Groundhog day in primary school

Alexandrovich

This is, as I'm sure you are aware Melanie, a multi-pronged attack.

Vineeta Gupta, the head of children's dictionaries at Oxford University Press, says: "We are limited by how big the dictionary can be – little hands must be able to handle it."

And so the following words, among others, have been ommitted from the latest edition of the OUP's Children's Dictionary:

Abbey, aisle, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, minister, monastery, monk, nun, nunnery, parish, pew, psalm, pulpit, saint, sin, devil, vicar.

Robin

I spent 30 years teaching in secondary education with the last 17 years in mixed, multi-racial comprehensive in the Midlands.

There's no doubt in my mind at all that you can and should teach children to read and write correctly. Such skills open so many doors to both employment and higher education.

Without doubt our governments in the past 20 years have allowed waffle to replace rigour; exploring and experiencing to replace teaching and learning; vague tests to replace examinations.

One has only explore internet discussion groups - even this excellent blog - to see the outcome. Many posters can barely string a sentence together, let alone a paragraph. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are often appallingly bad.

We need our children to be literate and numerate before being taught happiness. Actually, being literate and numerate helps the pursuit of happiness - if that's what is needed.

I have fond memories of taking 15 year-old boys & girls through Romeo & Juliet and allowing their literacy to help them explore Shakespeare.

How glad I am that all our children were taught to read before they went to school.

Verity

Have they included imam? Niqab? Pigs? Monkeys? Hijab? Chador? Mosque? Haram?

Jihad?

Ian G

A cross-curricular project or two set alongside basic teaching, is a good idea. They should not be the sole means of educating children. Good teachers try to sneak in proper teaching when these projects dominate, but they are working against the system.

We are losing talent in the primary schools when children who could be learning subjects at a secondary level are having to be bored by working with children who can hardly read. Teaching such a class is a nightmare.

The late Professor C.S. Lewis made a similar observation back in the Fifties. He thought that it was bad then. He foresaw what would happen. His excellent book 'The Abolition of Man' shows just how all this would come about.

stanley Jerusalem

As I have posted previously, the watchword of the Institute of Education from the 50's onwards was "It's more important to be happy than successful"
Bloody Fools!
Now the teachers are illiterate what chance is there for the kids? A GCSE in 'Bashing Things', I suppose.

John Thomas

The point to remember about the educational changes in recent times is that they are all politically/ideologically motivated. Likewise the junior dictionary changes: they are excising, and introducing, those things which they seek to instill, not reflecting things as they see them to be; dictionaries were always supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive - but this is not how the ideologists work.

Tony

'left children ignorant and uneducated'

Isn't this exactly what this vile Marxist government wants? It makes it easier to indoctrinate them, which is what we are seeing more & more of in schools!

james huggins

What a brave new educational world. Keep it up and your schools will begin to look like American schools. You know, the school system where nobody can read or compose a sentence longer than 4 words.

W. Smith

The typical school day in 2012 (i.e. at the end of the current Five Year Plan):

07:30 Teacher cleans everyone's teeth.

08:00 Breakfast* in school: training in use of spoons, beakers and toaster

09:00 Toilet training

09:30 Counting practice

10:00 Alphabet practice

10:30 Dexterity hour (choice of Playstation or X-Box)

11:30 Pre-prandial nap

12:00 Comprehension lunch*: practice in understanding & ordering from menu.

13:00 Toilet training

13:30 Physical activity and risk assessment session: learners form groups to plan and participate in safe, healthy activity (e.g. passing a foam ball around).

14:30 Gender awareness time: learners assess gender stereotypes and build bridges to understanding by engaging in gender-neutral roleplay.

15:00 Emotion and relationships: learners acquire understanding of polymorphous nature of sexuality and, in randomly-assigned pairs or threes explore their own feelings and desires. Importance of reducing underage pregnancy emphasised.

16:00 Bathtime. Learners bathe one another, to cultivate empathy.

16:30 Earthcare: learners encouraged to bond with one another through sharing concerns about capitalism and environmental issues.

17:00 Disbursion of Individual Learner Allowance.

17:30 Home economics. Shop-based instruction in how to spend Allowance on nutritious food, and how to check change on a calculator.

18:30 Food purchased by learners is cooked by dinnerpersons. Learners watch --- to ensure compliance with health and safety law.

18:30 Dinner* and communication skills. Learners eat and --- with help where necessary --- converse at table.

19:30 Toilet training

20:00 Streetwyze Club: learners versed in responsible use of alcohol/drugs by harm-reduction operatives.

20:30 Psychological normalisation (with carers from Directorate of Social Justice & Mental Harmony)
21:00 Hometime

*(fat/sugar/salt levels monitored by OfFeed)

David Lindsay

Today, Mr Ed The Talking Horse, fast rivalling even his brother as an advertisement for the restoration of the grammar schools, called, from the heart of government, for a "mass" movement to stop the masses from moving. David Cameron is signed up, and the Lib Dems pioneered this sort of thing decades ago.

Furthermore, that "mass" movement against mass movement's propaganda is to replace both History and Geography in primary schools.

Dixon

This is so awful.

You know where its leading. Some years down the road therell be a report saying "kids" arent taught anything much in school anyway so lets just do awa\y with state schooling altogether.

Far fetched? Is it? Just think how much money could be saved towards repaying that borrowed to bail out bust bankers!

stanley Jerusalem

W.Smith
I wasn't clear on one thing.
Age group?
5 - 6, 10 - 12 or 15 - 18?
All appear equally likely.
Oh yes, and you missed out reading to one another.

Ed

Geography is a cross-curricular subject anyway. In America, it doesn't feature as a recognised discipline. I would favour merging it into other subjects.

Steve Buckley

I'm a History teacher getting to the close of my career, I'm a Chair of Governors at a local primary school - everywhere I look: despair.

W. Smith

"I wasn't clear on one thing.
Age group?"

3-24

...The same classes are taught throughout the schooling period, but are assessed termly in Key Stages (numbered 1 to 66). All learners graduate from compulsory schooling aged at least twenty-four: those who pass (i.e. sit) Key Stage 66 are awarded a doctorate in Life Skills.

Further study is encouraged but optional.

Susan Hill

And what will happen ? Private /Independent schools will continue to teach traditional subjects traditionally. Their pupils will get into the best universities, take the best degrees and get the best-paid jobs. Equality of opportunity ? No, the poorest children suffer yet again from being forced to attend crap schools teaching rubbish and NOT teaching traditional subjects rigorously. They will continue either not to go into higher education or to attend poor quality former-polytechnics and study non-subjects. They will either drop out or get worthless degrees and because they can spout a lot of PC jargon but cannot spell, punctuate or structure a sentence or do fairly basic mathematics, they will be unemployable except in the lowest paid unskilled jobs.
Is this what the Labour Party really wants ? Probably not but unless they forcibly destroy by banning the Independent Education sector, it is what will happen.
Ah. Yes.I see. Indeed. That is the cunning plan isn`t it ? All becomes clear.

Ron Todd

Even with my limited understanding of computers and education I know the only thing children will be able to do on computers without already having a basic level of literacy is play games.

And most of the ganes I have seen my youinger relatives play would not be approved of by the liberal education establishment.

seb

@ Robin et al

Your comments could not be more apt. Posters to this and other sites are semi-literate, the products of schools that are indistinguishable from social clubs. British education is, as Matthew d'Ancona correctly opined some months ago, the worst in the world. We, as parents and members of society have, though not deliberately, handed over the responsibility for turning children into young adults to a preening elite of professional intellectual cretins who, indeed, believe it is more important to be happy than to be educated.

Few voters have the remotest idea what goes on in British schools. Dismal results are blamed on parents and not on the obscenely stupid educational practices in these social clubs. Politicians seems to know little and care less about the shocking pandemonium that occurs day in and day out in our classrooms and are happy to be spoonfed more vacuous suggestions for improvements that turn out to be mere variations on the lunacy that has prevailed here since the cultists who believe in Lady Plowden’s ideas took over. The last entirely irrelevant big idea was 'personalised learning'. And who was the first to announce to us what a brilliant idea personalised learning was? Gordon Butthead Brown. Teachers, many of whom are young and idealistic and keen to be palsy-walsy with children and play the role of surrogate parent, are paradoxically often the most stalwart champions of the catastrophically counter-productive dogmas regarding classroom arrangement and necessarily knowledge-free lessons in the UK's schools.

