well, I think it may be official...UK is finished????
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007320449,00.html
Quote: FURY erupted last night after Sir Winston Churchill was axed from school history lessons.
Britain’s cigar-chomping World War Two PM — famed for his two-finger victory salute — was removed from a list of figures secondary school children must learn about.
Instead they will be taught about “relevant” issues such as global warming and drug dangers. Churchill’s grandson, Tory MP Nicholas Soames, branded the move “total madness.”
The decision to axe Churchill is part of a major shake-up aimed at dragging the national curriculum into the 21st century, it was claimed last night.
But the plan — hatched by advisers — angered schools secretary Ed Balls, who vowed to probe ALL the changes to the curriculum.
The proposals will see traditional timetables torn up, with pupils focusing on modern “relevant” topics such as drug and booze abuse, climate change and GM foods.
Churchill — voted the greatest ever Briton — goes off the required lessons list, along with Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin and Martin Luther King.
There will also be no need to mention the Wars of the Roses, Elizabeth I or Henry VIII.
are there any Men left in Britain?
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it....
As a side note, how can you take a school secretary seriously with a name like "Ed Balls"....
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No required reading on the War of the Roses? That is a MUST for ALL married families. I kinda took Kathleen Turner's side though. She has nicer legs and a nice rack. This is a travesty.
While I don't agree with this decision, I do like their setup where at age 16 some children are pointed to trade schools .
This strikes me as a simple ploy: do something dramatic to get attention to your pet-causes. Churchill won't be thrown out, but now people are talking about GM foods, global warming, etc.
Frankly, I'd like to see those responsible be abruptly fired, and then ostracized from the education industry. Instead, it's likely they'll get a slap on the wrist, and a raise next review cycle.
fsquid Wrote:While I don't agree with this decision, I do like their setup where at age 16 some children are pointed to trade schools .
I like that too. College isn't for everyone and unfortunately not everyone understands that.
blah Wrote:fsquid Wrote:While I don't agree with this decision, I do like their setup where at age 16 some children are pointed to trade schools .
I like that too. College isn't for everyone and unfortunately not everyone understands that.
Yeah, and the adminstrators keep spinning it the opposite way, despite the obvious COI.
college/education has become a for-profit industry, the idea that they are non-profit is a joke. Its also an indoctrination industry as well which is more damaging that taking kids who would be better off going to trade school or pursuing entrepreneurship opportunities instead of 4 - 5 years of partying with a 2.5 gpa to show for it.
the saying use to be, the A Students become the teachers and the B Students go to work for the C students. Problem is now we are sending the C students off to college studying stuff that means nothing to them.
pros and cons on both sides I suppose.
Good will win out in the end, and Churchill will be back in the classroom sooner rather than later. I agree with DrTorch's assement here.
Still, this isn't as stupid as what happened in Kansas and the sticker issue in Cobb County, Ga.
not teaching the lessons of Winston Churchill is dangerous, period.
we've had a dark ages before, it can happen again. the prosperity we've experienced the last couple centuries is rare historically.
GGniner Wrote:not teaching the lessons of Winston Churchill is dangerous, period.
we've had a dark ages before, it can happen again. the prosperity we've experienced the last couple centuries is rare historically.
Rational people don't expect that to stand. Period.
Sophandros Wrote:GGniner Wrote:not teaching the lessons of Winston Churchill is dangerous, period.
we've had a dark ages before, it can happen again. the prosperity we've experienced the last couple centuries is rare historically.
Rational people don't expect that to stand. Period.
i'm taking the issue with the fact its even being proposed
GGniner Wrote:Sophandros Wrote:GGniner Wrote:not teaching the lessons of Winston Churchill is dangerous, period.
we've had a dark ages before, it can happen again. the prosperity we've experienced the last couple centuries is rare historically.
Rational people don't expect that to stand. Period.
i'm taking the issue with the fact its even being proposed
It's a ploy that won't stand up. Someone is trying to get attention.
As to the Cobb sticker deal, what's wrong with telling students evolution is still a theory, Soph?
RebelKev Wrote:As to the Cobb sticker deal, what's wrong with telling students evolution is still a theory, Soph?
Evolution is not a theory. It's a scientific fact that has competing theories that scientists use to attempt to explain it, just like gravity.
Darwin's theory of natural selection is a theory, but it is not the only theory to attempt to explain how evolution occurs.
To go back to the gravity comparison, there are multiple theories on how gravity works, as well.
The main problem with Cobb County is that the administrators wanted to teach a NON-SCIENTIFIC concept as a scientific theory.
Sophandros Wrote:Evolution is not a theory. It's a scientific fact that has competing theories that scientists use to attempt to explain it, just like gravity.
Evolution IS a theory, Soph. There is no scientific proof that shows we involved from apes.
RebelKev Wrote:Sophandros Wrote:Evolution is not a theory. It's a scientific fact that has competing theories that scientists use to attempt to explain it, just like gravity.
Evolution IS a theory, Soph. There is no scientific proof that shows we involved from apes.
No one has said that we evolved from apes.
We have the same ancestors as apes, and there is ample scientific evidence for that.
BTW, the two main scientific theories to explain evolution are Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibrium.
Again, evolution, like gravity, has been observed. And evolution, like gravity, has had several theories proposed in order to explain the mechanics of it.
Sophandros Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Sophandros Wrote:Evolution is not a theory. It's a scientific fact that has competing theories that scientists use to attempt to explain it, just like gravity.
Evolution IS a theory, Soph. There is no scientific proof that shows we involved from apes.
No one has said that we evolved from apes.
We have the same ancestors as apes, and there is ample scientific evidence for that.
No, there isn't.
It's really as simple as that. There is not ample scientific evidence to support this theory...or more correctly any of the theories. In contrast, there is quite a bit of evidence that makes them very suspect.
Quote:BTW, the two main scientific theories to explain evolution are Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibrium.
Not exactly the case, since Puntuated Equilibrium is a specific mechanism within the Natural Selection framework (but hey, why be concerned with details?) but worth mentioning b/c PE was developed precisely because there is such a dearth of emprical evidence.
Quote:Again, evolution, like gravity, has been observed.
Again, if it's so readily observed, then please show it. Finches and pepper moths don't count, b/c there really is no evolution of species (just changes in population distribution). Neither do drug-resistant bacteria, because reasoning by analogy is not proof (see the Bohr model of the atom)
To get back to the original question, I have to say I'm more than a little intrigued. I really want to see a WWII history plan that doesn't mention either Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler.
Of course, to put this proposal in the best possible light, it could be that Churchill & Hitler do not have to be specifically included in the curriculum because it impossible to cover the relevant aspects of history without including them. Instead of a life history, only their involvement in historical events would be highlighted.
jh Wrote:To get back to the original question, I have to say I'm more than a little intrigued. I really want to see a WWII history plan that doesn't mention either Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler.
Of course, to put this proposal in the best possible light, it could be that Churchill & Hitler do not have to be specifically included in the curriculum because it impossible to cover the relevant aspects of history without including them. Instead of a life history, only their involvement in historical events would be highlighted.
Churchill and Hitler would still be covered if this plan happened. What the plan is saying is that students in the 11 to 14 year old category would no longer be required to learn about Churchill's life as a whole. He's still be covered by WWII lessons and anyother lessons that might come up in that class.