Balls versus Gove
Iain
As you may know, the British schools minister, Ed Balls, is concerned
that a Tory government might allow Creationism to seep into the
classroom if they devolve power to beknighted wallies such as Sir
Peter Vardy.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926283.ece
So I had a ferret around the parliamentary transcripts and found that
the discussion had come up in parliament at least once before.
Here follows an exchange in parliament between Ed Balls and Michael
Gove (The Shadow Balls) which shows that Gove is both opposed to
Creationism and yet reluctant to take measures against it.
Ed Balls:
' I apologise to the honorable Gentleman for diverting him from his
text, but on the particular issue of the curriculum of independent
schools, I have before me the regulations that apply to independent
schools. They say that schools should draw up
“a written policy on the curriculum”,
which would give pupils experience in
“linguistic, mathematical, scientific, technological, human and
social, physical and aesthetic... education”.
All they have to do is draw up a curriculum, but the honorable
Gentleman suggested on “Channel 4 News” that the curriculum would stop
the teaching of creationism in schools, so he must have been talking
about the national curriculum. It is the national curriculum that will
stop the teaching of creationism, not the independent curriculum
rules. If he is saying that the rules will apply to all schools, why
will they not apply to academies? '
Michael Gove:
' I was looking forward to the Secretary of State’s intervention and
hoped that it might be illuminating, but he is going down a curious
alley—and a blind one at that. The Secretary of State and I both agree
that the teaching of creationism should not be part of science
teaching, and we also agree that there is a distinction between the
national curriculum as it applies to state schools and the curriculum
that applies to independent schools. We want to give academies the
same freedom that independent schools have—one of those clear dividing
lines of which the Secretary of State is fond. If the Secretary of
State wanted to argue for restricting academy freedom, we would be
interested; if he wanted to argue for extending academy freedom, we
would be delighted; if he wanted to argue in favour of creationism, I
would be fascinated; and if he wanted to join us in saying that
religious fundamentalism should play no part in the school curriculum,
I would be overjoyed. However, the Secretary of State is attempting to
make a distinction without a difference. '
Hwie so vague?
--Iain
Friar Broccoli
.
>
> Hwie so vague?
Is the government in Britian trying to devolve power/decision making
to
local school authorities in order to create competing systems from
which
parents and students may choose thereby making the education system
more
responsive to the needs of society ???
*IF* so, then his problem might be that you cannot devolve power and
then
limit the decision maker's choices so much that they have no real
power.
Without more context it is hard to figure out what is going on.
All-seeing-I
> As you may know, the British schools minister, Ed Balls, is concerned
> that a Tory government might allow Creationism to seep into the
> classroom
Evolutionist: The sky is falling!!
Creationsit: Don't be silly
EV: But that can't teach THAT. It is unscientific!
CR: It is just another explaination for man's origins
EV: NO. It is not. Never!!
CR: What are you afraid of?
EV: Nothing. You are just stupid
CR: You sure sound afraid. Is your theory solid?
EV. YES. More solid then God Did It
CE: Then why are you afraid of being compared
EV: Because I hate everything you stand for
CR: And what do I stand for?
EV: Lies. You all Lie. Sicience is truth. We have all the answers
CR: Then you should have no problem being compared with other notions
of man's origins
EV: Shut up. You are dumb. Religion is dumb. God would be dumb is God
existed. But he don't. And that is why you cannot teach God did it in
schools.
CR: [sigh]
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 4:29 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> As you may know, the British schools minister, Ed Balls, is concerned
>> that a Tory government might allow Creationism to seep into the
>> classroom
>
>Evolutionist: The sky is falling!!
>
>Creationsit: Don't be silly
>
>EV: But that can't teach THAT. It is unscientific!
>
>CR: It is just another explaination for man's origins
ROFLMAO!! 'just another explanation'
and the brother's grimm...according to creationism...is a documentary
>
>EV: Lies. You all Lie. Sicience is truth. We have all the answers
that's true. i often invoke the truth of science when
i...ummm...well...never
>
>CR: Then you should have no problem being compared with other notions
>of man's origins
>
>EV: Shut up. You are dumb. Religion is dumb. God would be dumb is God
>existed. But he don't. And that is why you cannot teach God did it in
>schools.
>
>CR: [sigh]
uh...no. to see why you can't teach god in school
go bitch at thomas jefferson
i realize creationists vomit when they think of the constitution, but
he's your problem. not science
happy to educate you, creationist. any time...any time
Mike Lyle
this Vardy character supports, but he was given a foothold in education
by a strange measure of Blair's: what Balls feels about this, I'm not at
all clear. Michael Gove, by the way and irrelevantly, is a repellent
type: he looks as though he was house-trained by having his nose rubbed
in the offending deposit.
--
Mike.
Kermit
Some of us like to be educated, and wish we were more educated. I
know you loathe and fear knowledge, and prefer wallowing in wishful
thinking, but some of us want our kids to be educated, and we want to
grow old in a prosperous and civilized society, not an ignorant and
authoritarian theocracy.
If you do not want to face reality, and thereby (among other things)
refuse to know the consequences of your actions, you cannot claim to
be moral. Well, I suppose you can *claim it, but it would be vacuous
and disingenuous to do so.
Kermit
Iain
wrote:
Vardy donated to Labour. Now he's donating to the Tories.
Blair introduced the academies system. Balls kept it, but would not
have introduced it. Blair was complacent about Creationist abuse, but
opposed it when pressured to comment about it. Balls is proactive
against it, and made rules against it. Gove wants to expand the
academies system, and although he has stated that Creationism wouldn't
be allowed in any school which received government money, he seems not
to appreciate the unconscionable oppertunism of religious groups and
their determination to find loopholes.
Basically, I think the public ought to ask themselves one thing...Is
there not something inherently suspicous about the mere fact that
religious groups are more likely to set up schools, rather than, say,
set up fire departments? Surely it's not a coincidence that the kind
of service they want to provide(schools) is also the very kind of
venue through which ideas are best inculcated into a section of the
Kingdom's populus? How can you expect them not to want to take
advantage?
It's like leaving your cat in charge of your budgie.
One obvious downside of the privatisation of schools is that failures
such as Creationism don't always register in the customers' (parents)
knowledge of the school, and so doesn't influence the competition. It
went under the radar in Vardy schools before, and Gove believes Vardy
when he denied it ever happened.
> Michael Gove, by the way and irrelevantly, is a repellent
> type: he looks as though he was house-trained by having his nose rubbed
> in the offending deposit.
Well he certainly looks exceedingly thoroughbred. I don't find him
repellant, though. He seems to genuinely care about standards in
education. He just seems naive about the potential abuses.
--Iain