Talk:Emmanuel Schools Foundation

Start
I've done some anti(ish) Vardy insertions from the horse's mouth since I have a mole in the school. ;-) These might not be appropriate for Wikipedia, however, as I'm new to the format. Hopefully someone else will correct any mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 September 2005

bias
Whatever you might think of the "philosophy" behind the school Peter Vardy is a deeply caring man who wants nothing more than the best for the kids. The same is true for Nigel McQuoid and all involved in the foundation.

Simonalpinist 10:10, 25 April 2006

Think that all you wish, but don't try and put it into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.107 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 May 2006

Bias? I'll show you bias
It's costing me money to send my child to a school OTHER than a Vardy school.

McQuoid chucked out all the non-conforming riff-raff. Very caring that. A GOOD head teacher would deal with them. McQuoid just threw them on the scrap and some of them had exams to sit. You want to HELP disaffected teenagers (according to your profile). Hey, great! Tell that dickwad to keep them on and then see how his results go. Why does King's get so many kids from Saltersgill? Because a lot of Coulby Kids DON'T WANT TO COME AND BE PREACHED AT.

McQuoid and Vardy promote deeply religious (and franky dumb) ideas as facts and that does no one any good. Vardy is matey with the most self-serving prime minister this country has seen in decades. The only things he cares about are money and buying a place in heaven. What sort of boss goes to a funeral and says what a good guy this young man was - the same lad that lost his life by crashing a valuable customer's car he was supposed to be test-driving. Driving dangerously more like - and he paid with his life. Claiming that your sorry for the loss of life is just window dressing.

If he really cared about kid's education, he would pay for an ENTIRE school and not put his own religious henchmen in there. Oh, and he wouldn't reline his pockets giving out loads of lucrative contracts out to his own companies: like the fleet buses (as an example). Allegations of mild paedophilla in the classroom at Kings continue to this day: edit it out all you like, I've heard the allegations from the girls it's happened to. If they're lying, fine, but don't just edit out something distasteful for the sake of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 02:06, 9 May 2006

-

This debate has been blown way out of proportion by the media. I don't see why people who have never been to the schools seem to be set on criticising it so unjustly. Go check it out for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.105.236 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 January 2007

Reply to the above: I am a former pupil of one of the academies, please allow me to assure you, this debate is not large enough. Check out my site in the links section for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.39.15 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 March 2007

--

reply to above- i am a former pupil too (and i did the whole course, i was not just expelled because i couldn't cope with the rules), and felt there really was something deeply disturbing about the school, but i think that any challenges made by the media are valid, but perhaps that they shouldn't do so much editing of footage, it is my opinion that the a lot of the views on religion held on this article are true, but have just been written in a very immature manner, if you have ever seen the channel four documentary with a 15 minute section on the school, i can tell you that those students who spoke about the school have clearly been made fools out of and have not made sure their views have been conveyed. the choice at least with emmanuel college is that if you dont like it, you can leave, but i think the school could be more realistic about its students, and not try to convince someone what the right choice for them is, am perhaps just accept that lots of students want to leave, and should leave, and should not be pressured into remaining there. My advice to any student reading this who is unsure about staying. Talk to your parents about how you feel, explain that its different inside the school than what it is to those around seeing the school, and not to be swayed by those in positions within the school. An adult with such experience in he matter can twist your words and have yourself feeling you have came off better when you have really lost. sometimes you just have to cut your losses.

pardon the lack of sentencing its late, and i only stumbled across this after finding an article about something at the bottom of my street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.183.145 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 August 2007

NPOV
This article is not written from a NPOV, and comes across more like a diatribe than an encyclopaedia article. Allegations about the teaching of creationalism in the schools are highly contested, yet there is no indication of this in the article. E.g. From the Guardian Newspaper, notably hostile to the acadamies program: http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1963511,00.html 'They aren't faith schools and they don't select' --Chopz 10:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to NPOV
I have recently overhauled the whole article because I was in agreement before you commented that the article did not read as it should. Please could you make a further comment after reading the new article - if you are still unsure I can tweak further. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.124.254 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Current article is a lot better. I have 4 objections:


 * 1) Concerning the Introduction

The statement "In particular, students are encouraged to consider the claims of the Bible, including creationism, alongside the standard National Curriculum. These ideas are presented in assemblies and Religious Education lessons (years 7-11) and compulsory lessons for Sixth Form under the banner of ‘Philosophy, Theology and Ethics’." is in my opinion badly written, seemingly being made up of a claim and counter-claim. I think it would read better if we combine the two sentences, for example: "In particular, students are encouraged to consider the claims of the Bible in assemblies and Religious Education lessons, which are compulsory from years 7-13. This includes the belief of a creator god."