I thought, on hearing the news this morning, that there would be some hope in the near future of a return to real education. Instead, it's more of the same. More of 'education without knowledge, achievement without effort.' More bedlam in classes, more adults who cannot do simple arithmetic or spell or use punctuation, a future in which a vast proportion of British citizens cannot hope to compete in the world economy.

Chingford Man

This is such a ridiculous proposal I'm surprised I haven't yet read support for it from Jim Knight.

I know a number of people from eastern Europe who have come here to work (invariably highly educated). I always find it embarrassing to explain to them that British schools simply don't value education as their schools did.

John East

Melanie,
We are merely witnessing the new norm in modern eduction.

We are in a repeating 5 year cycle:

1. Progressively, year on year, dumb down so that it appears the government and teaching profession are improving each year.

2. After about 5 years, once independant observers and the press begin to notice kids are in fact learning less and less, change the curriculum.

3. Repeat

david skinner

Not many were aware of what the lovely Tony meant when he said on the election platform in 1967, “ Education, Education Education; but he knew.

It meant an attempt to break down all categories. Just in the same way that families, under the Blair Plan, now come in all shapes and sizes, so identifiable disciplines such history, geography, science and language lessons will become. like playdo, pulled and stretched until they become unrecognisable. And just as Haringey Social Services were able score a virtual A* on the way that they responded to the topic, Baby P, so children will also score virtual As* just so long as they too learn to jump the hoops and tick the right boxes. Achievement, Attainment Targets and Expectations have long since been tools to process and condition children to become standardised - like pigs in a battery farm.

And any child who shows the slightest attempt to think, exhibit a unique personality or express views that are politically incorrect will be re-educated, re-educated and re-educated. And do not think that parents will save their children through home schooling. What is happening in Germany will soon be here, if it is not already.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81318

david skinner

Pardon my slip; I meant 1997

John East

....and if I might add one more comment.

Susan Hill, I agree with your sentiments, but I must disagree with the answer to your rhetorical question:

"And what will happen ? Private /Independent schools will continue to teach traditional subjects traditionally."

New Labour has been eyeing private education for some time. It’s obvious that having a parallel education system that shows up the deficiencies of the state system cannot be tolerated for much longer, hence stories like this one published in the Evening Standard last year (Oct 1st)

“Private schools warn over 'rottweiler' Ofsted. Private schools are in danger of losing their freedom in government moves to end their independence, a leading headteacher warns.”

I’m amazed that the private sector has survived for so long, but along with that other anachronism from an earlier age, our elite universities, the dark clouds of authoritarian socialism are beginning to gather.

Heaven forbid Brown should be elected for another term, but if this happens we could quickly end up with honours degree graduates barely able to read and write emerging from a uniform unopposed state educational system.

Vision Aforethought

Madness. Two points: 1) Surely, if children are grounded with a robust scientific education (rather than being brainwashed with opinion), they can study, research and form their own conclusions, whether the subject is the environment, politics or other. 2) With regards to happiness, like humor, this is hard to define - as it depends on what 'does it for you'. In the US (California in particular), people appear outwardly happy (beaming in fact most of the time), but this not so much associated with their internal well being, but a result of a culture that teaches one to behave in a positive fashion. While this does have benefits when it comes to trying new things, such as rocketing to the moon or wearing a very odd looking clothing accessory, it also raises ones internal bar too high - leading to disappointment and depression. And we all know which nation (currently) spends the most on happy pills.

Why is New Labour so obsessed with superficialities? Is it because they have failed reality? To quote some thought provoking LA street slang, "Keep it real guys, let's keep it real!"

W. Smith

"They will continue either not to go into higher education or to attend poor quality former-polytechnics and study non-subjects. They will either drop out or get worthless degrees and because they can spout a lot of PC jargon but cannot spell, punctuate or structure a sentence or do fairly basic mathematics, they will be unemployable except in the lowest paid unskilled jobs."

Au contraire, Susan! They can find rather well paid positions (at least in relation to their ineptitude) as lecturers in Sociology, Human Rights Law, Gender Studies, etc., and train up the next bright new generation of zealous PC ideologues... Take a look at what passes for research in these fields if you don't believe me. (Mind you, you'll need an Anadin afterwards: their turgid Marxoid outpourings are pure torture to the ear.)

stanley Jerusalem

The flipside of our uneducated unemployable youth will be an uncontrollable under-class which will grow inreasingly larger until few will actually be doing anything worthwhile work at all.
When we reach this unfortunate state with half of the adult population on the dole [sorry I no longer remember the PC euphemism] and the other half earning mimimal wages, our finance, scientific and engineering bases will have long travelled east to India and China and we will probably be manning call services.
Added to this an immigrant population of 5 million will be 'taking the jobs out of the hands and the food out of the mouths of British workers' and the tinderbox will be primed for ignition.

Vision Aforethought

@stanley Jerusalem: Are we not already there? Or were you implying that in irony? ;-)

Fergus Pickering

Though I am generally a reactionary in these matters, I can't help remembering that Mr Grubb, whotaught me for three years in Edinburgh, did rather adopt these methods. Though a shy man, he was absolute king ofthe classroom and taught us much as he liked. We knew a lot about insects for instance. Of an afternoon he wouldoften, almost on a whim, take us off to walk the Blackford Hill in search of toads and rabbit droppings, or down to the Meadows to play cricket (his other passion). Though, in common with all the Scottish teachers of the day, he employed the belt and had a truly appalling shout, he was indeed a king of men. The best etachers always used to do much as they chose. I remember it from ny Secondary School as well. We passed exams, of course we did, but they weren't the POINT. I supose it would be more difficult to be a Mr Grubb nowadays with all those forms and things.

stanley Jerusalem

No irony intended and no, we aren't there yet as far as igniting the tinderbox is concerned.
To extend the metaphor, Pandora's Box is open and we are all gazing in wonder as the contents surround us and permeate our lives.

JohnW

I swear that we will leave the UK and educate our three children abroad if and when any threat to abolish private schooling ever becomes reality. We have just returned to the country and have already been forced (at great cost) to place them in private schools as the local Catholic High (excellent resuilts, btw) was heavily oversubscribed. I simply will not allow them to be subjected to daily doses of PC-obsessed tripe and socialist dogma.

Andre

I stopped being a primary school governor two years ago startled by the effect government meddling has had on education. I simply want children to be taught to read, write, basic arithmetic, the history and geography of their country, science and lots of books and stories and an understanding of the christian faith. I want to see the day broken up by drama, where everyone acts, sports - football, rugby and running, music - where every child has a go at an instrument and trips around the village and countryside to sketch old buildings and visit people as they work. The world I am describing is how our C of E village school functioned up until just a few years ago. One by one all these subjects and activities are now under retreat. The head master - who has a staff of two teachers and a teacher's assistant for 40 pupils - spends three out of five days on paperwork. The only children doing well are those whose parents take an interest in education and read stories at home, make trips out and talk about life, the universe and everything else over the dinner table. Already we put right the failings of the system. Children with bad parents don't get that second chance. I believe most parents want the sort of curricula discussed on this blog. I believe the state has to step out of education and leave it to us the parents to organize and spell out. State education is failing our children and our future

EC

Violence, intimidation and bullying - and that was just the teachers! We may have been beaten but, unlike the unfortunte wretches abandoned by their parents to 'public' boarding schools, we were never buggered.

Fifty years ago, with class sizes averaging 45-50, state education was never that brilliant but it must have worked, because by the time we went up to the secondary school there were very few who could not read, write or do simple arithmetic.

