Channel 4 - Dispatches - The New Fundamentalists
Posted on Mon, 6th March 2006 at 21:17 under Politics, Hmmmm..., Education
A response to
Rod Liddle investigates the evangelical Christians who tell teenagers that contraception won’t protect them and that homosexuality is wrong, and finds out what children are taught in the state schools they run.
It was more a diatribe on
A search for creation evolution schools
Written Answers, Monday, 27 February 2006
Education and Skills: Creationism
Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Lab)
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on the teaching of creationism as a subject in schools and if she will make a statement.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills)
Neither creationism nor intelligent design is taught as a subject in schools. The national curriculum programme of study for science at key stage 4 covers evolution. It sets out that pupils should be taught “that the fossil record is evidence for evolution” and also “how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction”. Pupils should however be taught about “how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence”. Also, the biblical view of creation can be taught in RE lessons, where pupils are taught to consider opposing theories and come to their own, reasoned conclusions. Therefore, although creationism and intelligent design are not part of the national curriculum, they could be covered in these contexts.
Little Rod came across as a paranoid nutcase, slurring probably very good, hard-working teachers with no more evidence than hearsay and innuendo, revealing a deep prejudice towards a belief system he openly despises. He was the only one with a problem about the religion despite him having no actual relationship with any of the schools. The other complainants were more concerned with the unusually strict disciplinary regimes at the schools their children attended.
Journalism? Hah. Broadcaster wank-fest? You betcha. Good TV? Hmmm…
Ann Onymous said: March 6th, 2006 at 21:48
I liked it. He looked at a faith school *spits* and argued that such things are exactly againt the point of education. Faith school *spits* is a conradiction in terms. The goal of education is to replace closed minds with open minds (who said that) the point of faith is to close your mind to the lack of evidence on the subject.
On the question of what evidence the program has of its claim; who are you going to belive - a hallful of perents or the head?
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 6th, 2006 at 22:00
Religious schools leads to isolation and segregation, not jsut physically, but knowledge and understanding are restricted. These “faith schools” don’t help the education process, merely hinder it.
ReplyLibertus said: March 6th, 2006 at 22:04
I’m no fan of faith schools, preferring as you do the open educational approach (encourage questions) to the closed (provide answers). I thought the programme fell very much into the latter category.
Whom would I believe? Frankly, they all gave me the creeps; parents, head and the presenter. Only the kids seemed to be acting sane, which is all that’s important, surely. I’ll believe the kids. They’re harder to fool and less likely to lie.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 6th, 2006 at 22:05
Anyone want to defend brainwashing inocent kids?
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 6th, 2006 at 22:10
The other complainants were more concerned with the unusually strict disciplinary regimes at the schools their children attended.
They are obiged to.
ReplyLibertus said: March 6th, 2006 at 22:48
I didn’t get the impression from the programme that the children were being brain-washed any more so than is required by the National Curriculum . You have to bear in mind that teaching evolution at all is a fairly recent innovation.
Now that there is no obligation to teach only a religious view of origins, other credible options being available, it does not follow that we should immediately cease all tuition of the earlier forms. Evolution does not yet solve all problems, and there remains something quite wonderful, I believe, in the idea of a being magnificent enough to design and create a universe, that children’s imaginations should not be denied it without something equally wonderful to take its place.
ReplyLibertus said: March 6th, 2006 at 22:53
Google Ads I Have To Click
Looks brilliant. Definately one togo-back-to . Not sure a can make the debate any less old or tired, but I’m a sucker for this one. 
Update: From the click-through, I signed up for a 5 day series of e-mails entitled “Where Did The Universe Come From?”. The first one arrived immediately, as promised. Perfect service so far. An advertiser that deserves their money’s worth.
ReplyLiberta said: March 6th, 2006 at 22:57
Ann - can you expand or explain meaning of “*spits*” please.
ReplyGavin Ayling said: March 6th, 2006 at 23:48
In case Ann doesn’t reply, I suggest she meant that she doesn’t like Faith Schools and that saying it leaves a bad taste in her mouth.
