Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?

Apparantly the new British government is planning to give parents, teachers and charities powers to open their own schools and (as far as I can tell) set their own curriculum. Is this not just a way of giving religious groups via charitable status a means of setting up religious schools and teaching creationism/IB and other such dubious beliefs under whatever title they want, mainly science? (BBC News - Tory free schools 'barking mad' says teachers' leader)Even where those intending to open schools have no such ambitions I have little faith in the ability of parents, charities and even some teachers to give children a comprehensive education without a governing body inplace to ensure that basic minumum standards are met. Personally I'm not suprised that this is being proposed by the Conservative and that the Lib Dems (Who I supported partly because there more secular stance on education) aren't particually happy with this.This will not address the real problem which is poor parenting resulting in children with behavioural problems and little ambitionswhen it comes to educating and ultimately bettering themselves.

Thread copied here from the Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

But Mr Gove said all the evidence from Sweden - where non-profit and profit-making groups can set up schools funded by the government, but free from its control - showed free schools raised attainment.

---

WHY?I would examine Sweden to determine what made the difference is raising attainment. If the source of this attainment can be discerned, then maybe some middle ground can be reached on the issue. perhaps one that wouldn't open the door to potential abuse.Simply saying its because they are out of government regulation is not good enough.Those against or for this proposal should research the Swedish schools in depth before making any decision of such magnitude.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Channel 4's FACTCHECK blog has some background sources on these claims.As you say, the real question is what exactly is it that causes the improvement's associated with the Swedish free schools.One recent study the blog mentions, from 2008, suggested that the improvements were short term and not reflected by subsequent achievement in further higher education, i.e. University/college. So maybe exam results are improving but does that reflect a genuine improvement in education (whatever that really means)?TTFN,WK

quote:

---

So maybe exam results are improving but does that reflect a genuine improvement in education (whatever that really means)?

---

That's a very good question. I'm concerned myself with American education over the Internet. Most students i know of online educations are simply googling data or paying for answers. I'm afraid its just for colleges to increase profits and test results so cheated that our so called "educated" are actually just good with google and have no hands on training for their degrees.i don't think that unregulated schooling is any more appropriate. we'll end up with several spectrum's of education that may be based on bias opinions so much that cooperation and legitimate knoledge will be lost.Edited by tesla, : removed an a.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I don't know much detail about these schools, but I don't think they'll be allowed complete freedom with the curriculum. Furthermore, I'm sure that they will still be subject to government inspections to ensure they meet certain standards.My understanding is that they will have some freedom of curriculum, and the main difference is that they won't be under local government control. Whether that's good or bad I don't really know.I'm naturally concerned that religious and particularly creationist groups might try and influence the curriculum, but what does it say about all other types of groups, including industry and science foundations, that they don't seem to be interested in education - or are they?

If the free schools are open to inspection by OFSTED, and have league tables published then they will have the same pressures imposed on them as any other. This will result in them limiting the curriculum to ridiculous qualifications like Btecs so their grades look good.Also the new English Baccalaureate doesn't have RE as one of its essential elements. If they have to stick to this, the same as the other schools, then they will simply push RE to the background, and many would argue that is where it deserves to be.

excellent. Freedom of speech, thought, and enquiry are what education is about.
Its about learning the truth on things.
For too long false ideas and censorship of those ideas or of better ones on origin issues has gotten away with it in Britain.
The times are changing and creationism is being more desired by the people and generally the freedom to discuss the great issues is desired by most people.
censoring creationism has always been a immoral, illegal, and unintellectual stance.
Let the truth prevail and so don't ban opinions.

Which version of creationism? There are over 1000

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

excellent. Freedom of speech, thought, and enquiry are what education is about.
Its about learning the truth on things.
For too long false ideas and censorship of those ideas or of better ones on origin issues has gotten away with it in Britain.
The times are changing and creationism is being more desired by the people and generally the freedom to discuss the great issues is desired by most people.
censoring creationism has always been a immoral, illegal, and unintellectual stance.
Let the truth prevail and so don't ban opinionsYes, sorry to burst your bubble but Gove has banned creationist movements from opening free schools in this country.Michael Gove 'crystal clear' creationism is not scienceand it's not about censorship, creationism is not desired in a science classroom. As a science teacher I couldn't even think about where to start teaching it as viable science. Just one more question, and please answer it honestly, would you advocate teaching flat earth theory in Geography lessons ?

let the people through the legislature decide. Its their right.
Otherwise who is deciding?
In reality as on this forum only one creationism matters.
The historic acceptance amongst the most intelligent people and civilization in history. The Anglo-American one.

The truth should be taught.
If there is a contention in the nation then likewise school should represent this in its teachings.
Its not about science.
its about the truth on conclusions in some matters of origins.
if the conclusions are from science and then this is questioned in its competence or better ideas from other investigations then why not accept criticism.
Creationism is all about taking on conclusaions and with that any claims of high standards of investigation behind the wrong conclusions.
Its about the merits of the evidence.

Scientifically there is no evidence for creationism. That is why school leaders in the US and UK will not accept it being taught as science. They will not even allow free schools to have it as part of their curriculum.Creationism 'banned from free schools'Teach it in RE, but keep it out of the science classroom.You did not answer my question, would you advocate teaching flat earth theory in Geography lessons ? Yes or No.There is plenty of "evidence" for a flat earth.Indiana University Bloomington
Errantskeptics.orgSo should it be taught ? Yes or No.

Agreed. Agreed again. In Britain this is how it is done source

quote:

---

Darwin's ideas caused a lot of controversy, and this continues to this day, because the ideas can be seen as conflicting with religious views about the creation of the world and creatures in it

---

Or, a couple of years later in the curriculum:
source

quote:

---

17th Century

​

Most people believed in Creationism, which considered that all life was created just as it is now. This was not based on any evidence, but was instead a belief.

​

18th Century

​

Naturalists began systematic classification systems (especially Linnaeus 1707-1778) and noticed that groups of living things had similar characteristics and appeared to be related. So their classifications looked a bit like a family tree.

​

European naturalists travelled more widely and discovered more fossils, which clearly showed that living things had changed over time, so were not always the same. Extinctions were also observed (e.g. dodo), so species were not fixed.

​

19th Century

​

Lamark (1809) proposed a theory that living things changed by inheriting acquired characteristics. e.g. giraffes stretched their necks to reach food, and their offspring inherited stretched necks. This is now known to be wrong, since many experiments (and experience) have shown that acquired characteristics are not inherited, but nevertheless Lamark's theory was the first to admit that species changed, and to try to explain it.

​

Charles Darwin (1859) published "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", which has been recognised as one of the most important books ever written. A very similar theory was also proposed by Alfred Wallace, and Darwin and Wallace agreed to publish at the same time.

---

That is the truth, yes? Science curricula should be though, yes? But not just any criticism, right?

So if people through the legislature decided that murder was acceptable, you would run with it? Just because people accept an idea doesn't make it truth. Truth requires evidence, give me some evidence for any of the ~1000 creation stories. Science is not based on people's beliefs, it is based on physical not hearsay evidence.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008