petitions.pm.gov.uk/faithschools/

[lookup]

I know there was some doubt about this petition previoulsy; mainly due to the fact that it seemed to want to stop all teaching of religous education, which put me off at the time.

I recently came across the petition, whilst filling in another. (professional recognition for engineers, if anyones interested ;))

It states 'Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school'.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/faithschools/

You probably all know about this and I am whistling in the wind, but I could not find other threads about it. ven so I think it is an important issue to get a voice across from what I believe is the silent majority.

thanks

[Dr B]

Are engineers not given professional status???? Sorry for the tangental question here - but thats an interesting discussion in its own right!

[lookup]

A person can have 'professional status' with an Engineering body. But this does not make them an engineer, as anyone can call themselves an engineer.

Other professions such as lawyers require to become part of the profesional body, they then can call themselves a lawyer. They can not use the title prior to this.

The aim is to give a professional status to the title like other professions, as occurs in Europe; possibly getting the profession regonised by statute, which is not the case at present.

In practice this would mean that only professionals could hold the title Engineer and they can only practice Engineering, for reasons of H&S etc.

Of course there are a lot of issues surrounding this:
The title 'Chartered Engineer' can be used.
The word engineer is so widely used in so many formats
Defining 'practicing engineering' can be difficult.

But:
If you are a 'Chartered Engineer' what defines an Engineer.
Engineer is so widely used because of the status issue. Is it not time to reclaim it.
Other professions have clearly defined practice definitions, where other peole can carry out roles.

The problem is that this country is seeing a massive shortage of Engineers, a lot of it is to do with the status issue. The consequences will be huge.

It is not a plan to make the Engineerng profession an elite, but an attempt to define it to attract more people.

[Araneus]

Engineer is so widely used because of the status issue. Is it not time to reclaim it.

The term is widely used because it means a lot of different things. An automobile engineer is different from a civil engineer who is different from an electronics engineer who is different from a software engineer.

Should a software engineer not be able to use the title professionally just because bridge-builders (or whatever other branch of engineering you represent) have reserved the term for their exclusive use?


The problem is that this country is seeing a massive shortage of Engineers, a lot of it is to do with the status issue.

Do you have some evidence for this? If I was considering a particular career, the ability to use an exclusive title would be one of the last things I cared about.

[lookup]

Yes there are many forms of Engineering but the common word is Engineer. What defines an Engineer? Why are they all called Engineer? They all apply a science and Mathematics in the design of systems. To quote 'a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems' dictionary decription.

There are a shortage of Engineers, as someone who has to recruit for my company it is impossible, and this is in a rapidly decreasing UK engineering industry.

In regard to status. Maybe it should not be the main
reason, but as someone who visits sixth forms, Engineering is not looked at by many for this reason.
The main jobs being lawyers and doctors.

If you look on the continent where Engineering is seen as high status, they have no problem in recruiting, leaving us further and further behind.

As engineering, in all its forms, is the only way modern societies can generate wealth, something has to be done.

[Proeng]

Every petition seems to be a breeding ground for more. All this achieves is to divert attention from the issue the professional engineers are attempting to bring to the attention of the government. We all respect Doctors of Medicine and they have earnt the title of Doctor. Their title immediately commands respect. A professional engineer who has reached Chartered status is also a Doctor of Science regardless of his particular branch of engineering, yet he is only given the title of Doctor when he completes another year of study at university to work on a thesis and be awarded with a Phd. At this stage it should be considered, he has no experience, so why the title of Dr? By the time a professional engineer reaches chartered status he is a well seasoned engineer capable of working in his branch of engineering unsupervised, and posseses a high level of design/development/and or other skills (without these skills he cannot become chartered). He could be in a position of having members of his team with the title of Dr and no experience while he is just Mr. It is a crazy situation that has led to the disrespect of our profession. Now it seems if you work in engineering even with no real skills you can call yourself an engineer. Do we not deserve to be addressed as Dr, when we are Doctors of Engineering Science? If this were the case then yes, allow the title of Engineer (but more correctly 'Technician')to be used by those with non chartered status. Lets face it they have allready hijacked the title of Engineer so we are never going to go back on it. A non professional engineer can work in the many branches of engineering but they do not have the knowledge to make scientific judgement. We need to recognise the knowledge, professional skills and experience of our Chartered Engineers by their title, just as we do with the medical profession. The present system is just confusing to the man in the street who will give more respect to a young person with a fresh Phd proudly using the title of Dr. than the experienced Chartered Engineer who is still addressed as Mr.
This is not sour grapes. I am now retired but still proudly keep up my Chartered status. I believe our various institutions should take the lead in furthering this cause at government level - yes, get political - for the long term protection of what is left of engineering in the UK. I have witnessed over my career the decimation of practically every great industry that made us the envy of the world. With little or no respect of our engineers within the UK how can we expect to be treated with respect in Europe or the rest of the world.

[Matt]

Well here we go then. Apparently nineteen thousand people signed this petitions so not one of the less popular crank petitions on the site.

Apparently the government's response can be paraphrased in just four words.

You're wrong, piss off!

However here the full enchilada in case you're interested.



