rainbow wrote:

james1v wrote:Ive received an email from the BHA (yesterday), stating that teaching creationism is to be banned, and creationist groups are going to be banned from opening free schools.

Looks like their campaign has been successful!

So would you like to see any books that promote creationism to be banned as well?

Typical. Were are talking about education not fairy story telling.

Talking about books about creationism - well, about the effects of creationist teaching in schools - there's just the thing for determined readers here: "An investigation of the new independent Christian schools: what kind of citizens are they producing?" http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3115/
It's the Ph.D. thesis of Sylvia Baker, founder of the creationist Christian Schools Trust which is behind several "free school" projects. It shows how, after going through these mills of god, only 7% of the pupils come out believing in evolution.
So let's hope that Gove's proclaimed intentions are properly carried out. Not just before the schools are allowed to open but after the banners have been taken down and the preachers have moved in.

Oeditor wrote:
It's the Ph.D. thesis of Sylvia Baker, founder of the creationist Christian Schools Trust which is behind several "free school" projects. It shows how, after going through these mills of god, only 7% of the pupils come out believing in evolution.

Blimey, these publicly-funded schools madrassas would seem to be extraordinarily effective at churning out deeply ignorant and backward pupils who have profoundly sub-standard scientific understanding. Just the kind of people we don't want as we continue into the 21st century.

The majority of the pupils claim to hold religious beliefs and values which differ from the current norms of British society but which would not necessarily jeopardise acceptable British citizenship.

I wonder what kind of religious beliefs and/or values would jeopardise British citizenship? Being a complete fucktard does not allow for one's citizenship to be revoked, and the individual concerned to be transported to the colonies (or whatever the modern day equivalent would be; being dumped on an uninhabited and distant island perhaps). Unfortunately.

mattwilson wrote:

rainbow wrote:

james1v wrote:Ive received an email from the BHA (yesterday), stating that teaching creationism is to be banned, and creationist groups are going to be banned from opening free schools.

Looks like their campaign has been successful!

So would you like to see any books that promote creationism to be banned as well?

Don't be so disingenuous, you know as well as everybody else taking part in this thread that the issue is around the education of children at school, what our taxes pay for and the minimum level of education that should be provided by the state.

OK, I'm confused.

Is it about the money, or isn't it?

rainbow wrote:

mattwilson wrote:

rainbow wrote:

james1v wrote:Ive received an email from the BHA (yesterday), stating that teaching creationism is to be banned, and creationist groups are going to be banned from opening free schools.

Looks like their campaign has been successful!

So would you like to see any books that promote creationism to be banned as well?

Don't be so disingenuous, you know as well as everybody else taking part in this thread that the issue is around the education of children at school, what our taxes pay for and the minimum level of education that should be provided by the state.

OK, I'm confused.

Is it about the money, or isn't it?

Exactly why I doubt anyone would suggest banning creationist books outright, just the use of them in our education system, paid for by our taxes.

rainbow wrote:OK, I'm confused.

Is it about the money, or isn't it?

If a publicly funded creationist school opens, there is in some places a chance and in other places a likelihood that ordinary, non-creationist children will find that it's the only school where they can get a place. So that's one count against their public funding. The other, of course, is that people pay their taxes in order for the country's children to be educated, not indoctrinated with creationist anti-science. The money is the same, the outcome very different.

Oeditor wrote:

rainbow wrote:OK, I'm confused.

Is it about the money, or isn't it?

If a publicly funded creationist school opens, there is in some places a chance and in other places a likelihood that ordinary, non-creationist children will find that it's the only school where they can get a place. So that's one count against their public funding. The other, of course, is that people pay their taxes in order for the country's children to be educated, not indoctrinated with creationist anti-science. The money is the same, the outcome very different.

That doesn't make sense.
If you live at A, and your nearest school is at B, then if the new creationist school opens between A and B - it follows that non-creationist children still have the choice to go to the school at B.

rainbow wrote:

Oeditor wrote:

rainbow wrote:OK, I'm confused.

Is it about the money, or isn't it?

If a publicly funded creationist school opens, there is in some places a chance and in other places a likelihood that ordinary, non-creationist children will find that it's the only school where they can get a place. So that's one count against their public funding. The other, of course, is that people pay their taxes in order for the country's children to be educated, not indoctrinated with creationist anti-science. The money is the same, the outcome very different.

That doesn't make sense.
If you live at A, and your nearest school is at B, then if the new creationist school opens between A and B - it follows that non-creationist children still have the choice to go to the school at B.

Religious schools have the option to restrict intake based on factors, of which religion can be the deciding factor. Where I live one of the better schools (results wise) is catholic. You can't get your children in there unless both parents are baptised church attending catholics, well not without jumping through enough hoops to keep you preoccupied until your child is at high school age

rainbow wrote:That doesn't make sense.
If you live at A, and your nearest school is at B, then if the new creationist school opens between A and B - it follows that non-creationist children still have the choice to go to the school at B.

You'd think so, but that isn't the case. It's very common indeed for children in England not to get into the school of their parents' wishes, yea even unto the third and fourth choice. Gove is encouraging "free" schools to open where there is a shortage of places, or existing schooling is very poor. Also note that any money given to free schools - and that includes building costs - comes from the same, unexpanded pot as funds the rest of the schools, so surrounding schools are penalised wherever a free school opens.
Sponsors of free schools are happy to build them in areas of "deprivation" so it's crazy but true that creationists will be able to control classes for ordinary children. Don't forget, by the way, that the creationists are after getting their lunatic ideas into ALL schools - so they'll be only too delighted of the chance to rope children in from non-creationist families and attempt to convert them to their lunacy.

