Sikh School To Be Built In Slough, England.

[hobbes]

I am not sure that I'm too happy about this new school thats gonna be built for the sikh comunity.
I don't have any problem with other nationalities coming into England to live, however, I believe that anyone coming to live in my country should live as I live.

There are laws being passed in France forbidding school children from wearing headscarves and turbans to school... what do we do.. we build a special school for them.

The proposed school is gonna cost us tax payers £6million.... the Sikh community have to contribute too.. £600,000.... is that a fair contribution?

There are many points to discuss here.. lets hear some of your views on this subject.

Saw this at another forum. I was intrigued by the post. I know it is proper etiquette to put my own opinion first, but I'm just curious to see where this thread travels here in comparison to where it did in its original forum.

[TheDave]

as long as they don't change any laws or require me to adjust.

the fact that my school was catholic and funded as a catholic (religious) school, i believe gave me an above average quality of education.

if sikhs want to discriminate to give their community a better education i dont see a problem.

[vidcc]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to have schools to cater to different cultures with the proviso that they teach the basic required curriculum of the country they are located as well as their own classes.

[rf9rider]

Seems to me another case of religion dividing the community.
If we had no religion in schools, we could all integrate and perhaps live together more harmoniously.
Even better, ban all religion and the world could perhaps live in harmony, or is that just me dreaming of Utopia?

[3RA1N1AC]

I believe that anyone coming to live in my country should live as I live.
do they have to live exactly as he lives? but what if a Sikh doesn't like football, page three of The Sun, and Westlife? :O

[cpt_azad]

Or is that just me dreaming of Utopia?

1) Yes, you're thinking of Utopia.
2) Utopia is impossible unless the public/society in question is brianwashed or just plain dumb (cough cough 51% cough :whistling )
3) There are many more criteria needed to create Utopia, not just "no religions"

[Busyman]

Seems to me another case of religion dividing the community.
If we had no religion in schools, we could all integrate and perhaps live together more harmoniously.
Even better, ban all religion and the world could perhaps live in harmony, or is that just me dreaming of Utopia?
If it isn't religion, it would be race, if not race, it would be.........

[cpt_azad]

it would be what busyman?

[hobbes]

But why are general tax dollars going to fund a Sikh school? Private interest schools, whether they be religious or exclusive, should be privately funded.

To publicly fund a private interest institute like a country adapting to it's immigrants, not vice versa.

If the Sikhs wish to create a "special school", they may freely use their own money to do so.

[cpt_azad]

Agreed. They do it here, there are many sikh schools but they are all privately funded and built.

[Cheese]

Why shouldn't the government help fund the school? The sikh community still has to raise 10% which I think is fair enough. As long as they teach the national curriculm I see it being no different than publicly funded catholic schools.

And there's 10,000 sikhs in Slough alone, I imagine some of them pay taxes...

Leave the moaning to the Sun readers. :glare:

[UKResident]

But why are general tax dollars going to fund a Sikh school? Private interest schools, whether they be religious or exclusive, should be privately funded.

To publicly fund a private interest institute like a country adapting to it's immigrants, not vice versa.

If the Sikhs wish to create a "special school", they may freely use their own money to do so.

Well we don't do things like that in England, thankfully.

l live in Windsor, which is next to Slough; the whole area is rapidly expanding and more than this one school is needed. These children need an education wherever they go to school. If they went to any local school the government would still have to pay. This new school is only to be 80% Sikh anyway, and they are paying 10% of the costs. It is also a primary school, when they leave they will be going to local high schools. Catholic schools in England get special grants, why shouldn't Sikhs?

[Cheese]

Well we don't do things like that in England, thankfully.

l live in Windsor, which is next to Slough; the whole area is rapidly expanding and more than this one school is needed. These children need an education wherever they go to school. If they went to any local school the government would still have to pay. This new school is only to be 80% Sikh anyway, and they are paying 10% of the costs. It is also a primary school, when they leave they will be going to local high schools. Catholic schools in England get special grants, why shouldn't Sikhs?

Well said. Though I was under the impression that Slough had enough schools, at least that was the argument of some people in authority against the idea of the sikh school.

[TheDave]

i think catholic schools have to be 90% catholic

[UKResident]

Well said. Though I was under the impression that Slough had enough schools, at least that was the argument of some people in authority against the idea of the sikh school.

l'm talking about the whole area, not just Slough. As you know, London doesnt stop now until it gets past Reading, everywhere it's possible to build a house out this way they are building them.

You could say there were enough schools in Slough if you believe 35 pupils per class is OK. As for the arguments, l think the people who were against the school would have said anything.

[hobbes]

That is my point, we do have different cultures (US and UK). Private interest groups should be privately funded in my eyes. Religion and public funded schools should be separate.

Do we need a Luthern school, a Muslim school, a Catholic school, ad infintum.

Or should we just provide a place for all children to go an learn and get to know people from different backrounds. Seems ridiculous to me to divide the little boys and girls up into separate schools.

I simply am full stop opposed to any religion being granted my money to build their schools. I cannot envision volunteering my money to pay for brainwashing and encouraging something that promotes the division of a community, rather than uniting it.

I remember the Jewish kids would go to a private Hebrew school on the weekends or at night. That is the way it should be.

Small children are very plastic in their mindsets. If you grow up with a variety of people, you just see them as friends and classmates. To attempt to integrate them later is a much tricker deal.

BTW, sign me up for that publically funded "Creationism, new Earth" school.

[TheDave]

we had a few RE lessons about other religions and awareness, then i came out atheist.

as long as they aren't saying all other religions are wrong and promoting racism. what's the problem?

does the average school cost less than £6mil?

[Peerzy]

Im very near to slough :D

Anyway i don't really mind, when the government spends £200 million (or is it more) on the millenium dome i think the sikhs deserve some money. Plus what are the odds that the sikh tax payers in the UK give more than £6mil?

[SeK612]

it would be what busyman?

I assumed he was pointing out that humans will never get along with each other - you're going to have to go alongway back in time to find a time when the human world was at peace if it has ever been.

As for the school, I don't see harm in it. There are already Christian schools so fairness says other faiths should be able to set up their own schools if they wish. Political correctness will force the Sikh school to accept various pupils, as it does for the existing religious schools in the UK.

[vidcc]

Hobbes

i agree with your opinion about the state funding religious teachings, however every school, in the Uk at least, has to teach the basic curriculum and the state usually pays for that in schools where parents are not charged. The sikh comunity in this case has to contribute a certain amount financially for the building and i would imagine would have to raise money for other things once the school opens. This area has a large amount of sikhs and they may not necessarily be immigrants as the original poster of the topic on the other forum seems to be suggesting. This community pay their taxes like everyone else so a "grant" from the state to build and run the "national education standard" side is well within the bounds of even the American constitution (IMO) ...the rest is up to the school to raise funds.

[hobbes]

I don't get why public money should go to private interest schools.

What does religion have to do with "deserving money" to build a school.

We can argue about what the government spends money on, but my point is that, as a society, we seem to think that a role of government is to provide an educational system.

You learn to read and write and 'rithmatic.

Education has nothing to do with religion. Teaching religion is NOT a goal of the educational system and therefore is not a requiste function of the government.

If I were to move to England, would I be entitled to a public funded school because I want a "Creationism" school? Hell no, I moved to England. I either learn deal with their school system, tutor my children at home, privately fund a school with like minded individuals, or go elesewhere.

This has nothing to do with Sikhs' per se, it has to do with what we think the government is entitled to provide.

They need provide a system of education. Religion can be introduced in the context of social studies, but should no specific religion should be indoctrinated into the children.

Religious choice is a right of personal freedom and should be pursued in ones personal time. It has no role in the educational process, and as such, would make it a perk for interested individuals and not a duty for the government.

The government does not provide Sikh bridges, Sihk spaceships, Sihk Natural parks, or Sihk hospitals. It provides bridges, spaceships, Natural parks and hospitals for everyone, schools should be no different.

You want a special interest school, you fund it.

[hobbes]

Hobbes

If our Government is willing to fund these schools and the UK citizens who have replied are content with that like, then the Govt is following our wishes.

