Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?

Why not let kids learn to read, write and "do sums" and other fun activities? There's plenty of time, once the become more cognisant to introduce the options. But for some unfathomable reason, the religious nutjobs want that indoctrination to begin as soon as possible.

[size=200WHY?[/size

:2x4dqk8w
Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.

:2x4dqk8w
From [i:2x4dqk8wdictionary.com[/i:2x4dqk8w for your edification Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

How on earth did you get a license to teach anyone, let alone vulnerable children?

I asked you for evidence of the "last government" introducing a lotter system for school allocations. All you managed to do was repeat what you had originally said. OK I'll do the job for you: Brighton & Hove Council briefly introduced a lottery system. Right, have we got that? One council, out of the many in the UK. One council, not a government.

I also asked how a lottery could ever be describes as discriminatory and all you managed to do was provide me with a dictionary definition of discrimination.

I would be seriously worried if any child of mine attended any school you were a part of.

Quote cod'ead="cod'ead"Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?'" Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.

Quote cod'ead="cod'ead"Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?'" Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.

Not only that but they graded me as good. Shocking, isn't it?


You should be. I might teach them to discriminate between the contexts in which words are used and their various meanings in order that they can apply them appropriately. That would result in them being better educated than you.

Quote SaintsFan="SaintsFan"Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.'" You might want to read this: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Sch ... DG_4016369 No lottery. Never has been. The majority of state schools have no say whatsoever in which pupils are admitted.

Quote SaintsFan="SaintsFan"Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.'" You might want to read this: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Sch ... DG_4016369 No lottery. Never has been. The majority of state schools have no say whatsoever in which pupils are admitted.

How would the teaching of creationism measure up to the "Scientific Enquiry" criteria of the curriculum when the whole principle is based on an unquestioning belief system requiring no proof other than one text book?

You really have quite a low opinion of children considering your profession. Or maybe you have a low opinion of yourself and your fellow teachers?

Both my kids knew about evolution when they were that age. It wasn't even difficult to explain. You only need the general principle and then fill in the details later - rather like the way the rest of the Science curriculum works in fact.

Quote SaintsFan="SaintsFan"Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.'" But you are entirely happy continuing telling them a fairy story and teaching them to sing "The lord god made them all"?

Quote SaintsFan="SaintsFan"Did you read the article? I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post. For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1): Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look. The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.'" But you are entirely happy continuing telling them a fairy story and teaching them to sing "The lord god made them all"?

It wouldn't.

I have no idea where the assumption has come from that I want creationism taught in schools? I don't. But being a teacher and knowing how science is built layer upon layer throughout the Key Stages (and step by step within those layers), I would find it interesting to see just how the scientists in the article propose to teach evolution given the myriad subjects that IMO are more important to reinforce at that stage in a child's learning.

No. I think you have taken yourself off on your own little trip down ignorance lane. You need to reset the SatNav in order to find your way back to what I actually said.


Oh yes, now why didn't I think of that!



In one RE class I introduced Year 1 children to Judaism. It was all very informative, interactive and enjoyable. It didn't touch on creation at all. The next morning I heard an argument taking place in the line of my children as they waited to come into class. I brought everybody into class early and asked each protagonist to tell me what the argument was about. Three children were upsetting each other: one said his Dad said everybody came from apes (so easy to explain!), one girl was crying because her Dad said everybody was made by God and a third child, another boy, was arguing that nobody knew where we came from and so why does it matter? I instigated a citizenship moment and put the first lesson on hold until we had discussed the fallout from a lesson that didn't actually mention creation at all but had obviously had an impact and initiated questions at home, as good lessons often do.

So yes, enabling children of primary school age to learn about evolution is a doddle, not only because it is an entirely neutral subject (obviously) but also because structurally it is dead easy to slip yet another scientific subject into an already packed curriculum, one which really doesn't need to be explored until later in a child's education when they have far more imminent basics secured.

You are wrong again. 26 bishops and a rabbi sit in the House of Lords. Then there's the fact that religious groups are always consulted on things like gay marriage, abortion etc. Then there's the education issue we're discussing here. Quite an influence for such a small minority.



Comprehension not your strong point, is it? Secularists are not 'threatened' by religious belief, they merely feel (quite strongly) that the church and the state should be entirely separate. How hard is that to understand?



The paragraph isn't confused, you are. I stated a belief that faith-based education (not selection) doesn't improve academic achievement. The ability to select which pupils attend your school can quite easily have an effect on academic achievement.



No, that 'fact' does not remain. Faith based schools do, in some (many, even) instances achieve better results than non faith based ones. This is not because of the religious flavour of their education, but because they can choose which pupils attend.



My understanding is that academies are allowed far more latitude than other schools - see Mintball's example where a Jewish academy devotes half of its time to religious studies. And, indeed, the example I linked to earlier.



That has been covered by other posters.



But why should it be the case that teachers applying for a job have to have sympathy with a cult based on mumbo jumbo and fairytales? If the church becomes as big a provider as it hopes to, opportunities will become much more limited for those who don't have sympathy with such nonsense.



People shouldn't have to 'opt out'. The state - including its educational institutions - should be entirely separate from any religion.



As I mentioned in another post, a lot of people simply tick 'Christian' because that's what they think they should put.



No, I don't.



Perhaps not in your school, but that is not the case in all schools. The lines are quite deliberately blurred in a lot of cases. Did you bother to read the link I posted earlier? The one written by a head of 'science' at one of the faith academies?



Why should children be any more at risk from learning about Scientology than Christianity? Both are equally ridiculous.



But why should they be taught faith at all? At school the most they should be learning is the cultural and historical backgrounds to a broad range of religions. They shouldn't be being taught anything from the Bible as though it is anything other than a story.



3.6% say they go [iat least[/i once a month. And religious people are not in the majority. Not even close. Only a religious person would suggest such a thing.



I'm not seeking to influence anybody - I seek to remove the influence of religion in matters of the state.



You really don't get it. As has already been made abundantly clear, those who are religious are in the minority and shouldn't be funding faith based schools. The reasons for faith schools' success has already been covered at some length, and it's not their religious education.