The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or "faith schools" as they are commonly known.
Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils' knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country. It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs and helps promote pupils' moral, cultural and mental development. In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.
In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education, and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.
The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country. Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.


http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14536.asp

[Mulder]

OK let's analyse the statement by buzz word:

"... diverse ... awareness ... respect ... affirmed ... opportunity ... inclusive ... community cohesion ... disadvantaged ... diverse ... structured ... "

Now it makes perfect sense ... :smiley:

[ZERO]

anyone can call themselves an engineer.


Cool. I'm an engineer!

I'm also Sparticus.



As engineering, in all its forms, is the only way modern societies can generate wealth, something has to be done.



I'm very doubtful of this statement.

Natural resource and primary production exports, as well as other foreign trade, would be the base of all wealth for most countries I would think.

Mining, farming and trade had been practiced long before there were engineers.


Happy to be corrected though.

[Cuddles]

Mining, farming and trade had been practiced long before there were engineers.

Technically, mining would be mainly based on engineering. You're right about the rest though.


(Does anyone ever read these?)

No.

[Jocky]

Apparently the government's response can be paraphrased in just four words.

You're wrong, piss off!

Yes, I got my copy of this unsurprisingly vapid response too.

It it noticeable that it totally fails to address the most important point: faith schools receive taxpayers' money which is intended to fund education for all, and yet they are are permitted to discriminate against certain children solely on the basis of their parents' purported belief system (or lack thereof).

This is so wrong that it gets me angry every time I think about it. But of course arrant political cowardice makes it impossible for any government properly to address it.

[Matt]

Yes, I got my copy of this unsurprisingly vapid response too.

It it noticeable that it totally fails to address the most important point: faith schools receive taxpayers' money which is intended to fund education for all, and yet they are are permitted to discriminate against certain children solely on the basis of their parents' purported belief system (or lack thereof).

This is so wrong that it gets me angry every time I think about it. But of course arrant political cowardice makes it impossible for any government properly to address it.

Well it seems we disgree on which of the unanswered pionts is the most relavent. For me it's the teaching of creationist lies.

[Cuddles]

Apparently the government's response can be paraphrased in just four words.

You're wrong, piss off!

Interestingly, that's almost exactly the response we got to the petition about the recent cuts to physics funding. I wonder if they even bother looking at the petitions any more than it takes to make the "piss off" look relevant.

[brodski]

deleted.

[exile]

Interestingly, that's almost exactly the response we got to the petition about the recent cuts to physics funding. I wonder if they even bother looking at the petitions any more than it takes to make the "piss off" look relevant.

I'd be interested to know what the government SHOULD do about petitions? Given that petititions don't come with a "no" button so you can disagree with them.

Petitions do have some influence on government policy, as do campaigns, lobbying, writing to MPs, using the media, protests of various kinds, etc. I think that's about as much as we should expect. Certainly I would be worried if all it would take is a few signatures on a petition to change government policy.

That is - freedom of speech, and the existence of channels of communication with the government, does not mean that it is mandatory for the government to act on your proposals.

[Matt]

I'd be interested to know what the government SHOULD do about petitions? Given that petititions don't come with a "no" button so you can disagree with them.

Petitions do have some influence on government policy, as do campaigns, lobbying, writing to MPs, using the media, protests of various kinds, etc. I think that's about as much as we should expect. Certainly I would be worried if all it would take is a few signatures on a petition to change government policy.

That is - freedom of speech, and the existence of channels of communication with the government, does not mean that it is mandatory for the government to act on your proposals.

Governement is to be accountable. They need not form policy based upon such petitions - though taking note of hot button issues may influece manifestor writers and subsequently voters. However they are under an obligation to answer questions to the best of thier ability.

I don't feel that they have done so in this instance.

[Mulder]

Freedom of speech just means they don't arrest you for expressing your opinion. It doesn't mean anyone takes any notice of you.

[Fiona]

I believe that in some countries a petition can force the issue to be put to the vote, if it garners enough signatures. I understand that there is some such mechanism in the Netherlands, for example. I have found this quite an attractive notion in some ways

[Mulder]

I believe that in some countries a petition can force the issue to be put to the vote, if it garners enough signatures. I understand that there is some such mechanism in the Netherlands, for example. I have found this quite an attractive notion in some ways

Over here a petition forces a civil servant to take a standard answer out of a database. It probably takes several minutes! At least they're not wasting tax payers money actually thinking of real reasons.

[brodski]

Over here a petition forces a civil servant to take a standard answer out of a database. on the contrary each brush off answer is lovingly hand crafted by a team of dedicated professionals.


It probably takes several minutes!
No it takes slightly longer, as each answer has be allocated to the lead department, drafted by an official and eventually cleared by a Deputy Director (grade 5), and then returned to No. 10 for approval along with substantial background briefing on the issue (the greater the number of signatures the more briefing required). Although you're never (or rarely) going to directly change policy with a petition, it does raise awareness of eth issue, and the strength of public feelings the topic, amongst ministers.

And as for the weakness of the reply, well the government probably noticed that one too, and won't be happy about it. In the short term there is a need to get a response out, but there will also be a need if pressure is maintained to get a more defensible departmental position- so keep pushing....