Oeditor wrote:any money given to free schools - and that includes building costs - comes from the same, unexpanded pot as funds the rest of the schools, so surrounding schools are penalised wherever a free school opens.

Yes, obviously the school at B (and all others) will suffer reduced funding as a result of the expanding proportion of the total schools budget that is to be channelled to religious organisations as an intentional policy of the current TorLiban government.

With funding following pupils to a great extent now, around me it is £600 for every pupil on free school meals, so my local school has held a free-school-dinner-drive with PCs being set up in the hall for parents to come in and complete the (online only) application for this with the assistance of foreign language interpreters and the encouragement of teachers on instructions from the head. I can't criticise for the school playing hungry hippos within the short-sighted policy framework imposed on them but clearly the 'extra' money they get (and they spend their money well) is going to come at the expense of other schools. Where schools are being chosen irrespective of, and in the case of these fuckwitted fundamentalist groups in spite of, academic considerations then 'schools' that appeal to parents' religious prejudices have a distinct advantage to the detriment of secular schools and wider societal benefits such as pupil integration and education itself.

mattwilson wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Oeditor wrote:

rainbow wrote:OK, I'm confused.

Is it about the money, or isn't it?

If a publicly funded creationist school opens, there is in some places a chance and in other places a likelihood that ordinary, non-creationist children will find that it's the only school where they can get a place. So that's one count against their public funding. The other, of course, is that people pay their taxes in order for the country's children to be educated, not indoctrinated with creationist anti-science. The money is the same, the outcome very different.

That doesn't make sense.
If you live at A, and your nearest school is at B, then if the new creationist school opens between A and B - it follows that non-creationist children still have the choice to go to the school at B.

Religious schools have the option to restrict intake based on factors, of which religion can be the deciding factor. Where I live one of the better schools (results wise) is catholic. You can't get your children in there unless both parents are baptised church attending catholics, well not without jumping through enough hoops to keep you preoccupied until your child is at high school age

As I said before, they should have an open admissions policy, if they receive state funds.
Assuming they were open, would you be happy that your children went there?

ED209 wrote:

Oeditor wrote:any money given to free schools - and that includes building costs - comes from the same, unexpanded pot as funds the rest of the schools, so surrounding schools are penalised wherever a free school opens.

Yes, obviously the school at B (and all others) will suffer reduced funding as a result of the expanding proportion of the total schools budget that is to be channelled to religious organisations as an intentional policy of the current TorLiban government.

With funding following pupils to a great extent now, around me it is £600 for every pupil on free school meals, so my local school has held a free-school-dinner-drive with PCs being set up in the hall for parents to come in and complete the (online only) application for this with the assistance of foreign language interpreters and the encouragement of teachers on instructions from the head. I can't criticise for the school playing hungry hippos within the short-sighted policy framework imposed on them but clearly the 'extra' money they get (and they spend their money well) is going to come at the expense of other schools. Where schools are being chosen irrespective of, and in the case of these fuckwitted fundamentalist groups in spite of, academic considerations then 'schools' that appeal to parents' religious prejudices have a distinct advantage to the detriment of secular schools and wider societal benefits such as pupil integration and education itself.

They will get reduced funding only to the extent that some of their prospective students might go to the new school. The same however applies whether the new school is a religious one or not. It follows that the funding student would not change.

rainbow wrote:

mattwilson wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Oeditor wrote:If a publicly funded creationist school opens, there is in some places a chance and in other places a likelihood that ordinary, non-creationist children will find that it's the only school where they can get a place. So that's one count against their public funding. The other, of course, is that people pay their taxes in order for the country's children to be educated, not indoctrinated with creationist anti-science. The money is the same, the outcome very different.

That doesn't make sense.
If you live at A, and your nearest school is at B, then if the new creationist school opens between A and B - it follows that non-creationist children still have the choice to go to the school at B.

Religious schools have the option to restrict intake based on factors, of which religion can be the deciding factor. Where I live one of the better schools (results wise) is catholic. You can't get your children in there unless both parents are baptised church attending catholics, well not without jumping through enough hoops to keep you preoccupied until your child is at high school age

As I said before, they should have an open admissions policy, if they receive state funds.
Assuming they were open, would you be happy that your children went there?

We're dealing with ifs and buts...

IF they receive state funds they SHOULD have an open admissions policy, AND they should be subject to the same standards for education... IE... no creationism and the proper teaching of real world scientific principles, in which case I'd be happy for them to go there.

No, rainbow you are quite wrong. You must not have read, or understood, the sentence:

Where schools are being chosen irrespective of, and in the case of these fuckwitted fundamentalist groups in spite of, academic considerations then 'schools' that appeal to parents' religious prejudices have a distinct advantage to the detriment of secular schools

I would not generally complain about new, good quality, schools opening up - not that this is particularly commonplace under this government. But you do appear to understand that a new school represents a further subdividision of the same funding pie. Where all schools offer schooling that exceeds an acceptable standard this is not necessarily a problem. With fundamentalist schools that achieve markedly poorer results and churn out profoundly ignorant pupils when compared to the existing schools that they leech off, there is very obviously a problem. Such schools are no more than a public-funding scam that preys upon the gullibility of those parents who can be persuaded to choose to send their kids there - not to mention parents that have no other option - and they should not be permitted to operate.

The only way these schools might be tolerated is if they were 100% privately funded, and still subject to state inspection and measures to ensure that their alumni do not all end up unemployable on a lifetime of benefits, marginalised by society and capable of existing only within their own religious group, or prone to exploding tube stations or healthcare clinics because that is what we permitted them to be taught god wants them to do in lieu of the education that is (at least in theory) compulsory for all children.