Sikh School To Be Built In Slough, England.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by namzuf9

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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."

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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
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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

specific religious theory teaching

---

.

:dry:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by busy

GOT IT ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Maybe the state can pay 90% of my mortgage.

---

don't be silly

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

Learning Point

The Civil Rights Project

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Learning Point

The Civil Rights Project

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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 --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robedwards99

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.

Quote:

---

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...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.