I meant to watch the programme and wish I had… I have to say I enjoyed the Dawkins programme for his honesty as much as for his espousal of a lot of my concerns…
ReplyLibertus said: March 7th, 2006 at 08:59
Gavin,
Ann not reply? Ann is irrepressible, opinionated and vocal - attributes that will always make him welcome here! So long as he cleans the spittle from the walls, I’m happy.
If you enjoyed that Dawkins programme, you’ll thoroughly enjoy , so you should definately check it out. C4 will surely repeat it or offer it for download. I cannot verify though, as the facts presented by both programmes were too distorted for my taste.
Concerns are best discussed. Raise an issue, draw some debate, see what happens. Feel free.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 7th, 2006 at 22:29
*cleans the spittle from the walls*
The main problem I have is trying to teach kids that evolution (a scientifically demonstrated and observed phenomenon) is comparable to the hypothesis that the entire universe was created by an omniscient and omnipotent being in 6 periods of 24 hours.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 7th, 2006 at 22:37
Thanks for the appraisal Libertus.
ReplyLibertus said: March 8th, 2006 at 11:35
Ann,
Of course, when you compare the different origin theories in such a manner, the religious explanation does appear to lack evidence, or in modern parlance, “intelligence”. We lack intelligence about God, but have discovered much intelligence about biology, geology, paleontology and so on.
What is the point in teaching things that cannot be studied? Evolution can be studied and, at the whim of the student, rejected as being bollocks, without the risk of eternal damnation (although at the expense of some ridicule, perhaps).
That said, there is no moral aspect to evolution, whereas the religious explanation of the world is entirely wrapped up in morals. I believe an education about morals and ethics is an important part of a person’s development, but despise the conflation of origins and ethics. A bit too much like cross-selling for my liking.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 8th, 2006 at 16:49
I don’t think that morals can be taught in the same way as say physics. In normal lessons there are hard facts (some more supported than others) whereas in morality there are no solid facts. There are no moral absoulutes and the only way it can be ‘taught’ is through open discussion, which hardly fits into the them-and-us mentality of most school children.
ReplyLibertus said: March 8th, 2006 at 20:10
Christians, and other people of religion, would strongly disagree that no moral absolutes exist. For them, the existence of God and the moral codes in the Bible are absolute and unchangeable, so qualify as hard facts.
How many of the facts taught about physics are any more meaningful to children than “here is a book, what it says is the truth, pay attention, there will be an exam at the end”? Until the experiments begin, physics and religion are something found in a dusty old uninteresting books.
All that said, I do not believe in absolute morality. Relative morality is sufficient for people - it even says so in the Bible. Do not unto others that which you would not have done unto yourself.
ReplyLibertus said: March 8th, 2006 at 20:12
Google sells:
Clicking through…
A £10 book offering a critique of the science of evolution, purportedly focussing on the microbiology. I have a book from the late 1960’s that takes a similar approach and it is devastating. Microbiology is evolution’s weak point, perhaps because microbiology is still quite a new science, but primarily because evolutionary theory cannot apply to molecules, only the lifeforms those molecules construct.
ReplyLiberta said: March 9th, 2006 at 08:53
Thanks Gavin. I have to say I am of similar opinion. How can we develop children’s understanding of other faiths if we segregate them? Is segregation not a fear reaction that if you do expose your children to other faiths then they might choose to reject the one that you want them to have? Heritage is one thing, preservation of faith by refusing exposure to alternatives is something completely different.
Moving away from faith schools but still on segregation and what’s wrong with it. I listened to the Learning Curve on Radio 4 the other day. They were talking about Northampton Academy, a severely underperforming school that had been built to take in kids from 3 earlier low performance schools. One of the parents explained that a principle reason the school failed was because it forced kids from one estate south of the park, to attend a school on the estate north of the park, and that the two estates do not like each other.
