Intelligent design in Free Schools

Argh. Please complain. Science must remain a faith-free zone.

Even if theistic evolution is being taught in science lessons she should escalate it.

Icecream given that it's a secondary school it'll have specific timetabled science lessons, plus the ops dc has been given a homework sheet, I think it should be pretty clear what is being taught! If it was an RE or pshe lesson that would be different, but it's not. It's a science lesson.

Its definitely not allowed.
I have debated intelligent design versus evolution with post 16 classes but if its being presented as fact then that is definitely not allowed. As others have said Gove brought in a ruling that all schools including free schools and academies that fail to teach evolution as natural selection would lose their funding.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20547195

Prh: "A teacher may not teach intelligent design or creationism as fact"

I agree, that is clear.

"How much clearer does it need to be"

Given that we're going round in circles on this, it does need to be clearer.

"If the stories were consistent and appeared to stack up Ofsted should take them seriously."

The OP's story so far is that "Intelligent Design seems to be taught in Science". If that is the correct interpretation of what is being taught in class, and others have the same story, then yes, Ofsted will take it seriously.

However, my point all along has been that the OP's daughter may be hearing Theistic Evolution opinions (which is par for the course in any faith school, and isn't in breach of the rules), and wrongly interpreting it as ID.

I suggested that the OP should carefully explain the difference to her daughter, and, in the light of that, discuss with her exactly what has been said. If she is still convinced that Intelligent Design is being taught in science lessons then she should escalate it.

No it is not unclear. A teacher may not teach intelligent design or creationism as fact. How much clearer does it need to be?

If they start giving their opinion on such things it may fall short of teaching but they need to be extremely careful. Even in response to a direct question in a lesson the safest thing for a teacher is to avoid expressing any views. If parents start to complain the school could be in trouble.

if the child/parent doesn't have evidence, then Ofsted aren't going to be able to do anything about it

Rubbish. Ofsted is not a court of law. And in civil matters even the law courts don't need absolute proof. All it would need is a few children or a few parents telling Ofsted that the teachers are overstepping the mark. If the stories were consistent and appeared to stack up Ofsted should take them seriously.

OP, this is not acceptable. You should complain, formally, to the school then - if the response is unsatisfactory- to the Education Funding Agency enclosing photographic evidence of your concerns.

My point really was that parents may find it difficult to enforce the terms of the 'contract' (e.g. the funding agreement) if the DfE or Ofsted didn't act. I think that is extremely unlikely. But technically it is correct to say the legal position is not 100% clear.

"I didn't say that"

Well that's ok then.

"Whether a teacher can give a personal view without breaching the school's funding agreement depends on exactly how it is given"

Exactly. Which is why I said it's unclear, and why I suggested that the OP should probe a bit more deeply about what has been said. Whatever the teacher is saying, if the child/parent doesn't have evidence, then Ofsted aren't going to be able to do anything about it. Even if they do inspect, there's no guarantee that the issue will be repeated during their brief visit, so unless there is written evidence they're probably going to find it difficult to challenge.

"Asking the teacher about theistic evolution would be as relevant as asking who they want to win Strictly."

I'm sure many teachers are also asked that .

offering a theistic/atheistic opinion in an evolution lesson would be in breach of the new rules

I didn't say that. I said that they may not teach theistic creation, etc. Whether a teacher can give a personal view without breaching the school's funding agreement depends on exactly how it is given. But the teacher should not be offering an opinion unprompted and if asked the professional thing to do would be to dodge the question. The lesson is supposed to be about science. Asking the teacher about theistic evolution would be as relevant as asking who they want to win Strictly.

Nope, not a trivial matter at all. But not unlawful.

but not doing anything unlawful

Contravening the funding agreement means the Secretary of State can close the school down or transfer it to a different operator. It also means Ofsted would come down on the school like a ton of bricks. It is not a trivial matter.

Sorry that was in relation to academies.

The legal position is not necessarily clear, as icecream says. There is no statute in England that would make teaching creationism illegal. Contravening its funding agreement maybe, but not doing anything unlawful.

"You are tilting at windmills"

No I'm not. I'm challenging Prh's view that offering a theistic/atheistic opinion in an evolution lesson would be in breach of the new rules. I don't think it would, because the rules only apply to teaching non-scientific theories as fact - not as opinion.

You are right that many teachers are adept at avoiding those questions. However, not all will want to, especially not in faith schools. They will answer the above question something like this: "As Christians, we don't think it means there isn't a God, because [theistic evolution opinion]".

icecream
You are tilting at windmills.
Teachers are very adept at just sidestepping such questions
At the primary school my oh so atheist DCs regularly picked up the god-botherer teacher and she spun it into the learning for all.
No hassle.

ID is a different level all together and luckily is not well entrenched in this country.

"it would not have to go to court, just as far as ofsted and an instant inspection"

So, you're saying that if a science teacher taught a lesson on evolution, and then a student raised their hand and said "So, does that mean there isn't a God?", and the science teacher said:
a) "No, I don't think it means there isn't a God, because [theistic evolution opinion], but you will have to make your own mind up.", or:
b) "Yes, I think it means there isn't a God, because [atheistic evolution opinion], but you will have to make your own mind up."
.... that would be grounds for an immediate inspection?

If so, then science teachers had better start being a lot more careful. I suspect its not so though, because the CoE and Catholic church would have fought the rule change if it did.

It would particularly complicate arrangements in primary schools where both science and RE are often taught by the same class teacher.

As a Christian I would be complaining if ID was taught in Science, other than as part of a "changing explanations" for the universe kind of way. (I have been in science lessons where the land bridge and drying out plum theories were discussed, and it was perfectly legitimate.)

I like RE being taught because I think it is important to understand other people's beliefs, but this school doesn't sound as if it is teaching according to Government guidelines,NAND would get into trouble with OFSTED.

icecream
it would not have to go to court, just as far as ofsted and an instant inspection.

ID has no place in Science lessons.
End of.

If you think its happening, get hold of the resources in question and send them to Ofsted and the BHA

I agree with all that prh, but it doesn't answer my question about whether a science teacher giving their own opinion about whether evolution is theistic or atheistic, or encouraging an opinion-based debate (whether planned or unplanned) in a science lesson would be against the new law.

I suspect the answer is that it's not clear, and won't be until someone tests it in court.

faith schools that are academies or free schools do not have to teach the national curriculum

Their funding agreement specifically prohibits them from teaching as fact any non-scientific theories. So, although they don't have to teach the national curriculum, they can't teach creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution or any other non-scientific theory in science lessons.

It is true that theistic evolution is different from creationism and intelligent design. It accepts the science of evolution, which both creationism and ID reject. But it is nonetheless non-scientific in that the theory cannot be tested or proved using scientific methods.

"faith schools that are academies or free schools do not have to teach the national curriculum"

No, but they do have to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and they're not allowed to teach pseudo-science in science lessons.

crazymum, theistic evolution isn't the same as creationism. It's the official position of the CoE and Catholic churches on evolution - i.e. they accept it, but put it in a religious context. There's a definition here.

faith schools that are academies or free schools do not have to teach the national curriculum.

I strongly suspect that just about every faith school in the country would claim to be teaching theistic evolution if they were asked.

You are incorrect, faith schools have to teach the national curriculum in all subjects except RE where they can just teach their faith (in practice though many would also have lessons about other faiths). So this wouldn't be allowed in a Science lesson.
Creation could be covered in an RE lesson and this may involve discussion about creation stories in other faiths and the creation / evolution debate could be covered in this subject.