You have seperation of Church and State like, we do not . Maybe that's the difference.

You think this is a good idea? Really? So anybody who moves from anywhere is entitled to your money because they want a school?

One lives and learns.

[hobbes]

Hobbes

i agree with your opinion about the state funding religious teachings, however every school, in the Uk at least, has to teach the basic curriculum and the state usually pays for that in schools where parents are not charged. The sikh comunity in this case has to contribute a certain amount financially for the building and i would imagine would have to raise money for other things once the school opens. This area has a large amount of sikhs and they may not necessarily be immigrants as the original poster of the topic on the other forum seems to be suggesting. This community pay their taxes like everyone else so a "grant" from the state to build and run the "national education standard" side is well within the bounds of even the American constitution (IMO) ...the rest is up to the school to raise funds.

See if I get your point Vidcc.

Sikhs pay for school in the form of tax and therefore derserve a school. They want to take the basic school and sort of "upgrade" it to a special Sihk school.

Where I grew up, schools were supported by local city property taxes. If someone wanted to go outside thier district, they would have to pay for it. Many of our school employees brought in their own kids as a loophole as we had a fine public school.

Let me suppose that the Jewish people in the area said to the State that they were willing to put up additional money to convert it into a Jewish school. The State said fine, well give you what you pay in property taxes and you foot the rest.

Meanwhile, my school is now a Jewish school. By the nature of public funding, I would have the right to go there, but in practice it might be a bit uncomfortable. Also my parents would not want me going there.

Where is my school now. Does the government need to build one for me?

I think it a bad idea for the government to get involved in this type of endeavor.

[kazaaman]

Well then why doesn't the government change the law. Allow the turbans. All that'll happen is that the sikh kids will stand out more than anyone else. But there should be a decent amount of them, so they won't stick out too much. This way you won't have to pay higher taxes.

[TheDave]

i think you're mixing france and england up



hobbes what are you talking about? they aren't converting a school to be religious, they're starting it from the ground up. now if they were converting it i would have a problem.

[hobbes]

To continue what I was saying to Vidcc:

Big picture, I think as humans living together in a country, we should integrate and not separate. Prejudice only flourishes in the setting of ignorance and that is what separate schools will promote.

This is primarily important in gradeschool as this is where many of our beliefs are laid into our still malleable clay and set forever. This is where allegiance to town, country, religion, sports team, and race are formed, and often done so without our concious knowledge.

As Jpol has his faith, no logical discussion can shake it, as it is set within his clay-long dried. Why I still consider myself a St. Louisian even though I haven't lived their for 15 years. It is where I was formed. For you soccer fans, would you change alliance in favorite soccer team due to moving to a new location or a witty argument? Hell no, you live and die with every match.

Such import years for all the children to get know each other. Rather than needing to rely on what adults tell them what other people are like, they know because they have meet them and grown up with them.

I would far rather you hate because I am an ass, rather than simply because I am white and you were told that white people are evil.

Such an opportunity lost.

But I can see how some would disagree with me. They want their kids to grow up and believe what they do. They want them to believe the party line, and they fear for the loss of faith or belief such open experience might bring.


As a relevant example, consider 9/11. Had I grown up with Muslim children, I'm sure I would have had a much better understanding of what a "typical muslim" is like. When 9/11 occured I would have a deep understanding that those that did this were insane individuals and not "muslims". As it is, we go into Afghanistan and we are told what the Taliban are like, and that they are Muslim. We get a very distorted view of what the "average" Muslim is about as we have no relevant context to compare it to.

Certainly, an all Muslim school in my community might draw misdirected and ignorant rage because no one really knows them. Integrate, don't separate.

[hobbes]

i think you're mixing france and england up



hobbes what are you talking about? they aren't converting a school to be religious, they're starting it from the ground up. now if they were converting it i would have a problem.

You are missing the point. I was giving an abstract example to make a point.

Sikh school, Catholic school, Luthern school, Monk School, Creationism school, Star Trek school.......

Where does it stop?

[bigboab]

I think the answer is already in place in the UK. No National curriculum, no funding. :)

[vidcc]

Hobbes
British school are not funded in the same way as US schools
The point was building a new school to cater for the needs or wishes, not convert or upgrade and existing school. In the UK ALL SCHOOLS must teach the state applied national curriculum unless it is a Sunday school or after school establishment.. It is law that all children are taught this national curriculum and a parent can go to prison for failing to ensure their child adheres to this law....this doesn't mean they have to pass the exams, just have to be taught.
Private schools receive state grants purely to meet the states requirements, not to teach specific religious theory and they are controlled by the state and inspected to make sure they meet the set standards.
there is no mandate to have a school for specific religious theory teaching in every area, however as I suspect was the case in the thread topic there was a need in that area and a business plan would have been submitted and considered on its merits.
Just as the state provides grants for sports they do for education

To summarise...the state does not fund specific religious teaching but does supply grants to various "causes" if an acceptable case is made.

[Biggles]

The Catholic School I have had experience of have had non-Catholic pupils. I am not aware if said Sikh school will be open to non-believers. I would like to think so like, whether or not any non-Sikh wishes to attend is another matter.

I have no problem with this, as the man said they are entitled to a state education anyway. If there is a sufficient interest in the school to justify the cost then no problem.

My understanding of Sikhs is that they are quite tolerant (their religion is a Vulcan mind meld of Hindu and Muslim beliefs as I understand it).

I think the way we fund schools is different to the US. There are already Catholic and CofE schools. To qualify for funding they must include the National Curriculum and are subject to inspection. Note is also taken of their performance. Funding can be withdrawn if they do not meet their obligations and I believe this has happened to a couple of small Islamic schools.

[chalice]

Slough
Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!


Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.

Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.

And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:

And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.

But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.

It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead

And talk of sport and makes of cars
In various bogus-Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.

In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.

Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.

[Biggles]

:lol:

Is that a Betjeman?

[chalice]

:lol:

Is that a Betjeman?

Indeed, Biggles!

[Rat Faced]

Saw this at another forum. I was intrigued by the post. I know it is proper etiquette to put my own opinion first, but I'm just curious to see where this thread travels here in comparison to where it did in its original forum.

I havent read the rest of the thread, so i dont know how its digressed..

I have no problem with this as long as they are following the National Curriculum like all other State Funded Schools.

If they wish to contribute extra, like Catholic Schools do or CofE supported Schools do, in order to teach their Religion or extra stuff too... good for them.

I have noticed repeatedly that the Church Supported schools around this part of the country at least, appear to have better educated and better behaved kids...

...until they hit their teens at least, then they seem to go even further overboard than the other kids :blink:

I wonder if this is because the purely State Funded schoolkids are rebelling all the way through, instead of saving it all up :unsure:

[Spicker]

Go brown ppl :)

[hobbes]

I think in a diverse culture, encouraging separtion is a bad idea. School is a place to meet and develop social skills, equal in importance to reading and writing.

Religious teaching can be taught at home and in religious instituitions. We don't have religion based government funded, housing, hospital care, roads or national parks, why are schools an exception.

Government money should encourage unification, not segregation.

Could I get approval to have an all Aryan School with the government picking up the tab. Sweet.

This is my opinion, if the people in the UK are happy, that is their choice, but one I disagree with.

Here is a post that I have edited from the orginal thread. The author touches on the subject of what obligation a country has to adjust to the special needs or desires of immigrants:


Our way of life is rare and under constant attack, and our ability to sustain it is precarious. Our kind of lifestyle - with its stability, prosperity, and ease - is rare, and in demand the world over, and a considerable wave of people everywhere want to leave their own country to come here to start a new life. Indeed, this is the bond that unites our population!

New Canadians should be encouraged to integrate and become part of our country, and should be encouraged to vote and to contribute to defining how our culture and its characteristics should develop. We do not need, however, distinct pockets of populations that are united by foreign religious, language or cultural ties! These pockets can – and do – concentrate to dominate local populations to further political and other agendas that can be very contrary to our own values.