Stanley you are correct. I don't know how long it is since you lived in the UK, but in the sink estates of our towns and cities the descendants of the first generation of welfare dependents have been hard "at it" and are currently breeding, in great numbers, the fourth generation. Add to this uncontrolled immigration, a toxic dose of multiculturalism combined with the perceived higher birth rates of the recent arrivals and you have your tinderbox.

The alarming fact is that the only section of the community that don't appear to be breeding are educated people with jobs. When they get home from a long day at work they must either be too knackered or, after all taxes have been deducted, they cannot afford a family.

Ronnie

I'm sorry Ed, I don't mean to generalise or be rude, but that may explain why a great many US citizens, from the President down, don't seem to know where anywhere is in the world.

They are talking of doing the same with History in the UK, thus formalising ignorance to an even greater degree.

One consequence of all this is that the Spectator blogs will cease to exist as no-one will have the basic skills required to contribute to them.

Alexandrovich

Andre, what's a dinner table?

EC

... "that don't" ...
Twirly!
e&oe

Mrs W

When I was at Primary School we had morning prayers, were taught to read and write, they read stories of heroes and kind people to us. My mother taught me not to lie. She omitted to tell me everyone else probably would and the worst went to Oxford or Cambridge..and were so bad they would try to run the Country and that says it all. The Nation will go decline for at least a generation that is 30 years. Well done you must be proud

stanley Jerusalem

EC
December 9th, 2008 8:59am

Violence, intimidation and bullying - and that was just the teachers! We may have been beaten but, unlike the unfortunate wretches abandoned by their parents to 'public' boarding schools, we were never buggered. [Well not many of us]

During the greater part of the 19th C. our 'betters' debated long and hard as to whether it was worthwhile to educate us in order to maximise their profits from the industry and commerce which the Industrial Revolution had bestowed on the burgeoning British Empire [ I always wanted to use the word burgeoning!].
The consensus was encapsulated in the Education Acts of the 1870's and gave rise to the school system which we now see being dismantled before our very eyes by social engineers bent on making their mark on 'civilisation'. [Like the producer of a Royal Opera performance of The Barber of Seville who had a conjurer in the middle of the stage during the storm scene before the last act. No bloody point but that's his imprimatur!]
Those of us fortunate enough to have been educated during the 30's, 40's and 50's got the best of it. The others since then have suffered from what the Institute of Education perceived to be the right path [ which changed as often as the loo paper rolls on their WC walls which were employed at the same time to issue Certificates of Teaching qualifications.

Neuroskeptic

So Sir Jim Rose, a staunch critic of bad educational practices, thinks something is good. Melanie does not take this as evidence that he's right, but rather, that he's turned stupid.

Was he stupid all along - in which case he was wrong to criticize Plowden - or was he right all along - in which case the new approach has some merit?

Neither is acceptable to Melanie "Old School" Philipps, so instead we're expected to believe that Sir Jim Rose has suddenly gone soft.

P.S To those who say the country is in decline: you are living proof.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

My wife tells me that when she was teaching between 1983-1996, the approach was a thematic topic web approach, where, say water was the topic. All the maths, science, english, humanities etc, was made to fit round this topic, She said this, with a jobs board with the activities the kids had to do that day, worked. It seems that we are going back to that approach again1 Nothing new under the sun as far as education is concerned!

David A

DONT LAUGH THEY'RE DANGEROUS

Post modernism and neo-marxism are the X and Y chromosomes of political correctness. It is central to both that the views of the 'uninformed' ( aka 'us', or any dissenter) who have not been brain washed, that contrary views are to be totally discounted. It is the perogative of the informed (been to the Institute of education, got social sciences degree, read, but not understood, Derrida, Barthes Foucault etc.), and not the elected, to decide. These belief systems are therefore inimical to democracy and are perpetrated insidiously by the unelected in the media, arts, civil service and education. The avid agency of a labour government that would like to control every detail of our lives without accountability to any electorate is key to their success.

These forces are very powerful and dampened Kenneth Bakers forceful beginnings into the lifeless squib that was our last serious hope of worthwhile reform.

So the stupid goings on in schools, universities, social services and welfare, should never be treated with the levity or mirth that their outrageousness often begets.It is just the grotesquely distorted bloom of a deadly, poisonous plant whose roots are undermining every structure for learning and achievement that had been laboriously constructed over hundreds of years by one of the worlds great civilisations.

Our little children are increasingly at risk of been cultivated as drones, bred to propogate the sustaining myths that obscure a declining economy and civilisation. To do this it really is essential that they understand Foucault (about anything).

Dixon

David A: "To do this it really is essential that they understand Foucault (about anything)."

Sounds like the one calling himself "Neuroskeptic". We'd be well Derrida of him.

Neuroskeptic

I agree with you that we shouldn't laugh at education reformers. I think we should laugh at you - and Melanie - "grotesquely distorted bloom of a deadly, poisonous plant" indeed, we're talking about politics, not your back garden!

P.S I assure you that I've never read Derrida or Barthes. I've read Foucault and I thought he was rubbish. Better than 90% of the Spectator though

Neuroskeptic

Dixon: I smirked at your remark which showed clear traces of wit. So what on earth are you doing on spectator.co.uk?

stanley Jerusalem

Neuroskeptic
You are hereby invited to put your walking shoes where your mouth is.

tony

so wots wong wid da way i hef bin tort to spel at skool? I ken stil progrum a komputa beta than yu

stanley Jerusalem

Thank you Pete

Andre

Alexandrovich Thanks - Dinner table? A device for rooting out pomposity and bullshit or shouting at each other in bad french as youngest crams for epreuve. A training pen for eating hot food in a way that does not disgust those within eye shot, - very different technique from eating on the tube. Method of instilling debating procedure - learning to argue with your belly full rather than your mouth. To work best device needs to be independently mounted in a room with no other electrical equipment. Never leave to answer door bell or phone while the device is in motion. Nothing should be removed from it until the conversation has come to a halt. Works best when crewed by five or more people. The DT should be equipped with industrial sized plates of hot food - at least two courses, jugs of red wine and water. Hope this is a help - bon appetit!

Neuroskeptic

Hmm, that would make me a bit foot-in-mouth wouldn't it? And I'm not George Osborne, so no thanks.

Mrs W

Neuroskeptic - sorry you missed out on an education - The Nation is in decline, we shall not join you, but your ilk would never comprehend why with no high ideals you do not know what was lost - facetious comments betray as a bore of what? 17 years - well time to learn in the university of life, if you have the character for it.

Herbert Thornton

It would be interesting to compare our Primary Schools with the schools that many young Muslim Children attend.

Even better, the discussion should cover our entire educational system and include a comparison of it's products with those of Islamic Madrassas.

I think it would make the few of our people who are sufficiently interested, and literate enough to be able to read it, very frightened indeed.

Dixon

MRs W, dont play him at his own silly game. Anyone can call names. It merely betrays a lack of arguments.

He might not be 17. There are plenty of juvenile 70 year old twits around. And theres no fool like an old fool, as for example illustrated in his declining years by that old twirp Bertrand Russel.

Neuroskeptic

Well done Mrs W. Even Dixon of Dock Green's criticizing you.

I was making a very serious (well, relatively) point, namely that Britain is *not in decline* and *not bad by international standards* if you look at actual statistics. Or didn't they teach you stats in the University of Life? Stats are only for bores right?

Neil Saunders

Neuroskeptic

I don't think you quite grasp how this agreeing/disagreeing with somebody thing works.

Melanie AGREES with Sir Jim Rose when she thinks he's right (as in the Plowden case).

Melanie DISAGREES with Sir Jim Rose when she thinks he's wrong (as in the present case).

This need imply no inconsistency on Melanie's part.