I was dumbstruck. Parents think its a good idea to maintain divisions because of what side of the park you live on? If this is the level of pettiness that drives peoples lives and allows parents to condone truancy then there is no surprise that others are intractable about faith. Where is the intelligence?
Rant over.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 9th, 2006 at 19:15
I realy don’t understand the point of social integration in schools. Schools are for intelectual expansion, after school you can work on you social skills. (I wonder why I have no friends.)
ReplyLibertus said: March 9th, 2006 at 20:36
ROFL! You have a friend in me, for sure.
You’ve got it all around the wrong way, you ninny!
Schools are entirely about developing social skills, as the education received there is entirely worthless, being nothing much to do with your choice.
University is entirely about intellectual expansion, as the education received there is entirely up to you, your choices, your capabilities and your effort.
If you don’t go to university, you go into work, where your social skill is your survival tool and not your intellect. If you go into work without having developed your social skill, you’re meat.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 9th, 2006 at 23:01
I entiarly agree that post primary (i.e. 3 R’s) education is pointless if it is not done by the child freely. However I would state that an educational facility is designed to teach not integrate socialy. The problem with comp. ed. is that it leads to people with huge social capacity but no ability to read, write or count.
ReplyLibertus said: March 10th, 2006 at 02:44
A minority, fortunately. Besides, reading, writing and counting are simple matters of practice and patience. They all come with use and you never stop learning how to do them.
ReplyLibertus said: March 10th, 2006 at 02:45
Google sells:
I think this proves my point, somehow.
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 10th, 2006 at 21:26
School should enable both social and intellectual development, sadly it often fails in both departments. Faith schools restrict both considerably, as do all forms of protective parenting and isolation.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 10th, 2006 at 23:05
Or generaly enforced protection. Let people fail once and they don’t do it again. Stop them from failing and they will never discover the fact.
ReplyLiberta said: March 11th, 2006 at 12:30
me_lkjhgfdsa Says:
For many children school is the only community location.
Safety advise counsels against letting your children out of your sight. If parents do not actively seek out activities for their children that involve children from other races, religions, estates, languages etc, it is likely that children will never get exposed to them outside of an integrated school.
If the school is segregated as well, then the child will grow up to the age of 16 with no experience of any way of living or thinking that is not entirely their parent’s/school’s. Few psychological models of development extend beyond the age of 16 because it is believed that the foundations are already laid.
I personally have a more positive approach that development of thought and mind continue into adult life, although I suspect that the degree of adult development is related to the breadth of experience and openness of learning experienced while developing in childhood. I fear that a very narrow experience of different types of people as a child, and a narrow exposure to different thinking not only restricts the knowledge of the adult but also restricts their ability to gain and work with more.
We are all equal before the law, our similarities are greater in number than our differences. Segregation in all but word promotes the opposite idea and produces adults who are unable to understand the error.
ReplyLibertus said: March 11th, 2006 at 15:05
Hear, hear!
ReplyLibertus said: March 11th, 2006 at 15:06
Stop that, you stupid computer!
Replyhttp:///is not a valid URI!KaosMark2 said: March 11th, 2006 at 16:03
*applauds*
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 11th, 2006 at 21:48
I wouldn’t agree. If a child’s only social interaction of any sort is in a school then that is a very sad inditement on the child’s ability to make friends - look at me even I have friends out side of school.
ReplyLiberta said: March 12th, 2006 at 08:17
Did you have friends in social, racial and religious groups different from that of your family?
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 12th, 2006 at 11:28
I have friends who are Christian and atheists. I live in an area which is 98.3% White however I do have a few friends of ethnic minorities and I am aquainted with persons of lower social standing than myself. I however have friends outside school who are (in the case of online) unknown and (in the case of the ‘real world’) very diferent to myself.
Why?
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 12th, 2006 at 11:29
Most children will have friends outside school, however generally they will be in groups chosen by the parents, or learnt about from within school. School is generally the main, but not only, place of social interaction. It will almost certainly be the focal point of learning and understanding about different cultures. Schools educate, or should at least, both socially and intellectually.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 12th, 2006 at 11:44
I don’t think schools should be socialy selective. If the level of streeming that grammar schools alow was posible in an all inclusive school that would be fine but it just isn’t feasible.
