British state-funded Jewish school redacts exam to remove evolution questions

[muriel_volestrangler]

A Jewish girls school in Hackney has been redacting questions on evolution on science exam papers because they do not fit in with their beliefs.

Fifty-two papers were altered by Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls' School to remove questions on evolution.

The examinations body, OCR, says it was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to allow the practice, saying it has come to an agreement with the school to protect the future integrity of the exams.
...
The Department of Education meanwhile has asked for assurances that the children will be taught the full curriculum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26437882

So, this means taxpayer money goes to harming the girls' chances in public exams. And it's unclear if they've been taught about evolution in the first place - the DoE is having to 'ask for assurances' that our money is not being spent by religious extremists on miseducating children who have no choice in the matter.

It's for GCSE exams - the public exams everyone takes at age 16, and which affect whether you get into universities, or get a decent first job.

A state funded Jewish faith school has been caught blacking out questions on science exam papers.

The Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Exam board (OCR) launched an investigation into exam malpractice at the Yesodey Hatorah Jewish Voluntary Aided girls' secondary school after the National Secular Society formally asked it to follow up unconfirmed reports that teachers had redacted questions in this year's GSCE science exam.

The precise questions that were blacked out has not been revealed by OCR, but earlier this year a Jewish education consultant warned that evolution in the new GCSE science curriculum could pose problems for strictly Orthodox schools.

The investigation confirmed pupils were left disadvantaged by being unable to access 3 marks out of 75 for a unit in a higher GCSE science exam, and 1 mark out of 75 for a unit on a lower paper.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/10/jewish-faith-school-caught-censoring-questions-on-science-exam-papers

If private religious schools want to give a bad education on purpose, that's one thing - unfortunately, you can't prevent parents from choosing crappy schools for their children without a complete overhaul of the education system. But when public money is used for it, we have a right to demand this stops.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. I don't know what your system is, but that is just strange.

I can't imagine taxpayer money going to fund religious education. I also find it strange to hear this is a bunch of Jews. I have met hundreds (thousands?) of Jews, related to many of them, I have yet to meet one who didn't believe in the theory of evolution. I have herd some creative combinations of the evolution theory and Adam & Eve myth, but evolution was always included.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. A large proportion of British schools are affiliated with a religious denomination

Church of England and Roman Catholic schools mostly, but some Jewish, and more recently, some Muslim and other faiths too. This particular school is for the Charedi/Haredi community, which I understand is pretty extreme in its attitudes, eg:

Charedi homes do not have TV or other
inappropriate media. Parents ensure that their
children do not have access to the Internet or any
other media which do not meet the stringent moral
criteria of the Charedi community. Families dress at
all times in accordance with the strictest standards
of Tznius (modesty), as laid down by the Rabbinate
of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations.
The Charedi community is guided by the authority
of the Rabbinate.

http://www1.learningtrust.co.uk/schools/secondary_schools/docs/ss_brochure_2012/ss_brochure_2012_YesodeyHatorah.pdf

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Oh, yeah, they are pretty hardcore.

I have only met a few. I was not "impressed." The only props I can give them is, for the most part, they stay to themselves and aren't too concerned about others, though more than a few have become overly involved (in this country) with some of the anti-gay legislation which has been cropping up.

[longship]

2. I do not believe the UK has such protections.

In fact, the UK does not even have a constitution.

So although one can make that argument -- one which I would support -- in the UK, parliament can just about make any law they want with no oversight other than the voters.

Such are things in the UK's parliamentary system.

(Caveat: This is how I understand it.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Yeah, I'm British; I hate the involvement of religions in the state schools system here

but normally they do teach the standard curriculum, and then add on whatever religious education they want to.

[goldent]

15. Sorry, but I have to say that the UK does indeed have a constitution.

It is not in a nicely compiled written form like for the US, but is rather a collection of key Acts and tradition. There are limitation of powers, checks and balances, and the like.