As an example of such domination, I went into a local bank the other day (just outside Toronto), and NO-ONE at the wickets spoke English, or indeed, French – only Cantonese (or, maybe, Mandarin)! The teller called someone from the back that came and could speak English, but the point is clear; this is a sub culture that is well-defined enough to be utterly and alarmingly separate from mainstream society!

While I hope that we shall always have a strong tolerance for all sorts of diversity, the government should not be in the business of [artificially] supporting and encouraging it by giving it special funding and other support of any kind ! By doing so, it is creating future sources of possibly very severe trouble! So, for example, citizenship qualification should include both the ability to speak and write one of our official languages and having some [minimal knowledge] of our political system! Indeed, the “landed immigrant” status’s being extended indefinitely should at least require demonstrating the ability to speak and write an official language of the country!

While I hope that we shall always have a strong tolerance for all sorts of diversity, the government should not be in the business of [artificially] supporting and encouraging it by giving it special funding and other support of any kind ! By doing so, it is creating future sources of possibly very severe trouble! So, for example, citizenship qualification should include both the ability to speak and write one of our official languages and having some [minimal knowledge] of our political system! Indeed, the “landed immigrant” status’s being extended indefinitely should at least require demonstrating the ability to speak and write an official language of the country!

From this viewpoint, it is axiomatic that the government should not be funding schooling to further distinct language, religious, or cultural interests, and indeed, should not be giving special tax relief or consideration to those opting to support such schooling, and so on. Doing this is lunacy, however well-intentioned!

I don't want the US to become little pockets of foreigners, clustered in their rufuge communities, going to their own schools and living amongst themselves, but one country, inhabited by many people of diverse origin, living and working together.

School is a great place to start.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

I understand what you mean but by and large the second and third generation of immigrants tend to assimilate (Borg style) into the host community. They still keep a little of that original culture but the dominant culture tends to be a force difficult to reckon with and a source of much worry to the older generation. The schools will keep some of that culture but they will also look outwards to the wider community.

Did the US not have Jewish, Irish, Polish and Italian communities? It took a while, but eventually they assimilated with just vestigal remnants of their origins showing (very evolutionary :whistling )

[vidcc]

One interesting thing i find about the USA which i didn't mention because the original post was british is that many Americans have this same "if they come here they should live as we do" attitude...yet is that what Americans did when "they came here" ? The USA was rebuilt on changing the country...not intergrating.

I don't have any problem with other nationalities coming into England to live, however, I believe that anyone coming to live in my country should live as I live.

I would also repeat another point i made... that is... why is the assumption that the people of this community are immigrants?

America is considered a christian country yet it has a huge muslim population...most of which are not immigrants. Does anyone here suggest that those muslims should live as christians do?
Is the poster arguing that if they ARE immigrants they should convert to his religion and should abandon all knowledge of their past and their religious beliefs?

The arguement over state funding from the original poster seems to have less to do with the fact that the school is a religious school and more to do with racism.

[hobbes]

Hobbes

I understand what you mean but by and large the second and third generation of immigrants tend to assimilate (Borg style) into the host community. They still keep a little of that original culture but the dominant culture tends to be a force difficult to reckon with and a source of much worry to the older generation. The schools will keep some of that culture but they will also look outwards to the wider community.

Did the US not have Jewish, Irish, Polish and Italian communities? It took a while, but eventually they assimilated with just vestigal remnants of their origins showing (very evolutionary :whistling )

But why support it? These communities within the US were NOT healthy to the country as a whole. Why not learn from history? Also, I think we are getting an entirely different type of refugee. Many are professionals and well funded who want to re-create a little piece of their homeland abroad.

edit: I added the word "NOT", which makes a wee difference.

[hobbes]

Is the poster arguing that if they ARE immigrants they should convert to his religion and should abandon all knowledge of their past and their religious beliefs?

The arguement over state funding from the original poster seems to have less to do with the fact that the school is a religious school and more to do with racism.

The original poster left many roads for subsequent posts to travel. Whatever hits your radar the hardest.

I think you may be right about the first poster, but I think he more an awkward adolescent than a racist.

The second poster I quoted was a completely different individual (sorry) who goes by Wee Willy. He lives in a mixed race marriage, like yourself.


I am an Irish Canadian living in Canada's Toronto, a city that probably has no serious contender as the most racially and culturally diverse city on the planet! I totally love this racial diversity; indeed, my wife is a member of a "visible minority", and I am not a racial bigot of any kind - I have even been known to like the occasional American!

I thought Willy was more articulate in his expression.

[namzuf9]

Excuse my bluntness but WTF has religion got to do with education?

In the UK Religious Education/Studies is a core subject meaning that it has to be taught in all schools. I have no problem with that, the subject of religion is an interesting one and children should learn about other religions aside from their own.
That is as far as the schools should go.

Imagine the uproar caused if a white only or black only school opened up!
Racism is'nt always about the colour of your skin but a lot of people tend to forget that fact.

[vidcc]

Excuse my bluntness but WTF has religion got to do with education?
Schools have many subjects that are not mandatory.
It has nothing to do with standard education, however if parents wish it to be part of their childs education they have the right to send them to a school that does teach it.




Imagine the uproar caused if a white only or black only school opened up!
Not so long ago we did have that here in parts of the USA, however i don't see the connection between a religion and skin color. Your point, to me at least, doesn't connect to the point of this school....one doesn't have to be a particular color to be a sikh.
Is there uproar amoung the sikh community, or any other religious group at catholic schools? Is there uproar over non religious state schools?

I am an athiest and disagree with the state teaching specific religious theory. The only religious teachings in school should be about the different "brands" of religion so that all can understand and hopefully be more tollerant of differences.
However even as an Athiest i would fight any attempt to remove specific religious theory teaching schools that cater to those that wish to attend such.
In balance i would fight any attempt from any religion to have religious theory taught in a plain state school

[hobbes]

Religion has nothing to do with the goal of educating students. Many highschools have a variety of different electives, but because Spanish is offered, we don't call it a Spanish school. A Sikh school would have the Sikh philosophy permeate the school agenda, not just be a normal school that has a class in Sikh. Additionally, we are talking about elementary schools, which have no electives.

If a religious group wants State money to help build their own, how is that different from an all white group that wants their own school, too?

There is none, it is the State supporting private interest groups. Skin color, religion, heritage-whatever, it is all private interest.

The State should stay out of private affairs. Religious studies can be done on your own time.

The State should provide a system to allow for education for everyone and it should oversee private schools to be sure they are meeting the requirements of the State.

Anyone wishing other than what the State provides for everyone, can do so, they just have to pay for it.

[vidcc]

Religion has nothing to do with the goal of educating students. Many highschools have a variety of different electives, but because Spanish is offered, we don't call it a Spanish school. A Sikh school would have the Sikh philosophy permeate the school agenda, not just be a normal school that has a class in Sikh. Additionally, we are talking about elementary schools, which have no electives.
But this case was a british school...which works differently from American schools, they still have to teach the state defined curriculum and the state supports that part...the rest is up to the school to fund. If they had no intention to teach the national curriculum they would get no money to help build the school as it wouldn't be "school"..hope that makes sense

If a religious group wants State money to help build their own, how is that different from an all white group that wants their own school, too?

There is none, it is the State supporting private interest groups. Skin color, religion, heritage-whatever.
what would an all white school teach apart from the national curriculum?... all that would be is segregation based on color and it would bar entry of anyone that is not white...a religious school accepts anyone that is prepared to accept learning their specific religious theory. I am unaware of any that require unquestionable faith in that theory.

The State should stay out of private affairs. Religious studies can be done on your own time.

The State should provide a system to allow for education for everyone and it should oversee private schools to be sure they are meeting the requirements of the State.

Anyone wishing other than what the State provides for everyone, can do so, they just have to pay for it.
see first red paragraph :cool:

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

I'm talking my personal philsophy and saying that I find fault with British system and I am explaining why.

You can change "all white", to a "white supremist", or any type of supremist school. They would teach the core curriculum and allow anyone who wished to hear their supremist agenda.

Private interest, private finance.

What if brick masons wanted a school so their children could grow up in a brick building environment. Should tax dollars support that? Private interest does not mean that it is a bad interest, just that it is something over and above what the state is there for and quite separate from the goals of education.