Got it?

hadrian

As a former school teacher I can assure you that there are two leading problems in our schools today. First there is the lack of proper discipline and fear of any concept of punishment; the removal of corporal punishment has led to classroom chaos and playground bullying.After many years I had to abandon ship in disgust at the early smug pioneers of our new, all humane, all positive ethos that would usher in a new generation of youngsters filled with idealism, never having been 'brutalised' by horrible disciplinarians like myself.I often ( maliciously!) hope those same conceited scoundrels are now facing the full flowering of their theories in some grim, out-of-control classrooms.
The second main blight on education has been the relentless attack on standards of learning and actually testing intelligence! Heaven forfend we should even stream or try to channel pupils( another word probably excised from that OED Kids' dictionary- they're all 'students' now!) towards a syllabus suitable to their talents.
Grammar, spelling, punctuation-all good tests of intelligence and all frowned upon for far too long. One even encounters Ph.D. students with the direst grasp of basic spelling these days. All this is just more from the same stable.

Alexandrovich.

Andre: going on what you say, I imagine the DT also generates its own warmth without the need for extraneous heating.

Compliments of the season to you and yours.

Dixon

Neuroskeptic
December 9th, 2008 7:23pm
"Well done Mrs W. Even Dixon of Dock Green's criticizing you.
I was making a very serious (well, relatively) point, namely that Britain is *not in decline* and *not bad by international standards* if you look at actual statistics. Or didn't they teach you stats in the University of Life? Stats are only for bores right?"

Well, no, I wasnt "criticising" you, MRS W, merely giving a tip.

And ones position in relation to other members in a "league" of performance does NOT indicate whether one is declining or not. That requires comparisons between ones own performance on different occasions,irrespective of that of others. Thats a concept VERY BASIC in "stats".

So on these two aspects of the basic skill of "comprehension" our mutual irritant "Sillynamed one" ( William Gibson he aint ) has clearly failed.

Dixon

Today I was in a sportswear shop and asked where they had leotards.The girl ( about 18 ) gave me this blank look as if to say "I dont speak Polish". I explained that it was an item of womens gym apparel, and this was the womens gym section, right. To be on the safe side I asked "You do know what I am looking for?". She continued to stare like a rabbit in the road as she struggled in vain to repeat the mysterious word. I turned to her pimply colleague. He was equally mystified.

Im sure youngsters in Hungary or Denmark wouldnt know what a "leotard" is either ( although, possibly they would recognise the equivalent term in their respective languages ). But that doesnt really prove anything. British kids may or may not be less ignorant than others, they are certainly more ignorant than ever they were in the last century.

W. Smith

"I was making a very serious (well, relatively) point, namely that Britain is *not in decline* and *not bad by international standards* if you look at actual statistics."

Pangloss lives!

Probably worth pointing out that the fellow's almost certainly a troll --- he doesn't really believe what he says, he's merely having a little sport with us reactionary elements by airing preposterous views.

For some inadequates, irritating others is always preferable to being ignored.

david skinner

When I attended teacher training college in 1966, I read with enthusiasm Jean Jacques Rousseau’s’ romance on education called “Emile.” At the time I was not a Christian and therefore, without discernment, enthusiastically swallowed his existential thoughts on child - centred education. I believe that when he wrote this work he warned against putting his ideas into practice claiming that the book was a romance and therefore of no practical use. How wrong he was. His ideas concerning the “noble savage” have certainly been put into practice and have had far reaching, practical consequences, but a real “savage” living in the jungle possesses far more wisdom and understanding concerning the way planet earth operates than many of our children.

Rousseau famously said: ‘Man was born free; and everywhere is in chains (The Social Contract, 1762).’ I would say that children are born in chains and that our educational system only heaps more chains on them by shielding them from the negative consequences of their own antisocial behaviour. Many of us foresaw that without corporal punishment, the education system would go into meltdown. And although many parents and ordinary members of the public would – ‘behind closed doors’ – give assent to this notion, it remains something of an anathema to ‘experts’ and ‘educationists’. If, in a school staff room, I were to voice my remedy for today’s spiralling indiscipline, I would surely elicit a barrage of scornful cries: ‘unenlightened!’ ‘Medieval!’; ‘barbaric, criminal!’

But fear is a God-given instinct. It is essential to self- preservation; it saves one from doing really stupid and dangerous things.. Yet we deliberately deprive our children from developing a healthy fear of danger and facing up to the potentially painful consequences of foolish behaviour. The rising crime rate amongst teenagers and juniors can no longer be attributed to harsh disciplinary measures, because this generation has never experienced them! What is cruel and harsh is to allow children to develop such ungovernable characters that the only way of dealing with them is to lock them up in prison. For such children there have been no meaningful and mind- focusing boundaries warning them that are headed for the cliff. .

Proverbs23:13-14 says “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

Proverbs 13:24 says Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death

Neuroskeptic

Dixon: A devastating critique... except that I actually said that if you look at the stats Britian is both not declining (by historical standards) and also, not bad by international standards. Both of which are true. Or at least no-one here has contested it. Whether kids know what the word "leotard" means I don't especially care - given that it's an obscure word for an object they've probably never seen (they're out of fashion) I don't really see why they would need to. This is the 21st century.

Then we have the intellectual giant who is W. Smith, whose argument consists in saying I don't believe what I'm saying. No, Mr Smith, I don't believe what I'm *reading* when I visit this place - subtle difference. But just for fun pretend I don't - so what? It's still true. Until you prove otherwise. People have been saying Britain (and everywhere else) is in decline, forever. It's rarely been true. Zimbabwe is in decline. Most of the world isn't.

W. Smith

"if you look at the stats Britian is both not declining and also, not bad by international standards."

...That's right, all those AAAAs mean simply that children are just getting cleverer and cleverer. And generally better in every way. ...Try looking up from your stats and use your own powers of discernment, once in a while. If you have any.

"...at least no-one here has contested it."

Er... d'you ever actually bother to read Melanie's articles, or do you just get typing? Go and buy "All Must Have Prizes" if you want a refutation. Assuming you can bear to part with the cash. ...And your cherished illusions.

"Then we have the intellectual giant who is W. Smith, whose argument consists in saying I don't believe what I'm saying."

Thank you for the compliment, but I still think you're a troll. Either that, or --- if you truly believe that this country is doing just fine --- you are so massively deluded that no-one on God's green Earth can help you. Do you actually live in Britain? (I notice you had difficulty spelling it, earlier.)

"Until you prove otherwise."

Dude, I've seen otherwise: your "proof" consists in blithe acceptance of the fantasy statistics put out by the government and other interested parties. Try comparing today's maths papers with those sat a couple of decades or so ago. Or try teaching Key Skills at your local FE college and see what wonders have been wrought by eleven years of British schooling.

Bye, now!

david skinner

The number of teenagers showing signs of depression has risen dramatically over the last 50 years, a mental health expert has revealed. The average age for the first signs of depression is now 14 and 1/2, whereas it was almost 30 half a century ago. With children experiencing either real of virtual violence on a daily basis is it any wonder that the incidence of alcohol and drug dependency and mental illness has dramatically risen amongst children. And now the government wants to bring in happiness and well being lessons, piloted by US-based psychologist Dr Martin Seligman

But we do not make people happy by eliminating negative emotions; the whole palette of emotions- love, hate, anger, peace, fear, joy, desolation - that are displayed in human nature are all necessary for our survival, like the notes on a piano, all are equally essential. For a government to eliminate feelings of depression antipathy or hatred in order to produce a dehumanised society that runs like a well- oiled - piece of machinery, sounds ominously like the film “Clock work Orange.” This is pure, evolutionary humanism.

The government not content with taking over what we can and cannot say , what we can and cannot think is now moving towards what we can and cannot feel. The boys photographed in this Guardian article might look happy but one wonders what other emotions they might harbour. Are they happy and filled with well being as they gaze on violent and pornographic videos.? http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/10/mentalhealth.happiness

Richie Craze

Melanie Phillips is no one to talk about or deride the education system.

Somebody so anti-science, who repeatedly demonstrates fundamental misunderstandings of science, can hardly know what is best for a child's education.