ReplyLiberta said: March 12th, 2006 at 12:06
My point was that outside of school, many children do not have the opportunity to meet children of other communities. You are/were obviously lucky.
ReplyLiberta said: March 12th, 2006 at 12:11
Why is it not feasible to stream children by their ability in any school?
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 12th, 2006 at 12:38
Interesting, the more intelligent are more likely to succeed when streamed properly, while the less intelligent are more likely to succeed in mixed intelligence groups, statistically that is, so whether that counts as information or not…..
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 12th, 2006 at 12:44
What method would you use for analysing the ability of students?
ReplyAnd would you stream for each subject, or general streaming?
Subject streaming will often mean that there each child will have less friends that overlap between classes, and also be much harder to organise a working timetable.
However steaming would mean that teachers knew the general level of the class they were teaching beforehand, thus enabling better preparation and probably education.
Libertus said: March 12th, 2006 at 13:42
KaosMark2,
I would accept that as a general premise. It means that the resources brought to school by children require better management, and for better reason, than the resources made available to the children by the school.
ReplyLiberta said: March 12th, 2006 at 14:10
By that argument we applaud the sacrifice of potentially very gifted children to bring the lesser able up to a moderate level.
That is a dumb policy that fails the whole of society.
We should seek ways to teach children that brings them all up to their maximum potential.
ReplyLibertus said: March 12th, 2006 at 20:08
Sacrifice should not be applauded nor encouraged. It is a tactical manœuvre, reserved for desperate situations where total defeat is a looming possibility.
As a strategy in chess, sacrifice can be delightfully devastating, albeit at great risk.
You don’t get a second chance.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 13th, 2006 at 19:48
Liberta,
My point is that if there is a large spread of abilities that means that the students would have to be spread more thinly than in a grammar school which makes arranging classes harder.
KaosMark2,
Definately stream on a subject-by-subject basis. I’m terrible at Russian but that doesn’t affect my (even if I do say so myself) fantastic ability in Maths.
Libertus,
Persons of a higher academic capacity are not pawns!
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 14th, 2006 at 00:01
But at what level do you start to stream?
ReplyThere are flaws in streaming, which will be far more noticable initially, and the advantages less clear, during the earlier stages of education. While if you leave it too late, you’ll already have started to hinder the progress of the able students.
me_lkjhgfdsa said: March 14th, 2006 at 18:55
I don’t know, you’d need an expert in education to work that out. I was streemed from year 3 and that worked out ok. But I’m no expert.
ReplyLibertus said: March 14th, 2006 at 21:24
I beg to differ. Having been through the process, you are the only one here with any expert knowledge on the subject. I, for one, would be interested to learn of your streamed education experience.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 15th, 2006 at 18:15
I feel special. I’ve only been streemed in terms of lesons in a few core subjects. They from my point of view a test of how you are doing and more generaly of your academic ability. The 11+ was a major split. In my area it is comonly seen that you either go to my school and get good A levels etc. or you don’t and you go with the rest of the chavs to the centers of certin failure.
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 15th, 2006 at 22:50
I’ve never been subject-streamed, except for maths groups which were always streamed seperately. I’ve been generally streamed, which was extremely awkward.
ReplyLiberta said: March 16th, 2006 at 14:47
I got streamed for maths into the top group and hated it because they aimed so low. I ended up in a group of 5 who did O level maths on our own intiative. [OK showing my age ;-D]
The streaming was absolutely necessary because some of the girls in my year could not even add up, and I went onto university maths. In fact more streaming was needed than 2 groups - OR - as I would have preferred - some motivation and ambition from the teacher to bring everyone in the top class to at least O level standard.
Lousy teaching was the main problem, not the streaming.
