I would consider Fr. Robinson 'dangerous' given his position teaching at the school.  He is capable of influencing the minds of these young people.  We homeschool, but my oldest told me, per friends at the school, that Fr Robinson holds debates on the subject.  I don't know how much sway he has over some of the older students, but the younger ones are certainly more impressionable.  If the parents are not knowledgeable they will not be able to speak on the subject themselves.

I have read Fr Paul Robinson's book, taken him on in his website and he ended up by calling me and all Catholic creationist 'protestant fundamentalists.' 
There was a time when all in the Catholic Church understood the dogma: ‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ (Lateran Council IV, 1215) as an immediate ex nihilo, supernatural act of God over six days or as Augustine proposed, all in one act but expressed in Genesis over six days. Either way, everything was created immediately, finished according to their kind. 

So, what changed that supernatural belief IN THE CHURCH into one that was made comply with secular theories? It happened in 1820, when Pope Pius VII decreed that books supporting heliocentrism 'according to modern astronomers' were to be taken off the Index. By then, modern evolutionary theories (like the 1796 Nebular theory) had outed so Pius VII's decree inferred an evolved heliocentrism was no longer the heresy defined and declared in 1616. Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology in 1830 brought in long-ages for the Earth, and Darwin's evolution theory followed in 1859. Now because of their 1820 U-turn, not one of these secular theories that contradicted the traditional dogma of an 'immediate' creation were OFFICIALLY condemned by any pope in Rome.
Then, because the Church did not officially condemn any of these theories, except Adam's Soul created by God, 'Biblical scholars' began to 'modernise' the Bible and the Catholic faith. That was the beginning of Modernism.
So, to try to stop the rot, Pope Pius IX put forward his 1864 Syllabus of Errors. In it, one of the errors was 12: The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science.
 But hadn't the decrees of 1820 INFERRED the 1616 decrees were wrong? That alone put paid to the Syllabus.
Next came Pope Leo XII's trying to stop the modernising of Scripture. It was a perfect encyclical until he had to cope with his predecessors 1820 U-turn when allowing once heretical books to be read and believed by the Flock. In order to cope with the anti-geocentric reading of the Bible brought about in 1820, poor Leo XIII had to contradict himself in Providentissimus Deus. So, you ask with disbelief in your mind, how did he do that? Well in Providentissimus Deus he states that when all the Fathers agreed on a meaning of revelation, that cannot be challenged. Now one of the reasons why Pope Paul V was able to define heliocentrism was heresy was because all of the Fathers read the Bible geocentrically. But then in chapter !8 it reads:

‘18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (St Augustine). Hence, they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day [‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?], even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers, as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us, “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.’--- Prov. Deus.

First, as they all did and do since 1820, Augustine the Geocentrist, is used to try to  eliminate geocentrism. Then, having stated the rule of all the Fathers, the Letter then infers geocentrism was an exception to this rule. Thus the flock were given a licence to carry on changing things in the Bible if science says so. Want proof of that;

‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’--- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

Now wouldn't you think the hierarchy of the SSPX would know that the origin of the world was a supernatural act that did not involve any natural science. Why, ever St Thomas Aquinas, whose theology and philosophy they teach, Fr Robinson being one of those, would know what that saint said: 

‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science.’ (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I.46.2)

‘Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age-old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude. The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science. Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.’--- Fr Paul Robinson, SSPX. 

This shows how sick the teaching of the creation has become in the Catholic Church and it is more than him who teaches this crap as all popes since Pius XII have demonstrated. Fr Robinson says the Bible is not meant to teach us science, but it is science that teaches us how God created the world. It the same science atheists use to dismiss the need for a God and there are more of them on Earth now that those who believe the creation was an immediate supernatural act.

Because the Catholic Church fell for the so-called proofs for heliocentrism and did that U-turn in 1820, followed by Pope Leo XIII's licence to change away with that same science, Fr Paul Robinson is under Catholic protection, breaking no Church condemnations of anything he says.

Moreover, heliocentrism, the heresy that gave rise to Modernism is even defended by some on this form.
Go read Roscoe's 'The Earth revs around the sun.'.

A scientific question:

If the earth is stationary, rather than rotating, then the only explanation for night and day would seem to be that the sun travels an immense distance to revolve around the earth on a daily basis.

Is this what is contended by most geocentrists?

If so, is there any issue with a hybrid explanation which would circuмvent this difficulty, holding that the earth is at the center, but it does rotate?

I though the common geocentric explanation is that the sun and stars are stationary but are carried with the universe as the universe rotates around the earth. The example of the bicycle spoke is usually given; anything attached to the tire or spoke will travel with it, so the tire spins the spoke move with it, not independent of it or traveling on it's own momentum or power. 

Nah, the sun, moon, and stars are all in the firmament and rotating around the earth; they're a lot closer than modern science claims.

You've got the geocentrism part right though