The key point is that religion is a personal issue, education is a State issue. States provides roads for everyone regardless of religion and the schools should be no different. Wouldn't you laugh at a request of a Sihk only road. Anyone can drive on it, but you just have to pay the Sikh's a toll.

[UKResident]

Hobbes, you keep harping on about 'what if' this and 'what if' that, and yet it isn't. There are no applications for Star Trek schools or any of the other fanciful examples you have given. We're different to the US in Britain, and thank God for that, we don't want to live like you, we don't want your ideals, we're not the 51st state of the Union. We are a tolerant people, we understand that some Sikhs want their children taught in a Sikh school, just as some Catholics do, and we are secure enough in ourselves to allow them their wish. The money from the government was a grant, the school will be paid for by the parents, with a per pupil grant from the government that will be less than that paid per pupil to state schools. You should also remember that some parts of the US still have segregated schools, something we have never done. l think when you talk about your ideals you should keep them strictly to your country, because they aren't, and never will be, ours.

[hobbes]

I have stated my opinion.

You have just posted a defensive retort. I have no interest in you being a 51st state, that is not even relevant. What about my post suggests anything "defensive". Why attack me? I also posted that "If the UK likes it that way, so be it, I just disagree."

Your comments about segregation in American schools has nothing to do with my opinion and I don't even know that is true.

I said, "private interests should be privately funded. This goes for sikhs, catholics, and jedi's." The logic is the same. Why sikhs' and not Jedi's.

State schools are for everyone.

This is another example of a person who makes no attempt to see where I am coming from but just wants to argue. What a waste of time.

[UKResident]

You say why not Jedis, the inference being that if you do it for one you have to do it for all. In Britain, if there were a large population of Jedis and they wanted their own school they could apply for a government building grant, they would have to meet part of the cost, and most of the cost of running the school. The government, recognising that they would have to contribute to each child's education wherever they were schooled, contributes on a per pupil basis to each child's education. This is how it should be, if the government picks up the total cost of a child's education at a state school, then it is obligated to aid parents in their child's education whatever school they go to. This is the same whether the school is run by Catholics or the Rudolph Steiner Organisation. In Britain we recognise the parent's right to choose the type of education their child receives, and we either fully or partly fund it, this is how it should be. l really don't see the difference between a school for the children of Sikhs and a school for the children of multi-millionaires.

l can assure you there are segregated schools in the US, kids are prevented from attending certain schools based on the colour of their skins.

[Rat Faced]

I said, "private interests should be privately funded. This goes for sikhs, catholics, and jedi's." The logic is the same. Why sikhs' and not Jedi's.



They are hobbes..

The State pays for the National Curriculum, thats all.

Anything "extra" is privately funded.

As I said earlier, the Catholic and CofE churches "sponsor" many schools in the UK... this extra funding is what pays for the education over and above the National Curiculum.

They are still "State" schools and are monitored as such in the required subjects. That they wish to raise funds for other purposes is upto them, any State School can do this. The Parents/Governors of these schools wish to concentrate on their faith, so they get sponsored by a church...

...others raise funds to take the kids abroad as part of their studies, or to make available after school clubs for homework etc...

The use of these privatly raised funds is, as I have said, upto the Governors of the School.. ie: The Parents.

I have no problem with this school, as long as the National Curriculum is being taught... I see no difference between this school and a Catholic sponsored School.

The school cannot, by Law, exclude any child on grounds of Race or Religion..

[hobbes]

Which would negate any argument against them on the basis of funding.

This does leave hobbes' point re integration. However I believe that the parents right to choose the form of their child's education is more important than hobbes' argument that they will integrate quicker (as I understand it).

As has been stated earlier the integration will take place. However it will be as a drift towards the culture of the "host" nation. One sees this happen, as one sees the pain of the older generation, watching their heritage die.

One can see how Italian parents would despair, as their children adopted the culture of the USA.

I'm sorry, but the original poster was complaining that 6 million pounds of tax money was being given to build a private interest school in his area and he was objecting that his tax dollars go to fund something that he doesn't want and serves to separate, rather than unite the community.

If the community is fully vested in schools, the construction of another one is superfluous and just caters to special interests. Rat had argued that the money given cover the "state curriculum" only, but I say the 6 million is being spent on a school which is not needed. That is simply giving 6 million away so that people can continue to create their little Sihk world in the UK. I would be appalled that my money was being spent in such a way.

I have been attempting to test the limits of such a policy by asking where this stops. Maybe we could have an Italian school, an Indian school, a Chav school (or is that and oxymoron). Nice way to segregate your community.

Many foreign cultures do loathe to give up their traditions. My experience is that it is a major conflict in Indian families. As an example, the children want to marry who they meet, their parents want it to be arranged. The adult Indians which to segregate their children, so as not to be tempted by outside influences. A friend was told to get rid of his white girlfriend or be disowned by his family. My Muslim collegue took his female child from school because he feared that she would taste the freedom and learn the attitude of the American woman. In his culture women are property, in fact, he had 2 wives. So people do have strong desires to keep their heritage alive. That is natural, but I see no reason for the local government to support that.

Jpol, I take it you've heard of West Side Story. Certainly those Italians didn't want to mix with those Puerto Ricans. We have a long history of racial segregation in the US, which has been quite divisive. I just hate to see you guys going down that same path. You know, learn from history and all that.

I, of course, have consistently supported the parents right to choose where their children go to school, why that was brought up is beyond my understanding. I just think it should be out of their pockets if they want a special school, not out of mine.

I grew in a suburb with 3 elementary schools. Had the Jews wanted to build a fourth, we would have said "fine". Had they then asked for my money to build it I would have declined. "We don't need it, it serves no purpose to me. You want it, you build it." Had we needed an extra school because of class size issues, I would want the new school to be open to everyone. Sure anyone CAN technically go to the Jewish school, but what Catholic parents would send their children there. It is an exclusionary school using my money.

The final point is this.

In a sikh school, 2+2=what, how is "the" spelled, do they learn to read? Yes, they do. This is the purpose of education.

What role does religion have in meeting the educational goals of the State? None.

So why are religions invoved in schools?

Why can't I request 6 million pounds to build a school based on fried chicken. I want a place for my kids to grow and learn under the auspices of a chickenocentric curriculum which also fulfills the State requiremnets.

Fried chicken has nothing to do with the State curriculum, but then again neither does religion. Both should be equally worthy of public funds.

Would I be considered rash if I told chicken man to build his own school. Would I be rash to tell a "white supremist" to fund his own school. Why this special treatment of religion?

In summary, I disagree with the policy as it supports segregation and because education and religion are as related as fried chicken and education.

[hobbes]

Well then, I'm ready for another topic. Thanks for all of your input, or is that inputs?

[Busyman]

I'm sorry, but the original poster was complaining that 6 million pounds of tax money was being given to build a private interest school in his area and he was objecting that his tax dollars go to fund something that he doesn't want and serves to separate, rather than unite the community.

If the community is fully vested in schools, the construction of another one is superfluous and just caters to special interests. Rat had argued that the money given cover the "state curriculum" only, but I say the 6 million is being spent on a school which is not needed. That is simply giving 6 million away so that people can continue to create their little Sihk world in the UK. I would be appalled that my money was being spent in such a way.

I have been attempting to test the limits of such a policy by asking where this stops. Maybe we could have an Italian school, an Indian school, a Chav school (or is that and oxymoron). Nice way to segregate your community.

Many foreign cultures do loathe to give up their traditions. My experience is that it is a major conflict in Indian families. As an example, the children want to marry who they meet, their parents want it to be arranged. The adult Indians which to segregate their children, so as not to be tempted by outside influences. A friend was told to get rid of his white girlfriend or be disowned by his family. My Muslim collegue took his female child from school because he feared that she would taste the freedom and learn the attitude of the American woman. In his culture women are property, in fact, he had 2 wives. So people do have strong desires to keep their heritage alive. That is natural, but I see no reason for the local government to support that.

Jpol, I take it you've heard of West Side Story. Certainly those Italians didn't want to mix with those Puerto Ricans. We have a long history of racial segregation in the US, which has been quite divisive. I just hate to see you guys going down that same path. You know, learn from history and all that.

