wow :) a Jab from JohnJ and a kick from Yabby, and a left hook from Frank.. almost feels like a batman episode with all those 'biff/punch/pow' signs which crop up as the poor Joker is belted by Batman and Robin....

JohnJ "evidence" ? I could always turn that question around and ask you for proof of what values ARE taught, apart from the one I often heard from the local high school "Don't do anything which would restrict fellow_students educational or social opportunities" which is reasonable. UN.....fortunately, secular schools cannot offer a 'reason' for such selfless behavior, apart from 'opinion'.

So, that's all the 'evidence' I need. Scratch a peacenick under neath you find a sentimentalist but not a philosopher.

Secular schools must pass on the prevailing philosophical trend, which at the present time appears to be humanism with a strong dose of existentialism and post modernism. The side effects are more serious. Thinking students will realize that they are left with 'Nihilism'.

Take away "In the beginning God created" and you have 'It all just happened' so "nothing really matters.. any more" (Freddy Mercury, Queen song Bohemian Raspsody)

I can refer to such things as the challenge to conservative values in various novels students are required to read (or can choose to read) which question traditional attitudes to sexuality etc,
"The Outsider" by Albert Camus is one such example. Has such a book had influence ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1752084,00.html
[For years, I have thought of myself as one of a small, discriminating group whose members, touched by a common emotional quirk, regarded Albert Camus's L'Etranger (The Outsider) as the most important and influential book they have read. Imagine my distress, on reading last Thursday's Guardian, to discover that a whole swathe of English male media types, academics and students were claiming similar intimacy with the book, and attesting to its significance for them.]

In short....yes.

I'm sure there are many lovely Christian and Catholic schools - I don't personally subscribe to their values and wouldn't send my kids to one. My daughters have attended ordinary state comprehensive co-ed schools, one is now at Uni the other in year 11. They were never handed a condom, or preached Marxist, or lefty propaganda. Instead, they were cared for, encouraged, disciplined - when necessary- and valued, as I would expect from any professionally run modern day school. Compared to our neighbours - whose children look, sound and have achieved much the same as my children - we estimate we have saved $250,000 over their school life for exactly the same outcome - nice, well mannered, well educated kids, all now in further education following their dreams. None are on drugs - the only one who smokes went to the expensive private school, and they all seem pretty normal and well adjusted. Be careful before you believe all the doom and gloom stories about public schools - it could cost you a packet for little actual result. Remember, anyone who is spending money on something they could get for free has to justify their decision by slagging off the free service - or what kind of snobby twit are they?
Also, the cost of educating kids in a public school has to be carefully considered before being used to justify more money to private schools. Only public schools have a legal obligation to take all our children - however expensive they may be to teach. And expensive can mean disabled, disadvantaged, in a remote or rural area (those kids cost tens of thousands to educate), new to Australia, disturbed or just damn difficult. Private schools of whatever complexion - however nice, or charitable, have no such obligation and by and large teach the least expensive to educate kids. Comparing raw funding dollars simply doesn't stand up for that reason.

aqvarivs, throwing labels at people's ideas is always a safer tactic than debating their ideas. So in today's short post you give us: 'Christian haters', 'nihilist', 'the political correct', 'lefties' , 'preacher', 'leftist theology', 'social parasite supported by parasites' and - irony of ironies - 'Superficial people'.

Concerning my own posting, you claim your were "going to refute this retarded view then thought better". Instead you preferred to attack the person: 'someone this bone deep ignorant', 'hatred and loathing', 'victim psyche' and - more irony - 'emotionally constipated'.

OK aqvarivs, now you've got that out of your system, have you got any ideas on the actual topic?

David, your ideas are under attack from several fronts. What a lovely war!

I marvel at your conscious inversion of the onus of proof. JohnJ asks for your evidence and you ask him for his. Could it be that you have none?

Oh, I nearly forgot: you have heard from the local high school: "Don't do anything which would restrict fellow_students educational or social opportunities". Since that value seems to run counter to your claim about State schools being value-free, you quickly hop in with another sweeping claim: "secular schools cannot offer a 'reason' for such selfless behavior, apart from 'opinion'". Now come on David, that's a bit rich even from you, the expert in not offering reasons, just opinion.

And your next line is so revealing: "So, that's all the 'evidence' I need." Is it any wonder your opinions are under attack? Time for a white flag? POWs are treated so well nowadays.

While in Guantanamo, you'll have time to read the prevailing philosophical trend, which, according to you, "at the present time appears to be humanism with a strong dose of existentialism and post modernism." What all three, simultaneously?

If I were the military panle, my punishment would be less severe: I'd just sentence you to actually reading (as distinct from hearsaying) "The Outsider" by Albert Camus.

TurnRightThenLeft,

You say that I have been caught out lying. I wonder what moral basis you have for even saying that lying is wrong. It is convenient to use that moral basis selectively. Of course if it wasn't for the bible we would not know that lying is wrong. Yes I did exagarate in making a point and if that makes me a liar I apologise. I maintain I never stated that State schools hand out condoms and needles but did imply which was wrong. I used a humanistic method (the end justifies the means) in making a point.

A friend of mine claims that State Governments are using private schools to limit the cost to their budgets of education. The claim is that they are developing fewer state schools per capita than they used to as a strategy. Fewer state schools means that more private schools are needed and that the cost of education can therefore be shunted-off onto the Commonwealth Government and the parents.

I was wondering if anyone knew of any studies or figures that might bear this out.

runner - yes religion has shaped society. Pretty much every society on the planet has been shaped by religion.

That isn't to say it's still necessary. Let's say the ancient egyptians stopped pillaging for fear of the fury of Ra, or one of their more savage gods, Set.
Because they stopped believing in these gods doesn't mean they should resume pillaging. There are plenty of areligious people in wider society who have morals without religion. What's more, these morals are inculcated without the need of the heaven/hell reward/punishment system... another version of the wrath of Set.

As for lying, I didn't actually state it's wrong - sometimes it may indeed be necessary to save people anguish... as for using those methods to persuade people of a particular politico-religious view, that's a different matter. Regardless of their religion, I would hope posters on sites such as this single out claims for scrutiny, and exercise their own reasoning, rather than blindly following popular claims. (DB, I suspect you'd agree with that, even if it is from a drastically different viewpoint)

Anyhow, back to the education topic...

Mick V - I agree, there's some gaps in evolutionary theory, but at least it's based on basic scientific principles.

I note you say there's little honest criticism of evolutionary theory - and I dare say you're right in that we could benefit of it.

Though in these critical analyses, I'd also like to see the claims of religion being brought to bear. I for one, would love to see students dissecting creationist theory without fear of bias from an overtly religious teacher.

Dinosaurs. The idea that the world is about 5000 years old. The lack of biblical information on Australopithecus and Neanderthals. The fact that there's hundreds of other religions all with the same schtick.

All holes you can drive a truck through, that are simply begging for critical analysis...