How on earth did this get to be about evolution.

The article was a balanced commentary on the marginal values of private school funding from someone who obviously has a modicum of training in public economic theory.

While I might quibble about the fixed nature of the % he has suggested, I applaud his reasoned approach compared to the emotionally based opinions I have seen previously.

As for the evolution debate it is essentially between science and faith which can be won by neither side. Please keep this pointless bickering to a more suitable discussion.

Shadow minister,
In my first post I pointed out that the motives behind some, not all, private schools were against their students’ interests. I have had problems with the public school system in the past and many years ago sent several of my family to private schools late in their school life but I always worked carefully to undermine any consequential indoctrination which, because the school was not of a fundamentalist nature, was fairly minor.
I have also worked to try and improve the public school system as I believe that it should not be possible to buy a better education than that which is available in public schools. Indoctrination of young minds by religious people of all persuasions I see as seriously unethical or, in religious terms, evil.
I see a main purpose of education being to teach students how to evaluate evidence. Faith has no place in evaluation of evidence and therefore no place in an education system. In a just society public money would not be supporting any of the many faiths.
If you don’t use the subsidised public transport system you pay for your own car and get taxed extra to do so. What is fair for transport should be fair for education.
For the above reasons I have been impressed by Stephen Law’s book, “The War for Children’s Minds" which I have read and drew attention to his article posted on OLO on 21st August. The purpose of my initial post was to influence readers to look at the improved outcomes available to public school students by the adoption of Philosophy for Students in early primary school years. Surely improved intellectual outcomes and a reduction in adverse behaviour by unruly students are worthy results and aims.
Runner always objects to any posting which criticizes Christianity as a faith or the religious motives of the faithful. I tend to respond to his postings in the hope that a waverer or two will be enlightened.
I suggest everyone read some of the material on the web sites I listed.

Foyle,

The ideal that it should not be able to buy a better education than the public school system is laudable as are your efforts to improve it. However, by its nature any state system has to be tailored for the majority needs and while some tweaking is possible, the independent system will always be able to provide a differentiated product. And as long as it meets the state curriculum requirements, it is not in the state's interest to penalise anyone who wishes to follow this path as shown in the article.

The example of public transport is actually a good example of this. The fact that petrol and licenses are taxed, motor transport is extensively subsidised indirectly by the provision of roads and other infrastructure. While my wife takes the bus to work in the city because it is quick and fast, the multiple changes I would need to take would make my trip lengthy and expensive and so I find it quicker and cheaper to use my car. Penalising me for the failure of the public transport system is both unfair and counter productive.

finally while I agree with you on the issue of religious indoctrination and feel that church schools should make religious instruction optional and the teaching of creationism should be banned (as in the US), this is so far off topic that it in effect highjacks the discussion. As it is an issue of faith the argument can only be circular and the best result a migrane.

I personally prefer to ignore the flat earthers and hope they will go away.