I, of course, have consistently supported the parents right to choose where their children go to school, why that was brought up is beyond my understanding. I just think it should be out of their pockets if they want a special school, not out of mine.

I grew in a suburb with 3 elementary schools. Had the Jews wanted to build a fourth, we would have said "fine". Had they then asked for my money to build it I would have declined. "We don't need it, it serves no purpose to me. You want it, you build it." Had we needed an extra school because of class size issues, I would want the new school to be open to everyone. Sure anyone CAN technically go to the Jewish school, but what Catholic parents would send their children there. It is an exclusionary school using my money.

The final point is this.

In a sikh school, 2+2=what, how is "the" spelled, do they learn to read? Yes, they do. This is the purpose of education.

What role does religion have in meeting the educational goals of the State? None.

So why are religions invoved in schools?

Why can't I request 6 million pounds to build a school based on fried chicken. I want a place for my kids to grow and learn under the auspices of a chickenocentric curriculum which also fulfills the State requiremnets.

Fried chicken has nothing to do with the State curriculum, but then again neither does religion. Both should be equally worthy of public funds.

Would I be considered rash if I told chicken man to build his own school. Would I be rash to tell a "white supremist" to fund his own school. Why this special treatment of religion?

In summary, I disagree with the policy as it supports segregation and because education and religion are as related as fried chicken and education.
Logical Post Of The Thread. ;)

I agree though that if the UK likes it that way, so be it.

In America, private schools still have to have the state curriculum but also are privately funded. Parents pay the required tuition. I, the taxpayer, pay nothing for another child to learn Catholism, for example. Take note of some our colleges...you have Catholic University, Army, and Navy. Guess what extra teaching you get in those colleges but.......the individual pays for it.

There is a wrinkle that is being debated right now....school vouchers. It seems the UK is way past that and basically takes taxpayer money outright for private or should I say specialized schools.

NIMBY

You want your child to learn Catholism along with math, take 'em to church more often and put up the funds for tuition to that private school.

The wrinkle here is that there could be a Jewishm, Sikh, and hobbes' Jedi school in the area of where I live and.....I have to pick one....but I like none of them. :no:

Someone mentioned segregated schools....there are none in America.

There are predominately white, black, hispanic, etc. schools but no such thing as "separate but equal."

[vidcc]

busy...just checking....you do understand that the british tax payer does NOT pay for the "religious" part? ...they just pay an allowance for the national curriculum. which they would pay anyway if it was just a state school


The wrinkle here is that there could be a Jewishm, Sikh, and hobbes' Jedi school in the area of where I live and.....I have to pick one....but I like none of them. .there would be a state school. The "independent" schools have to be viable to qualify for state help if it is a new construction.... and they do actually benefit the tax payer as they are a cheaper choice than the state bearing the full cost of a new school

[Busyman]

busy...just checking....you do understand that the british tax payer does NOT pay for the "religious" part? ...they just pay an allowance for the national curriculum. which they would pay anyway if it was just a state school
Yes but no. I'm not exactly sure what the state (in America)contributes for private school (if any) but the parent bears the brunt of payment. It doesn't seem this way in the UK.

.there would be a state school. The "independent" schools have to be viable to qualify for state help if it is a new construction.... and they do actually benefit the tax payer as they are a cheaper choice than the state bearing the full cost of a new school.

Riiiight they are cheaper on the taxpayer because of the 10% thingie. That is paltry when the government is 90% funding a "Sikh" school. Oh I forgot...the Sikh part is only worth 10%. :lol: :lol: :lol:

hobbes' made very good points. I could start a 10% Jedi Academy or 10% white history college. I still have the regular curriculum of American history (and a little black history in February :dry: ), but a gain a full extra 10% of white history. :w00t:

:dry:

[vidcc]

Riiiight they are cheaper on the taxpayer because of the 10% thingie. That is paltry when the government is 90% funding a "Sikh" school. Oh I forgot...the Sikh part is only worth 10%. :lol: :lol: :lol:

hobbes' made very good points. I could start a 10% Jedi Academy or 10% white history college. I still have the regular curriculum of American history (and a little black history in February :dry: ), but a gain a full extra 10% of white history. :w00t:

:dry:
No there had to be a need for a new school to begin with because of the size of the population...they don't just build new schools because someone wants one. So the saving is made because they put forward an acceptable business plan. BTW. the same goes with tech. schools.
the school ideas put forward by hobbes would be rejected because they are silly or socially unacceptable

the funding %'s you speak of was the build cost...not the running cost.

My niece goes to a church school in England....the difference between her school and the one down the road?...they have a religious morning assembly and as a condition for attendance she has to go to church a minimum amount of times per term.

[hobbes]

No there had to be a need for a new school to begin with because of the size of the population...they don't just build new schools because someone wants one. So the saving is made because they put forward an acceptable business plan. BTW. the same goes with tech. schools.
the school ideas put forward by hobbes would be rejected because they are silly or socially unacceptable

the funding %'s you speak of was the build cost...not the running cost.

My niece goes to a church school in England....the difference between her school and the one down the road?...they have a religious morning assembly and as a condition for attendance she has to go to church a minimum amount of times per term.

The author of the initial post made no comment that a new school was needed.

If more schools are needed, it is up to the state to ante up, not to give money to private interests to build thier own schools.

A religion creating a school as a means of recruitment is completely inappropriate, just as a school based on chicken is inappropriate. These are private interests invading the public domain. Neither provide any service in regard to the goal of education.

Some corporations donate to schools to encourage them to enter their field, but these corporation get no money from the government and are not allowed to change the curriculum.

I mean seriously, given a national or state budget, how critical is the need for religious endorsement to provide an adequate number of schools. They are absolutely not needed.

Where is the Microsoft highschool? Certainly Bill Gates could help out the State more than any religion. Why can't he have one, funded by the public, with computer classes that he funds.

We don't like private interests meddlig with our kids, I guess.

They offer their services, with support from the state, to further thier agendas. Their assistance is not needed and they are fuctioning as a divisive aspect in a community.

BTW Vidcc, what do mean by socially unacceptable. Why would people object to teaching about chicken? If you are referring to "white supremists", they would phrase their goals to appear socially acceptable. Where does it stop?

[Busyman]

No there had to be a need for a new school to begin with because of the size of the population...they don't just build new schools because someone wants one. So the saving is made because they put forward an acceptable business plan. BTW. the same goes with tech. schools.
the school ideas put forward by hobbes would be rejected because they are silly or socially unacceptable

the funding %'s you speak of was the build cost...not the running cost.

My niece goes to a church school in England....the difference between her school and the one down the road?...they have a religious morning assembly and as a condition for attendance she has to go to church a minimum amount of times per term.Yes, here that's called private school. The way you say it...a Jewish school, Catholic school, military school, Sikh school, Islamic school, etc., are just neighborhood schools. That's preposterous.

Schools should teach without religion involved, otherwise receive no government money. In essence, government is selling out to religion because of classroom size. :blink:

btw I think a Sikh school even partially built with my taxpayer money is unacceptable. Good thing I don't live in the UK but alas we have our own school voucher debate here in the states.

[vidcc]

The author of the initial post made no comment that a new school was needed.
so what?
If more schools are needed, it is up to the state to ante up, not to give money to private interests to build thier own schools.

But it is the wish of the community the school is placed in

A religion creating a school as a means of recruitment is completely inappropriate, just as a school based on chicken is inappropriate. These are private interests invading the public domain. Neither provide any service in regard to the goal of education.
It isn't a means of recruitment as the children would already be of that religion...unless you think that parents have no rights raising their children in regards to religion
Some corporations donate to schools to encourage them to enter their field, but these corporation get no money from the government and are not allowed to change the curriculum.
the religion recieves no money from the government... the same applies...what do you think is different?

I mean seriously, given a national or state budget, how critical is the need for religious endorsement to provide an adequate number of schools. They are absolutely not needed.

