world. Not teaching it on some absurd religious grounds is barbaric and medieval. Totally indefensible by any civilised standards.
> Most people go through life not caring about evolution or evolutionary theory so I'm surprised you find it so centrally important.
Many people seem to go through life without showing much interest or caring about anything of any real significance at all. Education, especially science education is, to a considerable degree, about doing something about that and opening up young people's minds to the wonderful world around them. Evolution is one of the most powerful ideas of science and has shaped an incredibly important part of that world. Not teaching it on some absurd religious grounds is barbaric and medieval. Totally indefensible by any civilised standards.
Point of info for some of you
I seem to remember Tatty used to be a Young Earth Creationist
I don't think he is anymore, but I presume it must take a long time to get that sort of crap out of your head
Worth bearing in mind when discussing with him
I seem to remember Tatty used to be a Young Earth Creationist
I don't think he is anymore, but I presume it must take a long time to get that sort of crap out of your head
Worth bearing in mind when discussing with him
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...