Her repeated assertions that evolution "is merely a theory" (which demonstrates her ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory" as well as a more deep-rooted ignorance of the biological sciences) and who repeatedly defends the move to teach creationism in the science classrooms has nothing to say worth hearing on this subject.

david skinner

Me thinks thou dost protest too much, Mr Craze. If Melanie really has nothing to say worth hearing on this subject, why on earth do you bother to fetch up on this blog? It seems to me that you are fundamentally intolerant, discriminatory and non inclusive to any view that challenges the limitations of that which masquerades as science, these days. Yours indeed is a very serious case and I would recommend (after you have put your affairs in order) for you to attend a diversity course, post haste , not one where all opinions are equally valued but one where all opinions are carefully weighed to see which ones are false and which ones are true. Failing this there is nothing anyone can do for you.

W. Smith

"Her repeated assertions that evolution "is merely a theory" (which demonstrates her ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory" as well as a more deep-rooted ignorance of the biological sciences) and who repeatedly defends the move to teach creationism in the science classrooms has nothing to say worth hearing on this subject."

If evolution (and lets clarify: we're talking macroevolution, here) is not a theory, then what is it, exactly? Perhaps you know better than
the those poor benighted fools at Cambridge.

And the claim that she "defends the move to teach creationism in the science classrooms" is misleading --- she merely advocates allowing discussion (and debunking, if you like) of the alternatives. Do you think the best response to the claims of the creation and Intelligent Design brigade is to stamp on their right to be heard? That's in the same spirit as book-burnings. Why not just offer an alternative explanation: surely we want reason to win out, not brute state diktat?

I don't understand why defending evolution has become such a hate-fest for so many biologists. Methinks their foolish love-affair with radical atheism has caused this...

Richie Craze

W. Smith, you clearly have little familiarity with Melanie Phillips' writings on the junk-science of "intelligent design". She is not trying to "debunk" it but believes it herself. For her true position, read these articles:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001664.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000756.html

Of course evolution is a theory. Clearly you have no idea what "theory" means either, despite the link! I'll give you a clue. It's not the same as "hypothesis". There is a mass of EVIDENCE to support evolution. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support ID, which is therefore NOT a theory.

"Methinks their foolish love-affair with radical atheism has caused this"

Why foolish? You assert this with no foundation. And most sensible theists these days even accept evolution.

Richie Craze

David Skinner, you clearly know nothing about science if you think that intelligent design and evolution are of equal merit. It is utterly irresponsible to teach children nonsense and dress it up as fact. Please do tell me what is "masquerading as science" in the classrooms today!!

You seem to imply that I don't advocate free speech by saying I am intolerant, and then ask: "why on earth do you bother to fetch up on this blog". Why are you threatened by a contrary point of view to all the right-wing ranting going on here? (Having read some of your other posts your description of me is a fair assessment of yourself.) Where most comments are "Melanie, you've hit the nail on the head again, it's all political correctness run mad" there is certainly room for discourse, but you obviously feel very uneasy about that.

The point of the last section of your post is... what, exactly? Or are you being ironic? It's difficult to tell.

david skinner

Richie, You are so right I know absolutely nothing about science but I know of men who do and who would hotly dispute the theory of evolution. Out of interest what are your own qualifications in science? Don’t tell me; they are in the natural sciences. However I don’t need to be a Leslie Kemeny , Australia’s foremost nuclear physicist and a Christian teboot, I have eyes in my head and to say that all around us simply came about by accident contradicts every breath and step I take. All that I do has purpose a reason of one kind or another. The mere fact that you advance the theory that everything came about by accident without rhyme or reason is in itself no accident but has a design and conforms to your own powers of reasoning. You are attempting to use reason to destroy a universe governed by reason.

Elton Trueblood has said,” One of the reigning tenets of our time is the extreme belief that all our problems are new. I would call this the disease of contemporaneity….associated with it is a really terrible conceit… the notion that we are living in such a fresh time and that wisdom has “come with us” whereas nobody ever had it before - this I find to be an absolutely intolerable conceit.”

Evolution is not an evolved idea , something new never heard of before. “There is nothing new under the sun.” is from Ecclesiastes which is precisely a critique of the mind set that has produced the theory of evolution.

C.S. Lewis describes these things far more elegantly than I ever could.

http://ldolphin.org/cslevol.html

http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mc04.htm

Neil Saunders

On the issue of the teaching of Neo-Darwinism v. creationism (even if dressed up as "intelligent design"), I find myself on the side of Richie Craze. By all means teach creationism in Religious Education classes; just don't try to misrepresent it as a serious scientific theory. (BTW, Richie Craze is right to point out the difference between the scientific use and understanding of the word "theory" and its everyday meaning.)

I think that Melanie's attempt to defend creationism as an intellectually respectable position will merely discredit her in the eyes of those whom her larger message needs badly to reach.

I disagree with Richie Craze, however, when he claims that Melanie has nothing of importance to say about education simply because of her ill-considered sponsorship of creationism. (I suspect that she embraces it because she regrets the marginalisation of religion in modern life, and believes this to be a source of moral decay.)

Despite small factual errors (such as misidentifying Jacques Derrida as Michel Foucault, and wrongly locating murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence's school in SOUTH London) the broad thesis of her "All Must Have Prizes" remains substantially correct, although the book itself is badly in need of being updated, or of Melanie preparing a new sequel to it.

Another book paid even less attention than Melanie's is Aidan Rankin's "Politics Of The Forked Tongue" (New European Press, 2002), a small political primer for our times. This does not address educational issues, but deals with some of the same broad social and political issues that Melanie incidentally addresses in her book.

Neuroskeptic

W Smith : "Dude, I've seen otherwise: your "proof" consists in blithe acceptance of the fantasy statistics put out by the government and other interested parties."

So how do you know the statistics are fantasy, except by comparing them with other statistics put out by other interested parties? Don't bother trying to think of a good answer.

For what it's worth kids today constantly astonish me with their brightness. One of my friends has an 8 year old boy who can play several instruments, speaks French better than I ever could and has more general knowledge than most adults. Kids today, eh?

David Skinner : I have a first in science from W Smith's beloved Cambridge and I can assure you that you're wrong and that Richie Craze, despite his name, is much much better informed than you are. Bow down to him (and me), or just leave before we embarrass you any more.

W. Smith

"Clearly you have no idea what "theory" means either, despite the link! I'll give you a clue. It's not the same as "hypothesis"."

Many thanks for patronising me, but I am aware of the distinction between hypothesis and theory and of the true weight of the latter term. I was merely trying to get this out of you:

"Of course evolution is a theory."

...rather than the garbled sentence-fragment you rushed off at David Skinner. It wasn't clear that you weren't going to turn out to be one of those strange religious types who insist that evolution is "fact". ...And before you leap to bang your favourite drum again, you are talking to someone who does realise what a potential explanation has to be subjected to in order to earn the title of "theory".

"Why foolish? You assert this with no foundation."

You don't think radical atheism is self-evidently foolish? The militant belief in the nonexistence of a deity? Faith I can appreciate, strong or weak; agnosticism, --- even vehement agnosticism --- I can appreciate. ...But sneering atheism always suggests a serious character defect. And when that attitude wraps itself in the mantle of science, science is the loser.

"W. Smith, you clearly have little familiarity with Melanie Phillips' writings on the junk-science of "intelligent design". She is not trying to "debunk" it but believes it herself."

Whether she believes it or not is immaterial: nowhere does she argue that ID or creationism should be taught as bald fact, to the exclusion of evolution. ...And you still didn't answer my point about why you won't even countenance classroom discussion of any strand of thought which runs counter to macroevolution. If you're so certain of your rightness, then what's the problem? Surely such debate would only strengthen the acceptance of evolution amongst the populace and kill ID stone-dead, no? You yourself asked of David Skinner
"Why are you threatened by a contrary point of view to all the right-wing ranting going on here?"

You might well ask yourself the same question. To quote your words again

"there is certainly room for discourse, but you obviously feel very uneasy about that."

What's sauce for the goose...

Finally, if my own physics students had to put up with your brand of smug hectoring, they'd all soon opt for Film Studies instead. You do the cause of science no favours with that ego of yours.

W. Smith

"So how do you know the statistics are fantasy, except by comparing them with other statistics put out by other interested parties? Don't bother trying to think of a good answer."