Again the state does not pay for anything other than the national curriculum and it give parents a wider choice...a wider choice for all parents, not just those that can afford private schools

Where is the Microsoft highschool? Certainly Bill Gates could help out the State more than any religion. Why can't he have one, funded by the public, with computer classes that he funds.

Bill Gates (microsoft) already sponsers computer education and i am sure any community would be more than happy to have him help fund a new school.

We don't like private interests meddlig with our kids, I guess.

They offer their services, with support from the state, to further thier agendas. Their assistance is not needed and they are fuctioning as a divisive aspect in a community.

If their assitance is not needed how come so many have waiting lists and parents register their children practically from birth in hope of securing a place? I guess i should say it may not be needed but it is wanted

BTW Vidcc, what do mean by socially unacceptable. Why would people object to teaching about chicken? If you are referring to "white supremists", they would phrase their goals to appear socially acceptable. Where does it stop?
the chicken school would be a "silly" one and the "white supremists" would be a good example of socially unacceptable, even if their goals were rephrased it wouldn't take much to see through it....look at how you saw through the stickers on the evolution text books.....

the state does not pay for special interests.

[vidcc]

Yes, here that's called private school. The way you say it...a Jewish school, Catholic school, military school, Sikh school, Islamic school, etc., are just neighborhood schools. That's preposterous.
In the Uk they are... i am well aware of the US school system, i spend a lot of time on my childrens education

Schools should teach without religion involved, otherwise receive no government money. In essence, government is selling out to religion because of classroom size. :blink:
i didn't suggest the government "sells out" i said the tax payer benefits...and i said that if there wasn't a NEED for a new school then the only way a religious school would be built is through raising all the money themselves

btw I think a Sikh school even partially built with my taxpayer money is unacceptable. Good thing I don't live in the UK but alas we have our own school voucher debate here in the states.
i see no problem with government grants if the state requirements are met.

I too believe that state run schools should be free from specific religious theory teaching, however i see no problem with the state paying for the compulsory education curriculum in such schools.
Of course if that school charges parents fees then any amount the school charges should be taken off of what the state pays.

[Busyman]

the chicken school would be a "silly" one and the "white supremists" would be a good example of socially unacceptable, even if their goals were rephrased it wouldn't take much to see through it....look at how you saw through the stickers on the evolution text books.....

the state does not pay for special interests.
In the Sikh school case.....90% funded.

The point is if the Sikh's want a school, they should totally build it. Not use other taxpayer money to teach religion which they are undeniably doing. Separate church and state...right? This is clear sell out.

Good point about Microsoft but then again, computer education was always there. Someone else pays for it in MS' case. Computers are part of school. If Microsoft wanted to fund the whole school facility, I say let them go at it......but they have no say in the curriculum. Even then there is the possiblity of corruption. Allowing MS a say is bending over to special interests for cash...even if it's cash for the state.

The Sikh idealogy, in this case, is the special interset.

[Busyman]

i see no problem with government grants if the state requirements are met.

I too believe that state run schools should be free from specific religious theory teaching, however i see no problem with the state paying for the compulsory education curriculum in such schools.

Well that's a contradiction.

The state, in the Sikh case, are primarily funding a building which will have
specific religious theory teaching.

:dry:

[hobbes]

The State does not need private interest money to fund schools. This would be a sell out of the interests of our chiildren to whichever group supports it, if they are given control over the curriculum over and above the state requirement.

For some bizarre reason religious groups are given the ability to do this.

Microsoft may contribute money and computers to a school, but they cannot control what is taught. Why can the Catholic church?

Corporate schools would be a more logical assistant to support public education as they have tons of money, but I have yet to see Kentucky Fried Chicken Highschool, but Catholic highschools are a dime a dozen.

Why is that?

[vidcc]

In the Sikh school case.....90% funded.

The point is if the Sikh's want a school, they should totally build it. Not use other taxpayer money to teach religion which they are undeniably doing. Separate church and state...right? This is clear sell out.

Please find anything that would suggest that britain has seperation of church and state in anything other than the fact that they are not as devout as the US..... that aside....and i repeat...the state does not fun the religious side...just the national curriculum...so there you have your seperation

Good point about Microsoft but then again, computer education was always there. Someone else pays for it in MS' case. Computers are part of school. If Microsoft wanted to fund the whole school facility, I say let him go......but he has no say in the curriculum. Allowing MS a say is bending over to special interests for cash.

The Sikh idealogy, in this case, is the special interset.
then parents can send their children to a 100% state run school.... nobody is forced to go to that school...they are however forced to comply with national education requirements.


I am an athiest... i have stated this many times...i believe in seperation of church and state, but i don't see a conflict in the state paying for the things the state makes compulsory

[vidcc]

Well that's a contradiction.

The state, in the Sikh case, are primarily funding a building which will have.

:dry:

The school has to abide by the states compulsory education standards....that is what the state pays for......NOT THE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS TEACHING

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

If there are 10 religions or cultures in a town, and each want the State to pay 90% for the construction of their exclusive school, is that saving money?

No, it is providing a superfluous number of schools to suit private interest, financed by the common taxpayer who already has an acceptable school.

When we look at the Sikh example, it is no big deal, but when extrapolate the concept of the law, it makes for tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.

[vidcc]

The State does not need private interest money to fund schools. This would be a sell out of the interests of our chiildren to whichever group supports it, if they are given control over the curriculum over and above the state requirement.
Why would they gain control over the curriculum if they donate money?...there are laws that stop this happening. Many businesses sponser my childrens schools for various activities, they get a tax break in return and some "good will" advertisment, they DO NOT get to change the curriculum

For some bizarre reason religious groups are given the ability to do this.

religious groups cannot change the compulsory curriculum...they can however add "extras". If they do not teach the compulsory curriculum they would not recieve state funding, and parents would be at risk of prosecution for not achieving state requirements of education (depending on where one is of course)

Microsoft may contribute money and computers to a school, but they cannot control what is taught. Why can the Catholic church?
repeat: religious groups cannot change the compulsory curriculum

Corporate schools would be a more logical assistant to support public education as they have tons of money, but I have yet to see Kentucky Fried Chicken Highschool, but Catholic highschools are a dime a dozen.

Why is that?

could it be demand and supply ?

[vidcc]

Vidcc,

If there are 10 religions or cultures in a town, and each want the State to pay 90% for the construction of their exclusive school, is that saving money?

No, it is providing a superfluous number of schools to suit private interest, financed by the common taxpayer who already has an acceptable school.

When we look at the Sikh example, it is no big deal, but when extrapolate the concept of the law, it makes for tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.

For goodness sake. there has to be an element of practicality. How many times do i have to say that there has to be justification to put public money into any project. There is a system in place to make assesments. there is not a system that makes it a requirement to pay for every whim and there is not a blank cheque book.

[Busyman]

The school has to abide by the states compulsory education standards....that is what the state pays for......NOT THE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS TEACHING
If the state pays 90% they are paying for what is taught in the school. PERIOD.

GOT IT?

You harp on this, "Well they are paying for this part but not that part."
Imagine where there are numerous Sikh schools ubiquitous in one geographic region. Since they satisfy the state education requirements, no harm no foul right?

You can't be serious. With you being an atheist, I am thoroughly surprised.

[vidcc]

If the state pays 90% they are paying for what is taught in the school. PERIOD.

GOT IT?

You harp on this, "Well they are paying for this part but not that part."
Imagine where there are numerous Sikh schools ubiquitous in one geographic region. Since they satisfy the state education requirements, no harm no foul right?

You can't be serious. With you being an atheist, I am thoroughly surprised.
There would have to be a need for a new school in the area.... if the community is so largely sikh, catholic or whatever that a specific school IS JUSTIFIED then the state (in britain) will provide a grant to it's citizens for the building.... Britain is VERY different from the USA in that it will provide money where justification is shown.
Here faith based programs recieve government money do they not?

Back to the british school, they would have gone through the required process and a decision would have been made on merit. Once built the state will not pay for the running of specific religious education......
GOT IT ?

