Britain Bans Creationism from Free Schools and Academies

The UK has banned the teaching of Creationism as a 'science' from UK 'Free' publicly funded schools, both existing and future, that is Academies and Schools set up by private parties such as faith or parental groups but funded by the state. Free schools are not required by law to follow the National Curriculum but are required to 'provide a broad and balanced curriculum'. Teaching Creationism as a scientific theory is not held to be compatible with that requirement, thus the change to the law.

Further info:

What is a free school?

Free Schools are normally brand-new schools set up by teachers, charities, community or faith groups, universities and groups of parents where there is parental demand. They will be set up as Academies and will be funded in the same way, directly from central government. They also share with Academies a greater control over their finances, the curriculum, and teachers' pay and conditions.

What are Academies?

Academies are independently managed schools set up by sponsors from business, faith or voluntary groups in partnership with the local authority and the government Department for Children, Schools and Families.

I'm kinda conflicted tbh.

On the one hand I'm okay with non scientific subjects not being taught as science but I have concerns with Gove's and the Governments position on education and the existence of these schools and academies.

Most of the people in our social group are teachers. I daren't even mention the name 'Gove' in their presence.

This is it. I'm not going to auto disagree with every decision he makes as that's kinda lazy and pointless but I think there's an even bigger picture than making sure creationism isn't taught as science.

I don't disagree with the decision I have some concerns with why it was necessary.

Agree, it's not easy to disengage from what I've heard referred to as the 'Halo effect' (to save people not familiar with that having to look it up, it's the tendency to assume that people we don't like are completely bad and and not capable of doing something that we might actually like, and vice versa), but this guy causes such high levels of animosity that I wouldn't even make that argument to any of our friends. I just stay out of it.

Those being?

That there isn't a clear curriculum across all schools. It's a response to a problem that enabling free schools created.

Actually that's too strong but free schools have exacerbated the problem

Gove is to education what Shipman is to Help The Aged.

Actually, this could get interesting. One of the things that's changed for me since I started posting here is that I'm now more aware of [some] philosophies with regard to education. When I think about a school curriculum I'm no longer assuming that it is as good as it could be, or as well designed or thought out as possible, that there are infallible experts somewhere in back rooms getting all this stuff right. I even wonder with exactly what aim in mind our curriculums have been developed. Right now, I wonder if there's too much of a focus on work related education, that education is more about getting a job than being about broadening minds and preparing them for life generally, in a less vocational sense.

But, would you have a standardised curriculum across the board, nationally, and how would you deal with the issue of people who want to educate children themselves without government interference. Isn't that how we ended up with these types of schools/academies in the first place? Also, how would you decide the aim of that curriculum and what it would be comprised of?

is it wrong for me to wish Gove was a patient....

that's an interesting point MB I'll get back to it when I'm home

I'd have some concerns with education being directed at vocational courses and I agree that any curriculum is subject to legitimate challenges, I don't know that there's any consensus on what a curriculum should include.

I would have a standard curriculum despite not being qualified to posit what it should be. I'd welcome parents involvement in the focus and delivery but within a framework that applies across the board. My preference would be for reduced government interference but I don't know whether extricating education from political influence is plausible.

I understand the desire to teach kids free from government involvement but I don't know that extends to teaching them whatever, if the same constraints on what can be taught applies then the management of that can be done locally and with the involvement of the parents without leaving local authority control. All the free schools do is remove the tier of local authority control the schools are operate under the department of education.

Good riddance.

teach the controversy... lol

check out these shirts
http://controversy.wearscience.com/

It's a good result, and there is no reason to suspect anything but a reasonable process leading to it. It's also a good example of why state intervention is sometimes necessary. We don't need thousands of kids being taught religion as science, and especially not on the taxpayers' bill.

conjecture: it is possible to teach creationism or intelligent design in a way such that the students are just as capable of understanding and passing a subsequent test on the scientific method as those that teach evolution.

If you have ever listened to the ken hams of the world, you will notice how they actually buy into the scientific method and make many appeals to the scientific way of thinking, they just do rather deceptive usage of it. But if one wants to learn about the importance of giving hypotheses, providing evidence, conducting experiments, and the like, one can learn all these things in the context of creationism. Heck, one can inculcate a sense of wonder at the universe, a thirst for knowledge and exploration, and the like as well.

For the most part, when we teach science we are not trying to teach a set of facts for students to learn. We are trying to build up certain skills and certain ways of thinking. For instance, the individual facts one learn in chemistry and physics are different - and, for the most part, unimportant - but the general skills that is developed are much more similar. I think it is more than possible to create a very valuable learning experience that teaches science even if the associated bundle of facts - creationism, in this case - is bogus.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't be science. Science is also about presenting scientific knowledge.

Good. It's sad that a law has to be passed to stop teachers passing off such nonsense as science but since creationists are more numerous and determined than astrologists and phrenologists, it's necessary.

I'd say not, because Creationism isn't science.

Why I don't think that Creationism is science. (Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is Scientific)

If it doesn't met the criteria for what can be considered scientific, it isn't science. It seems pretty black and white really. Conversely, science could never be taught as a religion, there's no god, there's no place in science for faith etc etc.

That may be the ideal goal, but the practice is far from this.

No one is saying that it is science. But it could still possibly be used to teach the scientific method .

Maybe, but doing that would not be science. Thus it has no place in a science class. Are people forgetting that presenting research is also science?

And sure, you can probably teach people some things about repairing a car with a dog skeleton and some rubber hoses. That doesn't make it a good idea.

So when Ken Ham goes around telling people about YEC, what is he not doing?

Well, I dont have a dog in this fight, but if, as uke says, teaching science is ( or should be) more about teaching the scientific method, then I could easily see it having a place in a science class( using creationism , i mean).

Incidentally, lists like this

should NEVER be taken to be a hard-and-fast definition of science. In fact, most lists that say "Science must be all of these things" are problematic. Very often, such lists are far more restrictive than what actually happens in science, and if you extend the concept of science beyond "laboratory sciences" it gets even worse at describing science.

Seemingly easy to answer but actually a difficult question.

All we can do is go into the overwhelming amount of research and theory that must necessarily be perverted, corrupted, misrepresented, or flatly ignored, in order for creationism to be even approaching the supported scientific account.

While it may still be broadly "scientific" in many senses we are still doing our children a great injustice by teaching them to do science in such a shoddy and dishonest manner.

If you have been taught to assess evidence and reason in such a way that you come out a creationist then you have very likely been poorly taught.

I thought that's what I was answering. I don't see how something that isn't science could be used as a tool for teaching scientific method, or how it could realistically be expected that someone could pick up scientific method, directly or indirectly, from something that isn't science and doesn't use that scientific method.

Perhaps you could use it as example of what scientific method is, by pointing out all the ways that Creationism doesn't use it. But that would be a bit round the houses wouldn't it?