Interesting tactic: don't know what you'd call it --- "pre-emptive rubbishing", perhaps. My suspicion that you're a troll only grows. No serious person would form their view of the world by trading statistics, and that "except" shows you to be a stranger to logic. And as for citing your friend's child prodigy as proof of your argument, the notion that a sample of one constitutes proof means that you have no grasp of what proof means. You think that kid's ability is representative of British eight-year olds? What about you, "Richie Craze"? D'you agree with your old mate Neuro on this one? Come on, back him up --- he's right, no?! The notion that you could get a first in science with logic like that is frightening. Or dubious.

Tear your eyes away from the ONS website and go and see reality for yourself. Compare modern GCSEs with the O-Levels of a few decades ago. Head on down to the local FE college and see how many of them can do basic arithmetic with their slew of A-C GCSEs.

Oh, why am I bothering with you? You'd lie through your teeth to support your idiotic position --- because you're a TROLL!

Richie Craze

"I have eyes in my head and to say that all around us simply came about by accident contradicts every breath and step I take."

Sorry, David, I'm reading no further. There's no evolutionary biologist in the world who would suggest that either. At least you admit your assertions are based on ignorance, which is something.

Richie Craze

W Smith writes "...rather than the garbled sentence-fragment you rushed off at David Skinner. It wasn't clear that you weren't going to turn out to be one of those strange religious types who insist that evolution is "fact"." and then accuses others of having an ego problem! Pray do tell which part of my post to David Skinner was incomprehensible and I'll see if I can rephrase it for you.

"Whether she believes it or not is immaterial"

Do you really believe that? Seriously??

"And you still didn't answer my point about why you won't even countenance classroom discussion of any strand of thought which runs counter to macroevolution"

You know, you're absolutely right. Let's also open up the science classes to talking about how storks deliver babies and the contribution garden faeries make to the O2 levels of the atmosphere. You know, you're really onto something. Perhaps we could extend this and teach astrology students the universe was created in six days. Sure to keep everyone happy!

"You don't think radical atheism is self-evidently foolish?"

How would you differentiate radical atheism from plain atheism? Why is it less foolish to believe the universe was created with us in mind with all the implications that necessarily follow from that basic premise?

""Why are you threatened by a contrary point of view to all the right-wing ranting going on here?"
You might well ask yourself the same question. To quote your words again""

The reason I maintain that position is that ID has nothing to bring to the table. Let the religious find some - any - evidence to support their silly notions - then we'll talk. Evolution is backed up by heaps of evidence and has not been convincingly refuted. As you clearly know.

"smug hectoring". Hmmm. I'm not the only one around here capable of that!

Richie Craze

David Skinner : I have a first in science from W Smith's beloved Cambridge and I can assure you that you're wrong and that Richie Craze, despite his name, is much much better informed than you are. Bow down to him (and me), or just leave before we embarrass you any more.

Despite his name! Thanks, Neuroskeptic. I like that! ;)

david skinner

If we can thank Melanie for nothing else on this blog it is surely putting a poultice on this boil called atheism and drawing its core to the surface. Indeed, unaided by further pressure from her, the core unashamedly declares that it is that beyond which no greater can be thought. Did Neuroseptic actually say “Bow down to me, or just leave before we embarrass you any more?” If this is a measure of the methodology of the way in which children are taught, not real science, but natural sciences like biology, then we have little or no hope that frank and free thought will take place in the classroom. This methodology relies upon contempt and insult in order to intimidate, all but the most courageous child into silence.

Whatever ideas enter Cambridge do not defile it for if they are permitted to be chewed over and discussed in a free and frank way then if unhealthy they can be passed through like so much excrement. But the things that come out of the mouths of atheists come from the heart, and these defile a man. For out of their hearts come evil thoughts, false testimony, slander and all the rest of it.

In addition to insult and ad hominem arguments, people like Neuroseptic troll out the same old clichés, red herrings and straw men. There is really little of substance to their fundamentalist and bigoted rants against Christianity.
Indeed, we quickly discover they have three main weaknesses. First, they may claim to speak in the name of science, but much of their writing more accurately reflects scientism, not real science. Scientism is the idea that science alone is the source of truth. As Bertrand Russell put it some years ago, “Whatever knowledge is attainable must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.

Second, they have a deep-seated hatred of God. They are not into scientific or philosophical discussion, but kindergarten temper tantrums.

Thirdly when they do critique religion in general and Christianity in particular, they are usually way out of their depth. They really do not know what they are talking about. They are like pigs rooting amongst pearls. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on nuclear physics , they would no doubt bone up on the subject as assiduously as they could, but when it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster.

As for one of Neuroseptic’s bits of evidence for claiming that education today, has never been in better shape, being based upon one of his friend’s 8 year old boy being able to play several instruments, speak French better than he ever could and have more general knowledge than most adults, one has to ask how many children in this 8 year old’s school, or town, county, the United Kingdom, Europe, or the whole world even, enjoy the same enhanced performance of playing several musical instruments and ( I nearly forgot) speaking French by being related to the theory of evolution and atheism ?

Richie Craze

"This methodology relies upon contempt and insult in order to intimidate, all but the most courageous child into silence."

Sounds like religious indoctrination to me.

"For out of their hearts come evil thoughts, false testimony, slander and all the rest of it."

Even supposing for a moment you're right about that; you'd say religious people are free from the above?

"Second, they have a deep-seated hatred of God."

Erm, no. You're spectacularly missing the point. Atheists don't believe in the supernatural. In general atheists may lose patience with those with irrational superstitions unsupported by reason and evidence. You seem to be confusing the two.

"Thirdly when they do critique religion in general and Christianity in particular, they are usually way out of their depth. They really do not know what they are talking about."

You know this, do you? Well, sorry but you're wrong. I know a lot more about Christianity than any other religion, admittedly, but my scripture knowledge is pretty good. Not good enough to rival Bertie Wooster's, but pretty good. Often when debating "devout believers" I'm embarrassed to realise I know more about their scriptures and basic tenets than they do.

"the theory of evolution and atheism".

The theory of atheism?

Neuroskeptic

david skinner : I warned you that me & Richie would embarrass you, but I must admit I was wrong. You did it yourself first.

The main reason that you've embarrassed yourself is that I'm not an atheist, and I never criticized Christianity. Go back and read what I wrote. So where does that leave you?

W. Smith : Admittedly my friend's kid is only one kid, however I didn't see you making the complaint when the teenager who didn't know the word "leotard" was cited earlier.

Although of course I'd "lie through my teeth" - whatever that means - so who knows my friend's kid even exists?

david skinner

Richie this is beginning to get personal!

But to answer some of your objections, religious people, all people are capable of evil thoughts. Christians would never dare claim that they are better or worse than anyone else. We are sinners saved by grace and we still have the choice of denying our faith and salvation. I speak from experience; and it is only God’s grace that has kept me from trampling underfoot Christ’s death for me on the cross, permanently and eternally. The devil is not interested in tempting the lost because they are already his. Whereas he is constantly trying to re- capture the Christian whom he regards belong to him. My faith in Christ gives me the freedom to be free of all those things that would bind me and bring a gulf between me a God who cannot look on sin.

As for attacking religions that are “unsupported by reason and evidence“, why would anyone bother to do that? I certainly would not bother working up a passion about unicorns or tooth fairies either. However, I agreed with you 100%, the world’s major belief systems, unlike unicorns, are not innocuous; they do exert an enormous influence on the world’s populations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png

I too have an intense hatred of Islam, not for its adherents, the Muslims but for their beliefs and
I have noticed that when anyone wants to attack Christians they deliberately speak of them in the same breath as Muslims, BNP or any other nasty sect and hope that no one will notice this sleight of hand.

But atheists are right in perceiving the Christian faith as a threat - not to truth - but to the atheist’s autonomy and the fact that one day they, along with the rest of mankind, will have to give an account of every thought, word and dead done in this life. It is the call made on their lives that I believe fills them with rage- mainly because deep down they know that this call is legitimate. Otherwise why protest so much?