[Busyman]

There would have to be a need for a new school in the area.... if the community is so largely sikh, catholic or whatever that a specific school IS JUSTIFIED then the state (in britain) will provide a grant to it's citizens for the building.... Britain is VERY different from the USA in that it will provide money where justification is shown.
Oh so the US doesn't and the UK does? Idiotic blanket statement. It sounds like Britain will fund teaching of religion to save government money.....a whole 10%. :dry:

Here faith based programs recieve government money do they not?

...and that sucks too. This is government sponsored teaching religion.

Back to the british school, they would have gone through the required process and a decision would have been made on merit. Once built the state will not pay for the running of specific religious education......
Never questioned it. I can teach my own kids if I go through the required process. I would teach them in my house. Maybe the state can pay 90% of my mortgage.

[vidcc]

Oh so the US doesn't and the UK does? Idiotic blanket statement.
the uk government will fund a lot of things the us doesn't. Many things we have charities for here are funded by government grants in the UK


It sounds like Britain will fund teaching of religion to save government money.....a whole 10%.


No they do not fund the teaching of religion, they pay for the national curriculum...btw. the school has to have teachers qualified and licensed to teach that curriculum.... you keep raising 10% but that was just the amount the community had to raise as condition of the grant...no small amount for a community to raise...it has nothing to do with the funding of the school once open





Maybe the state can pay 90% of my mortgage.

don't be silly

[UKResident]

Busyman, the UK government paid 90% of the building cost as a grant, they do not pay 90% of the running costs of the school - period. Therefore they are not saving 10% but a whole lot more. If these children were to go to a state school the government would bear the cost of their whole education, for the six years these kids will be at that school. At the Sikh school they will pay a percentage of the money they pay per pupil to state schools. This changes with age, over the six years the government will pay, as a grant, an average of 50% of the amount they would pay to an equivalent pupil at a state school. This means that the longer the school is open, the more the government saves, after a few years the government would have been paid back their original 'grant' and would be making a profit.

As to your other assertion that there is no segregation in schools in the US, l suggest you read more.

Segregated Shools Return (http://www.detnews.com/2004/schools/0403/21/a06-98156.htm)

Learning Point (http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/areus.htm)

The Civil Rights Project (http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/reseg03/reseg03_full.php)


At the beginning of the twenty-first century, American public schools are now twelve years into the process of continuous resegregation. The desegregation of black students, which increased continuously from the l950s to the late l980s, has now receded to levels not seen in three decades. Although the South remains the nation's most integrated region for both blacks and whites, it is the region that is most rapidly going backwards as the courts terminate many major and successful desegregation orders

[Busyman]

Busyman, the UK government paid 90% of the building cost as a grant, they do not pay 90% of the running costs of the school - period. Therefore they are not saving 10% but a whole lot more. If these children were to go to a state school the government would bear the cost of their whole education, for the six years these kids will be at that school. At the Sikh school they will pay a percentage of the money they pay per pupil to state schools. This changes with age, over the six years the government will pay, as a grant, an average of 50% of the amount they would pay to an equivalent pupil at a state school. This means that the longer the school is open, the more the government saves, after a few years the government would have been paid back their original 'grant' and would be making a profit.

Dude, I know about the building cost. The point is you can call it a grant or whateverthefuck. The school will have Sikh ideology and the state paid for it. Now are you saying the state pays 50% of the ongoing education too?

As to your other assertion that there are no segregation in schools in the US, l suggest you read more.

Segregated ShoolsRreturn (http://www.detnews.com/2004/schools/0403/21/a06-98156.htm)

Learning Point (http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/areus.htm)

The Civil Rights Project (http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/reseg03/reseg03_full.php)

Great googling. Maybe you should read up on the landscape of the 60's and the present. Segregation then and now are entirely different.

Segregation and integration are not always opposites.

You shouldn't google in lieu of common sense.

[Busyman]

the uk government will fund a lot of things the us doesn't. Many things we have charities for here are funded by government grants in the UK




No they do not fund the teaching of religion, they pay for the national curriculum...btw. the school has to have teachers qualified and licensed to teach that curriculum.... you keep raising 10% but that was just the amount the community had to raise as condition of the grant...no small amount for a community to raise...it has nothing to do with the funding of the school once open
Do any of those teacher's teach Sikh ideology? Yes or No?
Plus UKResident said once open it's 50% funded. Is that correct?

[UKResident]

The author of the initial post made no comment that a new school was needed.

Hobbes, you talk of the original poster as though he were an educated person putting up a reasonable argument. Have a look at his next post --


So how would you feel if you were involved in a car accident with a Sikh motorcyclist? ... and his (or her) head got splattered all over your windscreen because thier tuban didn't quiet offer the level of protection that a crash helmet does?

I know that is a comment thats always brought up in the race debate but it's so very true.

I am sure is you went to thier country and made yourself a nice bit lump of roast pork they might get the hump... (but I could be completely wrong there as I am not sure if they eat pork or not!!)

If the area didn't qualify for a new school according to government criteria, a grant would not have been made. As l stated in an earlier post, l live in the area and it is expanding at a very fast rate, if they built a new school every year for ten years it would still not significantly decrease classroom sizes.


It's not so much Sikh's that I have a problem with, its people not acting as we (English) act... I don't give a monkeys which religion people wish to follow, thats thier right as a human being... but wearing a veil in public??? There is no need for that in this day and age...

[Busyman]

Hobbes, you talk of the original poster as though he were an educated person putting up a reasonable argument. Have a look at his next post --



If the area didn't qualify for a new school according to government criteria, a grant would not have been made. As l stated in an earlier post, l live in the area and it is expanding at a very fast rate, if they built a new school every year for ten years it would still not significantly decrease classroom sizes.
So basically the UK government awards grants to qualified applicants to decrease classroom sizes regardless of extra curriculum.

What's weird is that they are funding 90% and selling out for 10. :huh:

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally Posted by robedwards99
It's not so much Sikh's that I have a problem with, its people not acting as we (English) act... I don't give a monkeys which religion people wish to follow, thats thier right as a human being... but wearing a veil in public??? There is no need for that in this day and age...
this kind of statement begs some questions: how does on decide how much conformity is too little, and how much is too much? spin a wheel with percentages listed on it? does he suppose anyone has any right to dress/act/speak differently from what he reckons to be normal, AT ALL? who gets to decide what counts as "acting english"? how would he feel if it were determined that something about his own behavior does not fit the social norm, isn't quite mainstream english enough, and people want him to change?

[UKResident]

So basically the UK government awards grants to qualified applicants to decrease classroom sizes regardless of extra curriculum.

What's weird is that they are funding 90% and selling out for 10. :huh:

Why do you persist with this 90% \ 10% argument? l've already explained to you how spurious this is.

Class sizes are a determinate of need, is that too hard to understand?

3RAINIAC, l hope you realise they were not my words, they are a quote from the person whose original post was quoted at the start of this thread. My contention is that he posed the original question from a racist point of view and not from a concern for his 'taxes'.

[3RA1N1AC]

3RAINIAC, l hope you realise they were not my words
of course. i had to manually copy & paste that rob99 quote 'cause hitting the "quote" link only included your words. so yes. i realized i was commenting on someone who apparently is not in the filesharingtalk forum. :P

i'll go back and take your name off it, to clarify.

[Busyman]

Why do you persist with this 90% \ 10% argument? l've already explained to you how spurious this is.

Class sizes are a determinate of need, is that too hard to understand?
What the hell are you on about? I posted 2 whole sentences...what you skipped the first?

So basically the UK government awards grants to qualified applicants to decrease classroom sizes regardless of extra curriculum. :huh:

And how is the 90/10 split spurious?

What's weird is that they are funding 90% and selling out for 10.
It can't be spurious if it's true.
Was it said that the school will teach Sikh school ideology? Yes
Was it said that the school building will be 90% funded by the government? Yes
Someone further said that it's 50% funded by the government for ongoing education.
If you are going to use words like spurious, know what they mean.

[UKResident]

Why don't you read what's posted BEFORE you make a fool of yourself? l already explained to you how the government gets their 90% back, and more, so they end up making a profit.

The school will teach the national curriculum, just like any other school, but instead of having christian prayers at morning assembly they will do whatever Sikhs do, what's wrong with that? Where is the government "selling out for 10%"?


