Here is an article from The National Secular Society about 'faith' schools in the UK not abiding by addmission codes. It's amazing how these schools operate...
Religious schools cheating and failing, but they keep on opening
Editorial by Terry Sanderson
"As the NSS has been saying all along, when left
to their own devices, “faith schools” can’t be trusted to operate a
fair admissions policy. Not content with the special privileges they
have (given by parliament), they cheat repeatedly.
This week, the schools adjudicator revealed that the
level of complaints he is receiving from parents who accuse schools of
cheating has rocketed. In the past two months, his office has settled
111 cases – more than in the whole of the previous academic year.
The figures show that many schools have failed to fully
implement the government’s new code on admissions, which outlaws
interviewing pupils and asking about jobs or parents’ incomes.
Unsurprisingly, more than half of those schools found to be breaking
the code were “faith schools”.
The Local Government Association, which represents
Council leaders, has called for a veto on faith schools operating their
own admission policies. Les Lawrence, who speaks for the LGA on
educational matters, said: “Local authorities should be the final
arbiter of and have jurisdiction over all schools’ admissions
policies.” Again, this is something the NSS has been consistently
arguing for, including in representations to the Secretary of State.
While schools can set their own entry requirements, the temptation to
cheat will always be there. Religious schools have the added privilege
of being able to turn “undesirable” pupils away on the grounds that
they aren’t the right religion, or even if they are, that they aren’t
pious enough to qualify for a place.
As “faith schools” blatantly pick and choose their
pupils, parents are left fuming when they can’t get their children into
a local school, while pupils from outside the area are bussed in at
great expense to fill the places.
“Ah yes”, argue the proponents of this unjustifiable
religious discrimination, “but look how well we do. Our faith ensures
that there is a supportive environment for our pupils where discipline
can be maintained.” This is the alleged magical “ethos” that religious
schools are supposed to be able to generate. But it isn’t a guarantee
that all will be well.
Take the Oasis Academy in Mayfield, Southampton, for
instance, which is run by the silver-tongued Rev Steve
(Mr-faith-based-welfare) Chalke. His Oasis Trust already has nine
academies under its belt and is looking to set up another three.
A couple of weeks ago at Mayfield, 150 pupils
“rampaged” through the corridors to express their anger at the way the
school was being run, according to the TES. This resulted in five
pupils being “permanently excluded” (which means they end up in the
local hard-pressed community school, adding to its pressures, while
Oasis simply washes its hands of the problems). The pupils’ frustration
is echoed by the staff team, which is considering a ballot for strike
action.
The school, which only opened last month, is casting
doubts on the credibility of the whole academies project. John Denham,
the local Southampton MP and the Universities Secretary, has questioned
whether the sponsor has the experience to run the school.
Pete Sopowski, the NUT’s area representative, said the
school’s management had been “arrogant” in refusing to listen to the
views of other people.
Ron Clooney, the NASUWT representative, said: “The
school is a disaster. Parents, pupils and staff are unhappy with the
way it’s being run. The spirit and caring ethos of the school has had a
kick in the guts. Its heart has been torn out. Considering it's being
run by a Christian organisation, it beggars belief the way they are
dealing with the teachers and the kids. The protest by the Year 11s was
hijacked by pupils who went on the rampage. They should not have done
it, but they are upset.”
Christine Blower, the general secretary of the NUT,
said: “It is amazing that the secretary of state of a major education
department has said an academy sponsor needs help because it is so
inexperienced. What problems are academies supposed to solve? The
solution has become the problem.”
Oasis was chosen to run two academies in Southampton
over a consortium of local colleges, universities and businesses, even
though the council’s own assessment found that the consortium was more
likely to raise standards. A survey of local parents also favoured the
consortium. So given that the decision to hand this school over to
Oasis seems to have been made before the consultation, what was the
point of pretending to be interested in what parents or the local
authority thought?
Mr Chalke told NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood that he was invited by the Government to be a sponsor.
It’s another example of the Government imposing
religious schools on communities against their will and against their
better judgment."
Source: http://www.secularism.org.uk/religiousschoolscheatingandfaili.html
Be the first to rate this post
- Currently 0/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Craig James has a wonderful blog called The Religious Virus. Here is one of his entries:
LOL - Conservapedia on Atheism
Don't ask why ('cause I don't know...), but I took a look at the
Conservapedia "encyclopedia" entry on Atheism, and was genuinely
disappointed by what a joke it is. It's hysterical, but sort of sad,
just how many ways the article is blatently biased, inflammatory, or
just plain wrong. It would be funnier, but for the fact that this is a
high-traffic web site with millions of readers who take it seriously.