ReplyLiberta said: March 16th, 2006 at 14:51
I got streamed for sports into bottom of 4 groups because I was lousy at tennis and hockey - the school sports.
Strangely, I was able to represent the school at national level for athletics and swimming [and win!] while I was still considered at sport.
When faced with that sort of discrimination as a teenager its quite easy to be demotivated about the whole thing.
Again its not streaming that is the problem - but the degree of it, how it is evaluated and the quality and attitude of the teachers.
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 16th, 2006 at 21:33
The streaming for sports is interesting, as that shows the damage and difficulty of general streaming.
ReplyLibertus said: March 17th, 2006 at 12:20
I’m getting a little confused, guys. Is “streaming” in any way related to “selection”? It appears to be a selective process.
ReplyLiberta said: March 17th, 2006 at 20:32
Selection would be to join a school, streaming would be sorting you into ability groups once in it.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 18th, 2006 at 17:23
Why is selection such a scary idea?
ReplyLibertus said: March 18th, 2006 at 18:43
I don’t know. I don’t find it a scary idea. Selection doesn’t seem all that different from streaming to me.
Perhaps selection reflects more on the parents than streaming.
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 18th, 2006 at 19:25
Streaming doesn’t exclude anyone, it just ranks abilities so that the more able students are less likely to suffer academically.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 18th, 2006 at 20:21
And yet several labour MPs tried to kick out the Education Bill for fear that it could lead to selection by the back door.
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 19th, 2006 at 11:05
And we are surprised at such a shredabble excuse why?
ReplyLibertus said: March 19th, 2006 at 13:19
Some debates found bysearching for “education selection back door” on theyworkforyou.com .
11th March 2003, “Specialist Schools (Selection by Aptitude)”, David Chaytor (Lab, Bury North) (a Private Member’s Bill which lapsed on 2rd Reading)
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 21st, 2006 at 19:38
Back to faith schools?
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 21st, 2006 at 22:15
*gets a flaming torch and a pitchfork*
ReplyLibertus said: March 22nd, 2006 at 10:46
I’d love to talk about faith schools, in general and in detail. They’re obviously a controversial subject (frowns and smiles at KaosMark2), everyone here has an opinion, some have experience and there’s a lot of Parliamentary and media debate. I can provide linkage galore.
So if anyone’s up for it, would you prefer to discuss here, or shall I open a new post on the subject?
ReplyLibertus said: March 22nd, 2006 at 10:51
Google sells:
I clicked through this a few days back and didn’t record my thoughts at the time. As I recall, I did not consider what I found to be particularly credible. It’s a kind of mystical attempt to reconcile origin science and religion, which would naturally place it in the realm ofmetaphysics (i.e. bullshit ), but I got the feeling the peddler thinks it’s all real.
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 22nd, 2006 at 19:21
I’d prefer a new post, mainly because the next time you open a thread on any discussion, this’ll go to the 2nd page, so it’ll be harder to find.
And I like controversy, just reiterating my dislike of faith schools.
ReplyLibertus said: March 22nd, 2006 at 21:10
OK, one vote is good enough for me! Soon as I get some basic research time, I’ll do some and open up a post, and link from here. Not sure how long that’ll be. Piece of string long.
Then we can dive into the subject of faith schools at whatever lengths, breaths and depths we see fit.
Mmm… depth… mmm… diving.
Google is tempting me…
Google knows… who I am… me…
Google knows…
I… must… click…
submit…
Bastard! I clicked submit and they’re gone!
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 24th, 2006 at 18:47
What the heck is an ad for BB7 doing on this page?
ReplyKaosMark2 said: March 27th, 2006 at 21:27
why the hell has this discussion died?
ReplyLibertus said: March 27th, 2006 at 21:28
Sorry, my fault. I’ve been busy so haven’t had time to either chat or open up a new post for discussion. I’m keen to delve deeper into the whole “faith school” subject.
Bear with me. “Normal” service will be resumed shortly. I’m almost done.
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa said: March 29th, 2006 at 19:46
Sounds fun.
Reply