Was it said that the school will teach Sikh school ideology? Yes

No-one knows what ideology they will be teaching so this is more rubbish.

Sheesh! Some people just can't admit they were wrong, at least Hobbes states quite clearly that he is stating an opinion.

[UKResident]

Spurious:
Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.

Specious
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Whatever --- take your pick. :rolleyes:

[vidcc]

So basically the UK government awards grants to qualified applicants to decrease classroom sizes regardless of extra curriculum.
Yes it does award grants to qualified applicants....... It is not regardless of extra curriculum.... if the extra curriculum fails to qualify...for example they what to teach white supremacy...the school would not have qualified fro the grant
What's weird is that they are funding 90% and selling out for 10. :huh:


How are they selling out?

I would like to once again make it clear that Britain doesn't have a constituional seperation of church and state. This is because in the most part is it not needed. The British don't generally tend to be as religion orientated as the USA, most of the traditional churches will be lacking attendance, and come election time people will be voting for a government...not a spiritual leader....this is not to say that the british don't believe in god. Odd thing is that the most devoted groups to their religious traditions do tend to be those that are either immigrants or come from families that are fairly new to the country.
If the school in this case was to be a C of E school i doubt it would have made the news apart from the local papers.


Before anyone says "I am british and i am serious in my religion" i am making a generalisation.


Do any of those teacher's teach Sikh ideology? Yes or No?

I can't answer that any other way except that they may or may not...chances are that any religious lessons will be in the form of the "assembly/ morning prayer" where the whole school gathers in a hall.
As i said my niece attends a church school in the Uk and the only religious teaching she has are readings during morning prayer/assembly. The rest of the day is spent on the national curriculum.

Plus UKResident said once open it's 50% funded. Is that correct? I can't vouch for the accuracy of the figure but it would seem to be a reasonable number

edit:
So basically the UK government awards grants to qualified applicants to decrease classroom sizes
It's not to decrease class size. It only happens if there is a need for a new school. the class size has a maximum and if the local school have not achieved that maximum then there would not be a need for the state to supply funds for a new school

[Busyman]

Spurious:
Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.

Specious
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

Whatever --- take your pick. :rolleyes:
Neither work. I've only used the facts given to form my own opinion.

[Busyman]

I wasn't suggesting your argument was specious, only that it may have been the appropriate word for UKProxy's intended meaning.
No problem J.

You merely gave more rope for UK's suicidal hanging. ;)

[UKResident]

Ah, the personal stuff, this must mean you've run out of ideas then, good.

[UKResident]

That was a joke, and was part of a longer piece, as you well know. But it's OK, you can get personal, l really don't mind, l find you quite amusing.

[UKResident]

... your explanation is patently specious.
You've been waiting to use that word, l can tell. ;)

[hobbes]

It didn't come across as a joke. Particularly when one of your first posts to me included "How's Mary", or similar.

Others can decide whether you were attempting to be humorous when you posted it. I simply don't believe you, your explanation is patently specious.

"Specious"- could you stop using that word, at all?

[Rat Faced]

OK..

I couldnt be bothered to read the last few pages so..

1/ Parents have a right to choose where their children are taught.

2/ It is illegal for a school to refuse admission on the grounds of Race/Religion etc.

3/ They cannot make children go to the extra religious element, and children have the right to refuse to go to them.


As I said earlier, the Catholic Schools in particular, in this area have a waiting list to get in.

These children are from all religions/races.

The Catholic Church sponsors the schools so that the Catholic Faith will be made available to Catholic schoolchildren in the area. They usually have a presence on the board of Governors.

At the end of the day though, just like any school in the UK (except Public Schools (read: Private Schools for those in the USA))... Its the Governors that decide School Policy and who they want to sponsor them, if anyone...

ie: The Parents of the children of that school (or in this case, the parents of the community the school was to be built in)



Im all for schools getting extra funding if they can. I'd much rather they did this than followed the US route where some schools are marketing Coca Cola etc and selling it to raise cash (as an example) etc etc

[Rat Faced]

Or Liberal? ;)

[Busyman]

no point mate, we are wrong they are right, that is all.

it matters not one jot that it is our children, our country and our taxes.

if we vary from their opinion of right then we must be wrong.

I agree though that if the UK likes it that way, so be it.

Uh, yeah, whatever. :dry:

It seems we were forming our own opinion and you may not like it.
I can form an opinion about prostitution in Vegas even though I live Washington DC.

So yes, you're wrong, yup that's right. ;)

[Busyman]

Ah, the personal stuff, this must mean you've run out of ideas then, good.
It means you've proven yourself a shit googler and lack common sense.

I put forth the opinion that Sikhmorningprayerteachingideologywhateverthefuck shouldn't be in schools funded by government.

It's called a Sikh school for a reason, I imagine.

I also said that paying 90% to get 10% is selling out and further with the 50% of ongoing education. It obviously works, numbers wise.

Someone mentioned the Coca-Cola thing in America...that's selling out to. The problem is I remember soda machines in high school so if it's Coke instead of Shasta and they want to pay the school that's very different.

[hobbes]

no point mate, we are wrong they are right, that is all.

it matters not one jot that it is our children, our country and our taxes.

if we vary from their opinion of right then we must be wrong.


Actually, I thought I posted that if is alright with the UK, so be it.

I just disagree.

[Busyman]

Actually, I thought I posted that if is alright with the UK, so be it.

I just disagree.
You did.

This is my opinion, if the people in the UK are happy, that is their choice, but one I disagree with.

I agreed with you.

[manker]

It means you've proven yourself a shit googler and lack common sense.:lol:

An oasis in a rather dry thread.

[UKResident]

It means you've proven yourself a shit googler and lack common sense.

I also said that paying 90% to get 10% is selling out and further with the 50% of ongoing education. It obviously works, numbers wise.
.

No, what it proves is your total lack of ability to understand economic principles.

l explained quite cleary about how the 90% grant is paid back, with interest. l also explained how the 50% running costs save the government money. So the problem here isn't me, it's your lack of understanding of quite simple principles.

Might l suggest you try harder to read and understand what we are striving to teach you.

(2/10, must try harder)

[Busyman]

No, what it proves is your total lack of ability to understand economic principles.

l explained quite cleary about how the 90% grant is paid back, with interest. l also explained how the 50% running costs save the government money. So the problem here isn't me, it's your lack of understanding of quite simple principles.

Might l suggest you try harder to read and understand what we are striving to teach you.

(2/10, must try harder)

It obviously works, numbers wise.
Where's the lack of understanding? The fact the governement saves money was never in dispute. It's obviously based on numbers and not principle.

You obviously can't read English even though you might be.......English. :dry:

[UKResident]

Where's the lack of understanding? The fact the governement saves money was never in dispute. It's obviously based on numbers and not principle.

You obviously can't read English even though you might be.......English. :dry:

If it was never in dispute then why is the crux of your argument this 90\10 bullshit? Just admit you were wrong, or isn't that in your American vocabulary?

[Busyman]

If it was never in dispute then why is the crux of your argument this 90\10 bullshit? Just admit you were wrong, or isn't that in your American vocabulary?
The 90/10 is pertinent since it proves that money matters first and foremost in the education of the children over putting specific religion in schools.

Never in dispute means that I didn't say there wasn't a money savings. You need reading comprehension classes or better glasses because your lack of "getting it" makes you smell like many asses.

Ween yourself off the heroin and drop down to cocaine.

You don't even know the difference between 60's segregation and so-called 2K segregation, which is a misnomer.

Defending your educational system is one thing but this ridiculous. :dry:

[UKResident]

How does it prove that money is the most important thing?

Resorting to personal insults to prove your point makes you look stupid, par for the course with you. l guess you'll be trying to scare me with one of your "look how big and tough l am" posts next. Grow up.

[Busyman]

How does it prove that money is the most important thing?

Resorting to personal insults to prove your point makes you look stupid, par for the course with you. l guess you'll be trying to scare me with one of your "look how big and tough l am" posts next. Grow up.
Point has been made....numerous times.

Let me sugar coat it. The government treats religion in schools as a small matter as long as the numbers match, ok UKMan? :)