(I
usually provide links, but refuse in this case – I'm sure you can find
it yourself – because I don't want to lend what little search-engine
karma my blog has gained to the drivel on Conservapedia.)
I'm of the same philosophy as Arlo Guthrie:
I'd rather have friends who care than friends who agree with me.
So
I was hoping that Conservapedia would have a well-crafted, thoughtful
article on Atheism. What a disappointment! It is a total hack job,
written by people mostly interested in slapping each other on the back
at how clever they are.
Just a few of the more outrageous parts of the article...
They
start off on the wrong foot by defining Atheism "is the denial of the
existence of God." Most Atheists I know make no such claim, rather, we
simply see no evidence for the truly extraordinary claim that there's a
magical god in the sky. Alas, Conservapedia goes on to confuse things
by calling the denial-of-existence camp "strong atheism," and calling
the more common theists-bear-the-proof-burden by the dismissive title
of "weak atheists."
So let me get this right: Atheists deny the
existence of God ... but "weak atheists" don't. Hmmm, I guess I never
swallowed the Anti-Rationalism Meme, otherwise this apparent contradiction wouldn't trouble me. Doesn't anybody check this stuff?
Things really heat up a few sections down. Just take a look at these headings:
- Atheism and Communism
- Atheism and Mass Murder
- Atheism and American Charity (links to: Atheism and Uncharitableness)
- Atheism and Immoral Views
- Atheism and Suicide
- Atheism and Deception
- Decline of Atheism as an Intellectual Position
Does
this sound like an "encyclopedia" to you? What a joke. You can just
imagine the contents of each of these sections, don't bother reading it.
And how about this one:
Moral
depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies
regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal
factor for atheism.
It's so absurd I can't even be insulted.
It's
too bad some serious intellectuals can't take control of Conservapedia
and offer something challenging. I was hoping for a good argument, but
not today. Just a good laugh.
Click
Here to buy his book
Be the first to rate this post
- Currently 0/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Here is a good article from the BBC.
Why are religious jokes so funny?
A Christian web magazine is launching a competition to find the most
offensive religious joke. Although some people are shocked when faith
is the butt of humour, why are so many others amused?
Ship of Fools, an online
magazine which describes itself as the "Private Eye of the Christian
world", is looking for the funniest, and most offensive, Christian
jokes.
In the face of legislation it fears will limit what
people can joke about in a religious context - a claim strongly
rejected by ministers - it wants to provoke a debate about what is
humorous and what is offensive.
"It's vital we have such criticism at the heart of our
way of life and religion," says co-editor Stephen Goddard, who thinks
an interactive debate is healthy for Christianity.
"But no-one knows quite where humour goes into offence, because one
man's joke is another man's offensive comment. We're trying to find the
theology of humour - how to understand humour from a Christian
perspective, and we're giving people the chance to judge their own
views by other people's."
But why is religion so often a source of comedy? Mr Goddard says it because there's a black humour to the Bible stories.
"The prophets did crazy things to draw the attention of people to
repentance and a return to godly ways, like dragging dogs through the
streets or sitting on a pillar for 40 years. Religion tends to draw
certain extreme people, which can be very good material for humour."
Other religions have their own unwritten rules when it comes to holding faith up to ridicule.
Pearly gates
Comedian Arthur Smith says religion is the biggest subject in the world, with the idea of a big man conducting events.
"It's quite funny. And there's the absurdity of the after-life. How
many jokes start with 'Arriving at the gates of St Peter... ' It's like
'A man goes into a pub... ' as a classic line."
But he would steer clear of ridiculing other religions because he says he's not from that tradition.
Not so fellow comic, Mark Steel, who says he has huge respect for some
aspects of religion but there are no boundaries for what is fair game.
"The way a comic's mind works is if he thinks 'That's offensive', then
he says it.
"There are a million different reasons for comedy, but one is to prick
pomposity. And when it comes to self-righteousness and pomposity,
religion has been the unchallenged winner for the last 5,000 years."
Despite the popularity of television comedy such as Father
Ted, not everyone would agree that religion is a valid source of humour
at all.
The Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Rev Graham James, says
The Vicar of Dibley has occasionally offended by poking fun at
Christianity.
And before the BBC broadcast Jerry Springer - The
Opera, in January, it received 47,000 complaints in anticipation at the
way Christian themes were treated. Weeks earlier, a play in Birmingham
was cancelled after protests by Sikhs.
But Steel says he has the answer.
"When I speak to Christians who are offended by what I say, I tell them
'If you're right, I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. Isn't
that punishment enough? You want me to be banned as well?'"
Be the first to rate this post
- Currently 0/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5