Now as to your claim that your knowledge of scripture is pretty good, I commend you for that. Keep reading. I hope that I am not intentionally being provocative by pointing out that though your knowledge of scripture may well be less than that of Bertie Wooster’s, it is way below that of the Devil who knows the Bible back to front and hates it infernally. Knowledge about something you know but in which you have never trusted your life is no knowledge at all.

You may have seen this debate between Christopher Hitchins and D’Souza?

http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000187_cicero_102207.flv

Though you might find the following links provocative, I hope they help you to confirm your beliefs about Christianity either one way or other.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:6tugZw1VBJUJ:www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/10/30/dawkins-deism-and-jesus/+bill+muehlenberg+culture+watch+dawkins&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

stanley Jerusalem

Richie Craze
December 11th, 2008 11:51am

Melanie Phillips is no one to talk about or deride the education system.

Somebody so anti-science, who repeatedly demonstrates fundamental misunderstandings of science, can hardly know what is best for a child's education.
He may have gone to a good school but he still can't read.
To accuse melanie of being anti-science[whatever he thinks that may mean] is preposterous. he means that he doesn't agree with her and doesn't want to make it personal because he believes it will devalue his stance. he's right! But anti-science? [Giggle]
He also fails to specify what he believes to be the foundation of a good education, presumably because he hasn't the slightest notion.
It's the details that get them every time. Armchair philosophers with the brains of a dried-out slug. [ Thank you Blackadder and Richard Curtis.]

Her repeated assertions that evolution "is merely a theory" (which demonstrates her ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory" as well as a more deep-rooted ignorance of the biological sciences)

Is he even speaking the same language as the rest of us? Playing with word definitions to treat the object of his derision with contempt is called bottling it where I come from. A sound grounding in reality and values is what Mr Craze should be seeking.
How many of his pilpulistic theories he can sit on the head of a pin may have been the in thing if and when he was at Oxbridge but it always fails to perceive the bigger truth because they can't handle it.
They dance around their quasi-intellectual bonfire emitting whoops of delight at the targets they have pricked with their divine intelligence and all the while the beast moves slowly onwards...

Neuroskeptic

Read this and weep, people who think British kids are crap -

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf

On standardized maths tests at age 9 and 13, English children score ahead of most countries, including the U.S, the Netherlands, Australia, Italy, -in fact every European country except Hungary- and Israel.

Furthermore, England is the country in which the scores are MOST IMPROVED since 1995 at age 9, and has greatly improved at age 13 as well.

Exactly the same is found for science and general intelligence tests. In all tests, English kids score extremely well and have improved greatly over the past 12 years.

So, to summarize: ha ha ha.

W. Smith

"Pray do tell which part of my post to David Skinner was incomprehensible"

Why, this piece of experimental grammar:

"Her repeated assertions that evolution "is merely a theory" (which demonstrates her ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory" as well as a more deep-rooted ignorance of the biological sciences) and who repeatedly defends the move to teach creationism in the science classrooms has nothing to say worth hearing on this subject."

Removing the parenthetical remark and examining the structure of the bare sentence, we have a noun phrase followed by a conjunction, then a relative clause, then finally the predicate, quite unrelated to the original subject ("Her assertions ... has nothing to say"). Wow!

"'Whether she believes it or not is immaterial'
Do you really believe that? Seriously??"

Melanie Phillips's personal opinion on creationism, evolution, or the price of haddock is not germane to the question at hand, namely whether classroom discussion should be permitted. D'you really think that the cause of science is advanced by telling creationists that they're stupid peasants and that they should be silent? Zealots like you are the bane of serious educators.

Consider this. A former colleague of mine who has taught biology for about twenty-five years took her class a few years back to a talk by Steve Jones and Dashing Dickie Dawkins. Steve Jones (as you'll know, no friend of creationists) opted to leave out the creationist-bashing, and calmly, wittily stuck to the business of theory. He had his young audience "eating out of his hand" (as my friend put it). Dawkins took your line and they all switched off within ten minutes. Go figure.

"You know, you're absolutely right."

At last! We're finally getting somewhere. Although you seem to have gone a little over-the top: I don't think we need to discuss "talking about how storks deliver babies" or "garden faeries" as these aren't exactly making the newspapers.

"How would you differentiate radical atheism from plain atheism?"

Read my post again. I've told you: radical atheism is the brand of militant, sneering atheism which people like you feel is necessary to (somehow) advance or protect science. Science doesn't need your help, thanks.

"Bow down to him (and me), or just leave before we embarrass you any more.
Despite his name! Thanks, Neuroskeptic. I like that! ;)"

Then return the favour! Endorse his loony argument that government stats "prove" educational standards are not declining in this country. If you actually care about standards in the hard sciences and maths (and I would guess that you probably do), then you'll shoot him down without blinking. Go on --- dare you! High-fiving a troll makes you look pathetic.

"The reason I maintain that position is that ID has nothing to bring to the table."

...Then let this be made plain in the classroom! By ruling that it cannot even be discussed, you'll actually increase interest in it. ...Particularly if you do it in the insulting manner you employ here. Is that what you want? No, of course not. But then, this is more about that 'ole ego o' yours.

Oh, why am I wasting my lunch-hour on you? You'll never acknowledge good sense.

Neuroskeptic

P.S This study was conducted by the U.S government, not known for their bias when testing British kids.

P.P.S Ha ha ha.

Alexandrovich

Neuroskeptic: I saw that your link was to a government publication so, for obvious reasons, didn't follow it.

Mr.Craze. Humility is an edifying quality. Try it sometime.

Richie Craze

"Is he even speaking the same language as the rest of us? Playing with word definitions to treat the object of his derision with contempt is called bottling it where I come from."

Stanley, read Neil Saunders post above. Or better still invest in a dictionary.

"But anti-science? [Giggle]"

She continually derides "scientism" (whatever that means - giggle). Look at the damaging reporting she did on the MMR vaccine. Based on a position of scientific knowledge? Of course not. Look at her stance on global warming. Look at her sneering derision of people like Richard Dawkins. She is patently anti-science. Are we reading the same blog?

"A sound grounding in reality and values".

Your values, I assume? No thanks.

"He also fails to specify what he believes to be the foundation of a good education, presumably because he hasn't the slightest notion."

What a ridiculous non-sequitur. As you rightly assert in your closing paragraph, I have benefited from a good education in the UK. I have nowhere asserted that I believe the education system in this country is above criticism, simply that it's a bit rich for any criticism of that kind to come from Melanie Phillips. Nor, for the record, do I think it particularly bad either. I would say that I know a few teachers and I both admire and pity them.

To David Skinner, firstly thank you for your very reasoned response, I appreciate that. Clearly you are very passionate about your convictions, as am I about mine, and never the twain shall meet. Fair enough. I will tell you that it was through a thorough study of early Christian history as part of my MA that confirmed my lack of belief (I was brought up Christian but it never really convinced me) and I could go into the reasons why but I suspect that would be a pointless exercise. However, I thank you for the links and I will have a look at them.

Neuroskeptic

It's the US government. You're not that smart are you - unlike British kids!

Richie Craze

"Removing the parenthetical remark and examining the structure of the bare sentence, we have a noun phrase followed by a conjunction, then a relative clause, then finally the predicate, quite unrelated to the original subject ("Her assertions ... has nothing to say"). Wow!"

W Smith, I'm sure my earlier post can be clearly understood. You are merely trying to look superior here. I'm not writing an essay, I'm writing on an internet forum. I'll generally reread what I've written once but I'm not aiming for mastery of the english language here, and neither is anyone else. What's your point?

""You know, you're absolutely right."
At last! We're finally getting somewhere."
"Oh, why am I wasting my lunch-hour on you? You'll never acknowledge good sense."

I have seen no good sense from you, old chum! My what an ego you have (oh, no, wait... that's me isn't it? Must be, you told me so.)

"Then let this be made plain in the classroom!"