My only other objections would be to Creationism Controversy section:


 * 2)Language of first paragraph

I propose that 'revealed' should be replaced by 'alleged' to reflect the confusion on the matter. Peter Vardy's statement's on the matter do not confirm that Creationism has been taught in science lessons. His statements are "No - we are presenting them as the two views - that some people hold the faith position of creation and others believe in evolution." "We do teach creationism alongside evolution [interruption] - we present both - one is a theory, the other is a faith position and it's up to the children." Neither statements reveal if Creationism is taught in the Science classroom, and this is key. To present the idea of creation as a religious concept of faith is very different from teaching it as a scientific theory. Both references to creationism has Vardy refer to it as a faith position. The second link which alleges inconsistency is a blog with no copy of the transcript.


 * 3)The Nigel McQuoid quote

It adds nothing to the case that Creationism was taught, rather it presents a fact vs value distinction of the type one would expect from a school with a Christian Ethos. Without getting into a complicated discussion about the relationship of Science and Religion, I propose that Nigel McQuoid's statement is in no way in conflict with the Theory of Evolution.


 * 4) Steven Layfield

The final paragraph regarding Steven Layfield is important in the history of the controversy, though I would place it at the top of the section and cut it down, perhaps summarising it as presenting a Intelligent Design/Creationist viewpoint. Also, I'd add a few more references


 * I would reformulate as thus:

A lecture given by Steven Layfield in 2000, prior to his taking up the job of Head of Science at Emmanuel College, Gateshead, on The Teaching of Science: A Biblical Perspective advocated the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. In 2002, a group of leading scientists including Richard Dawkins alleged that creationism was taught in Emmanuel College biology classes, however, after inspecting the material used to teach science at Emmanuel College, Ofsted decided that the matter did not need to be pursued further.

An Ofsted inspection in 2006 described the school as 'Outstanding' and found no problem with its science provision. John Dear, Head of the Science, Electronics and Engineering Department at the King's Academy, has said on many occasions that the teaching of creationism does not form part of the curriculum in science lessons, but the idea of a creator God is discussed freely in Religious Education and presented to pupils in assemblies. 

Controversy emerged again in November 2006 when it emerged that Steven Layfield was on a director of Truth in Science, a body which had sent material to British schools which questioned the theory of evolution. However, a statement was released by Emmanuel College denied that Steven Layfield's private involvement reflected the views of the School. Steven Layfield subsequently resigned from the board of Truth in Science.

Would this be ok? --Chopz 18:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

English law on religion in schools
I would like to add a comment on the legal requirements for religion in English schools. Under section 70 of School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it is compulsory for each pupil at a state maintained school to take part in an act of collective worship. Schedule 20 of the Act requires that "required collective worship shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character."

Furthermore, all maintained schools in England are required to ensure that religious education is part of the basic curriculum. (SSFA, s 69).

If these schools teach about evolution, they are complying with the national norms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.178.136 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 October 2007

Changes
I would agree wholeheartedly Chopz - I did not review the creationism section when I re-wrote this article as it seemed a vertiable quagmire but what you have suggested to do with it is excellent.

--Kftjkp1989 09:22, 20 October 2007

Expulsion
May I Just Make A Note That the School Did Expel a Student suffering from AD/HD, disregarding it as an illness, saying the child was simply defiant. That is fair, and the article should show some expression of the opressive atmosphere and force fed religious theologies, along with the blatant statements that anything alternative is incorrect! You Sir, Are Extremely Wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xchiodosx (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is missing
I came to this page from the link in the creationism in public education page. I understand that there is some controversy regarding this issue. But should there be at least a mention regarding this fact (the controversy, not the creationism teaching). Most external links are precisely about this issue. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues
AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first few paragraphs are a copyright violation of the Vardy Foundation source.
 * They're also full of WP:PEACOCK terms.
 * This is because the Vardy Foundation is not an independent 3rd party source, but another charity founded by Peter Vardy (businessman)
 * In my opinion, this makes the lede very biased.


 * How is it now? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Considerably better. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The following explanation for adding a WP:POV tag in 2010 was given on my user talk page:
 * the [tag] refers to only one section which seems to always give the last word to the foundation side.--camr nag 00:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because reliable sources report that the Foundation had the last word. The Guardian printed a very generous retraction of its earlier allegations. Looks like something happened behind the scenes, perhaps a legal action, but that can't be stated in the article if it was unreported. Sure, other media continue to print the original story after it was refuted, because it sells papers or suits their agendas; but it seems to me that the summary in this article is properly verified. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)