Edited for typo in title

[longship]

17. I stand corrected. Sorry. nt

[goldent]

18. No problem - it is a common misperception

because Americans tend to think of a constitution as being a document clearly designated as the constitution (which to me is clearly the best way). The British way is not so clear cut, and is very complex if you want to really understand it. But in the end, the government works by a set of rules, some written, some unwritten but no less powerful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I think it's considerably less powerful than the US constitution

The US constitution can nullify laws; to change it, they have to get widespread agreement by a supermajority of states, not just the votes needed to pass a normal federal law. In the UK, we can argue "this goes against our principles", but there is no such supreme reference of what can or cannot be done. The nearest we have is the European Convention on Human Rights, but it's a bit vaguer than the US Constitution, and you can see how much some, like the Tories, struggle against having to implement rulings based on it. Mention the convention (or the court that rules on it) and half the right wing of the UK will spit in disgust.

Unwritten rules are less powerful; they get bent all the time.

[goldent]

20. I agree with your points but

it becomes a matter of opinion. Some people are unhappy with the ability of 9 jurors to have the power to overturn laws of US Congress (e.g. Citizens United), and some like it (depending on the most recent decision ). Same goes with the ability to amend the constitution.

But my original point is that the UK gov does operate under a set of constitutional rules, and while the party in power could change those rules, any fundamental change would be difficult in practice (the House of Lords would normally be the most difficult part).

[dipsydoodle]

6. I am surprised at that.

State funded religious schools, as a far as I'm aware , have to take a percentage of other faiths to maintain their funding.

I searched this school and its in Stamford Hill - strictly Orthys so maybe they have an exemption. I remember going into a Lubavitch school there when I was selling photocopiers. It resembled the times of Oliver Twist.

[goldent]

16. There are different rules

Generally, the more control the school gives to the state, the more funding it gets. A school can get funding to pay its teachers and still have quite a bit of control over admissions policy.

[cbayer]

7. Y'all really need a first amendment.

Can one amend a monarch?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Ah, if only

I'd like all state faith schools to have to choose to go private, or drop the 'faith' part. And I'd also like the Church of England bishops removed from the House of Lords. But Britain can be quite conservative about religion and the state, even if a minority actually believe in a god.

[cbayer]

9. I'd like to see the lords removed from the House of Lords, but that's just me.

I just can't get my head around birthright or the fact that the UK continues to allow the church to have so much control, despite the demographics.

It's a fascinating, but pretty odd, place.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Oh, them too - we almost managed that

Most of the Lords are now life peers - appointed for life, but not hereditary. There are a limited number of hereditary ones left (elected by the complete group of those who had earlier inherited their Lords' seats).

Further reform of the House of Lords almost succeeded - in 2007, a 100% elected upper chamber was the most popular option in a series of Commons votes, and in 2012 a bill that was supposed to have all-party support was introduced - it went for a 80% elected, 20% appointed split - and bishops would be in the 20% (because it's even harder to get them out than the hereditary ones). But that was blocked by Tory backbenchers and Labour (who wanted to screw with the coalition, partly to stop a related reform of constituency sizes that would have helped the Tories).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords

[cbayer]

11. Glad to hear that things can and do change.

I find the politics very confusing at times, but have learned more over the years.

I enjoy listening to my husband discuss with his UK friends, but because I am opposed to monarchies of any kind, I usually don't participate….

just leads to trouble.

[LeftishBrit]

14. As regards the House of Lords, I would like it to be a 100% elected body.

Let bishops, and sons of lords, and cronies of Prime Ministers have the right to stand for election the same as anyone else; but no one should have an automatic right to be lawmakers without election in the 21st century.

As regards schools: if I was starting from scratch, I would avoid all state-funded 'faith schools'; but I don't think they could be abolished now without considerable disruption. But they should (and in my observations mostly do) follow the same national curriculum as everyone else: i.e. teach evolution as accepted science; teach about all religions not just their 'faith'; etc.

The big worry IMO is the advent of the 'free schools', which if not carefully supervised, can have far too much freedom of the wrong sort to miseducate kids with taxpayers' money.

[skepticscott]

12. Yes, but there's no such thing

as "religious privilege"

[LeftishBrit]

13. Just - wow.

Most religious Jews, even including many Orthodox, are NOT anti-evolution; so this really represents a lunatic fringe.

And I agree: if parents want their children not to learn science properly, it is I suppose their right; but I don't want my taxes to go toward it.