The science classroom is no place for silly religious notions. If that door is opened just a crack there'll be no stopping it. You seriously think all the creationists lobbying to introduce this sort of thing to the science curriculum do so because they expect teachers and students to debunk it?

"Then return the favour! Endorse his loony argument that government stats "prove" educational standards are not declining in this country."

I suspect I have more in common with Neuroskeptic than anyone else around here but we are not arguing the same thing, nor making the same points. How facile of you to suggest we are.

"Mr.Craze. Humility is an edifying quality. Try it sometime."

Only in context, Alexandrovich. Only in context.

W. Smith

"P.P.S Ha ha ha"

Check the idiom:

"I warned you that me & Richie would embarrass you"

...spoken like a true academic. Another dipstick who doesn't know his nominative from his accusative.

"of course I'd "lie through my teeth" - whatever that means -"

The fact that you haven't heard so widely known a phrase is further proof --- if it were needed --- that you're a TROLL.

You're about eighteen, probably living at home, and you get your kicks out of convincing yourself that your GCSEs are worth something by taunting people who actually give a toss about educational standards. Go away.

A message to patrons: please don't feed the TROLL. I for one am leaving this thread forthwith.

david skinner

Alexandrovich, I had the faintest suspicion of the same thing. Now what would produce that level of cynicsm within me apart from the fact that this government has had eleven years to demonstrate its unlimited capacity to lie and deny the truth.

Paul

"Richie Craze" said:

"I know a lot more about Christianity than any other religion, admittedly, but my scripture knowledge is pretty good."

...Then you'll know that if the God of The Bible exists, you stand accused of breaking His Law and rejecting the claims of His Son (for example, see the Ten Commandments and Jesus' own words in Matthew 5, Luke 10, John 3).

Moreover, Jesus informs us that the penalty for this is separation from God in the afterlife: He also states that this separation results in torment. ...For eternity, since the human soul is immortal. Hence the penalty for our transgression is what we call Hell.

The world regards this Law and the consequent Judgement as totally and utterly unreasonable, since those in the world believe themselves righteous and refuse to accept God's own standard of righteousness and the entry requirements to His Kingdom (namely perfection). They are free to refuse. God wanted us to seek and choose Him of our own volition and so gave us free will - we are all free to accept or reject Him, to choose Heaven or Hell. As things turn out, each and every one of us opts for sin over righteousness: even those people who try to keep His Law in their own strength, by "being good". ...Which means we all stand condemned by our actions and facing eternity in Hell.

However, God was not willing that any should perish, and so, in order to fulfil the requirements of justice (i.e. that our sin must be punished, our fine paid), Jesus was sent to us (indeed, He came willingly) to call us to repentance and offer to pay our penalty for us, since He alone could live sinlessly (as He was both God and man). If we confess our sins, repent of them, accept Jesus' payment for them and believe and trust in Jesus alone to save us, then God grants us eternal life. That is The Gospel. You would have heard this message proclaimed loud and clear in times past. However, these days, you'll be lucky if you hear it at all, even in church.

This is because it is offensive. People cannot stomach the claim that Jesus is the only way to God. The concept of substitutionary atonement strikes many as unjust. And to most, God's plan for salvation seems just way too easy. ...It appears to the world immensely unfair that Christians should escape punishment for their sins.

...But it's an offer open to everyone, and the offer itself requires us to admit our true nature, to confess it to God and to repent. We are also to trust not in our own goodness but in that of Jesus - something which goes completely against the grain in a society full of people determined to think well of itself. A Christian is not someone who just tries to be good: a Christian is someone who knows that they're bad. A bitter pill to swallow. Jesus also says that we are to work with Him in following God's plan for our lives, and He will help us to do so (no more do we simply try to "be good" on our own and just do as we please: we are to live differently and will have His help to do so). Furthermore, if we follow this plan, then He promises us not popularity and worldly success, but ridicule and even persecution: promises which have been demonstrably fulfilled throughout history, and continue to be. ...So this offer is accompanied by many challenges and hardships. But the consequences of rejecting it are infinitely worse.

...So, according to Scripture, you're facing Hell at the moment. Jesus offers you Heaven instead. Now either that's true or it's not. My advice to you (and to all) is to cease scoffing, humble yourself and ask Him for His mercy and help. If you truly confess and repent and ask Him to save you, if you believe and trust in Him, then He will deliver you from the punishment you deserve and give you something you truly don't.

There, I've set out the Law and the Gospel. Perhaps you did already know it. Either way, your knowledge means that you will now face God without excuse. Accept it or reject it, it's now up to you.

Neuroskeptic

W. Smith: I stand corrected on a point of grammar. Have you read the document to which I linked? Do you stand corrected re: the British educational system?

Alexandrovich

Neuroskeptic: are you assuming I meant British government?
But then again, you would assume wouldn't you?

You probably assume I'm British.

Richie Craze

Neuroskeptic, W. Smith is just upset because we haven't capitulated to his searing insight and wisdom, which is why he's lashing out on points of grammar (he did the same to me and made me realise everything I stand for must be founded on ignorance). He's given up on idiots like us who just stubbornly refuse to agree with him because of our abhorrent egos! I shouldn't worry. I doubt he'll be able to resist staying away for long.

Apparently I upset his lunch hour. I feel dreadful for that.

Neuroskeptic

Alexandrovich: So are you saying that the US government are so incompetent that they've designed an international maths test which shows Britain to be doing very well, when in fact we're doing very badly? Even the worst test can't score bad kids higher than good ones.

Either that, or you're saying it's some kind of conspiracy - on the part of the US government - to make Britain look better than the US.

I'm not sure which of these options leaves you coming off looking worse, but feel free to clarify which one it is.

david skinner

Thank you Paul for that clear and true statement

Conservative Cabbie

Neuroskeptic

Perhaps an answer (scientific no less) to your delusion about declining educational standards in the UK.

From the Royal Society of Chemistry.

"In the competition over 1,300 of the country's brightest 16-year-olds took an on-line two-hour test, which was dominated largely by numerically-based questions selected from 50 years of O-Level and GCSE to create a mock examination paper."

"Although the winner of the RSC competition got 94%, the fact that many highly intelligent youngsters were unfamiliar with solving these types of questions, obtaining on AVERAGE 35% correct from recent papers from the 2000s and JUST 15% FROM THE 1960'S points to a systemic failure and misplaced priorities in the educational system, rather than shortcomings in individual teachers or students."

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6jkpyg

Conservative Cabbie

Richie Craze

"Look at her (Melanie Phillips) stance on global warming"

Yes, look at it, it's about the same as the 650 scientists dissenting from the IPCC report.

I think this quote from Atmospheric scientist Dr Joanne Simpson, the first female PHD in the world in meteorology sums up current scientific integrity on global warming: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical".

david skinner

Well done Cabbie. Extremely valuable evidene. Sadly one can wave as much data in front to some folks and if they choose not to see it (" I see no ships") there is nothing you can do about it. It is not a case of lack of understanding but will.

Richie Craze

David Skinner, thanks for this link:

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:6tugZw1VBJUJ:www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/10/30/dawkins-deism-and-jesus/+bill+muehlenberg+culture+watch+dawkins&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

I have just enjoyed reading it with a coffee and mince pie. It was a debate I hoped I might make as I enjoyed their 2007 debate, though I did find the format of the debate a bit frustrating as the two men weren't given much opportunity to talk to each other freely. I hope the recent debate allowed more of that. Do you know if it's been made available on the internet yet? I'd like to watch or hear the full event.

david skinner

Richie, I didn’t know that anyone was still around . Just popped in to see if anyone had locked up and put the cat out. I’ m glad you enjoyed Muehlensberg’s site. He hasn’t exactly got a bed side manner - not even with the Christians.

I am afraid I cannot answer you concerning the debate.

Neuroskeptic

Unfortunately my last reply didn't appear, so here it is again:

david : "Sadly one can wave as much data in front to some folks and if they choose not to see it "

Have. You. Read. The. Link. I. Posted? http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf

If you can't read I'd be happy to come round and read it out loud to you, in a baby voice if that would help.