Comments on: ‘Orwellian language’ in schools is turning pupils into ‘customers’, finds damning report

By: LukeLuke

LukeLuke — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:22:47 +0000

Yes true I think, but it has to be balanced by a sense of nationhood, with identity and social resposibility. If we have Capitalism as a literal are we not endorsing social Darwinism? Maybe it could work in a pure form in a state of nature. Orwells The Road to Wigan Pier gives us an insight into British Capitalism in the 1930’s and its effects on the people. I would also add that we live in a tick box society where real people do not matter but graphs and percentages do. As Mr Orwell might put it. “Tobacco production up, boot production up, Chocolate ration increased to 28 grams, all is well in the second year of the 10th 5 year plan.”

By: AnnaEsse

AnnaEsse — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:42:47 +0000

“Teaching to the tests,” is absolutely spot on. Here in the UK, our classroom walls in both primary and secondary schools are covered in posters showing what needs to be done to achieve the different levels for SATS. Yesterday, I was working in a primary school and looking at work children were doing on computers. One pupil was working on a piece of writing about himself and there was a phrase I wanted to replace with a single word, “and,” because with the phrase the child was using, the sentence didn’t make sense.

Well, the teaching assistant stepped in and asked the child what level he was working on and then told me that to achieve that level, the child had to use that phrase. I finally got agreement that “and,” was appropriate and it was changed, but the TA insisted that, “and,” was only a level one “connective,” and therefore not good for the child’s targets. Nuts I say!!!

By: Insipid

Insipid — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:38:35 +0000

Is it not through social contact that we learn such skills as conflict resolution, leadership skills, societal rules, effective bargaining skills, communication, etc.?

Any education, whether book learning or documentary watching or internet browsing or sitting in a hall listening to a lecture, any education must be accompanied by life experiences. If we don’t force our kids to “go outside and play” then those critical neuronal connections are not forged in the brains of the young. They do not connect through any means but by play and mimic and experience.

By: Jedi1

Jedi1 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:06:33 +0000

Notice that the only thing taught about money is how to balance your checkbook back to zero??..lol!

By: 1984

1984 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:26:19 +0000

Btw, its clearly not statistically impossible. Because it happens.
It *could* just be coincidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c

By: 1984

1984 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:03:05 +0000

“Shouldn’t your ‘theory of evolution’ have taken care of that disease thing by now?”

No, because plenty of diseases mutate end we’re not the cream of the crop when it comes to design. Because we’re not designed. We’re just animals. Do you even understand evolution?

One cannot disprove a negative. God(s) cannot be proven nor disproven.
Talk science? Then leave mythology out of it first.. bring something testable to the table.
Wrong assumptions.. many of my teachers were christians, and they made silly unsupported claims. One of the reasons I lost faith altogether. I don’t have the burden of proof. The religious do.

No older part. You’re right on that…

By: USMC Grunt

USMC Grunt — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:17:19 +0000

god squad

By: longshotlouie

longshotlouie — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:38:32 +0000

Interesting read. Thx for the post.

Have you seen this one?

‘Bush Family Values Photo Album’
http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html

By: longshotlouie

longshotlouie — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:11:44 +0000

‘Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine.’

Again, ‘They (astrophysicists) ‘estimate’ that the earth is ‘no older’ than 30 billion years.’ Is this difficult to comprehend? Maybe a translator would help.

By: longshotlouie

longshotlouie — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:59:58 +0000

Thanks for the antitheist rambling, but my response was not about proving God.

Current ‘theory’ and observations suggest that the universe is between 13.5 and 14 billion years. Which books are you reading?

In all of that rambling, I never saw a counter to the argument in my repjy.
How do you believe in a theory that was created by Marxists to disprove God and that is scientificly impossible? That question is rhetorical, since the answer is that it is your ‘belief system’. You were indoctrinated to believe in your state-sponsored church, the public re-education system.

If you have a response (to my original post) that is not rambling or condescending, I will reciprocate.

This is about science, not God. Let’s Talk Science.

p.s. Shouldn’t your ‘theory of evolution’ have taken care of that disease thing by now?