We need to talk about secular humanism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does being in a church confer expertise in education?

Being a church might not, But a Diocesan board of Education or it's equivalent certainly does. In the real world that is. 

[ProfessorDavey]

But we know for instance that the backbone of the primary system at least are schools founded by religions.

Absolute non-sense. Currently 36.8% of primary schools have a faith foundation. And that proportion hasn't changed markedly for decades, despite religiosity declining in the UK.

And the 1944 Education Act, which brought faith schools under formal state control was all about savings these schools from going bust due to falling roles - they were frankly, not the back-bone of the education system but the failing sector. The reason why they were failing was because although they received grants to support pupils prior to 1944 as private schools they were antiquated and massively in need of mordernisation. They were therefore unable to compete with the burgeoning numbers of non-faith schools that never had a religious foundation that had been establishing in the decades leading up to the 1944 Act.

The establishment of compulsory primary age schools was the result of the 1870 Elementary Education Act - this was based on the establishment of no-faith schools (indeed the act had a requirement that 'No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school). The backbone of compulsory state primary age education is that 1870 Act and the creation of state non-faith schools. The faith sector remained resolutely private, albeit expected state hand-outs - holding out until 1944 when it became clear to both churches and government that the faith schools were simply not able to deliver education to a suitable standard without major state investment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolute non-sense. Currently 36.8% of primary schools have a faith foundation. And that proportion hasn't changed markedly for decades, despite religiosity declining in the UK.

What I mean is had the greater part of school foundation not been through the church it is doubtful that education would have emerged in any great quantity from secular sources. I would like us to consider the statistics. Does it include transfer to secular sponsorship, academy trusts and the like?

And the 1944 Education Act, which brought faith schools under formal state control was all about savings these schools from going bust due to falling roles - they were frankly, not the back-bone of the education system but the failing sector. The reason why they were failing was because although they received grants to support pupils prior to 1944 as private schools they were antiquated and massively in need of mordernisation. They were therefore unable to compete with the burgeoning numbers of non-faith schools that never had a religious foundation that had been establishing in the decades leading up to the 1944 Act.

Stats?

The establishment of compulsory primary age schools was the result of the 1870 Elementary Education Act

And church schools for parishes?

- this was based on the establishment of no-faith schools (indeed the act had a requirement that 'No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school).

I went to a Cof E primary and I don't recall being taught any religious catechism. What do you think you mean by your comment.

The backbone of compulsory state primary age education is that 1870 Act and the creation of state non-faith schools.

specifically non faith schools? can you give me an example of a school set up as specifically a no faith, faith free, zero faith involvement school?

The faith sector remained resolutely private, albeit expected state hand-outs - holding out until 1944 when it became clear to both churches and government that the faith schools were simply not able to deliver education to a suitable standard without major state investment.

source?

[ProfessorDavey]

What I mean is had the greater part of school foundation not been through the church it is doubtful that education would have emerged in any great quantity from secular sources.

Non-sense - actually the established churches opposed the 1870 act which supported, for the first time, the establishment of sufficient school places for all children up to the age of 12. Up to that time the church schools catered for just 25% of primary age children. The step change (and therefore the backbone of our current system) is the 1870 act, the key provision of which was the establishment of non-faith schools (with no religious foundation) controlled by schools boards and with state funding. Effectively what is still the backbone of our primary education system now.

[Outrider]

Being a church might not, But a Diocesan board of Education or it's equivalent certainly does. In the real world that is.

Does it? Or does it pass of expertise whilst pushing a particular religion's agenda in education?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non-sense - actually the established churches opposed the 1870 act which supported, for the first time, the establishment of sufficient school places for all children up to the age of 12.

You make that sound like a secular society revolution . It wasn't please desist

  Up to that time the church schools catered for just 25% of primary age children. The step change (and therefore the backbone of our current system) is the 1870 act, the key provision of which was the establishment of non-faith schools (with no religious foundation) controlled by schools boards and with state funding.

Again can you name such schools? Are you saying that no church schools for the public were founded after this date?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does it? Or does it pass of expertise whilst pushing a particular religion's agenda in education?

I put it to you that educational agenda was started in church schools and promoted through the numerous teacher training colleges of church foundation.

[Outrider]

Yes and we all agree with that.

It doesn't seem like we do.

The trouble of course comes when we come to what we personally view as useful and the trouble is look where the fallacy of modernity, the throwing out of the baby with the bath water and the law of unintended consequences has got us to.

Wow. So much horse-shit, so little time. It's not about what we personally view as useful, it's about what academic studies of education suggest is best for children, and sectarianism isn't it, religious instruction isn't it. It's like there isn't a place for religion to promulgated within the curriculum, which is what religious groups want access to education for.

Again, you bring up this idea of the fallacy of modernity as though we're saying this must be better because it's new: no, it's better because it's better, the fact that it's the current thinking is an aside to that. We're not throwing out the bathwater, we're throwing out the requirement to only bathe the baby in holy water.

Presumably your bemoaning the 'law of unintended consequences' bringing us to here is a suggestion that the world is a worse place as we increasingly move away from organised religion; we have happier people, better life expectancy, more widespread literacy and education, an increase in rights equality, fewer wars... doesn't seem so bad from where I'm sitting.

and of course because that is their own communal heritage, believers and the culturally religious are part of their community and kith and kin.

And they should have the same opportunities for representation as everyone else in the community, too, rather than specially reserved places.

I suppose you are as keen to see your kids educated in your culture.

I'm not keen to see children educated IN any culture - about, I'd like to see them educated about a range of cultures.

I don't see the church of England primary which probably comprise the bulk of primaries as a tool for indoctrination.

Do you not?

O.

[Outrider]

I put it to you that educational agenda was started in church schools and promoted through the numerous teacher training colleges of church foundation.

I put it to you that was a long time ago, and the relevance of the Church as a cultural, political, social and financial institution has changed massively since then. You'd be as well citing the Whigs agenda.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't seem like we do.

It doesn't seem like it to you because you are probably a ''My way or the Highway'' sort of a chap.

Wow. So much horse-shit, so little time. It's not about what we personally view as useful, it's about what academic studies of education suggest is best for children,

Yes a liberal education

and sectarianism isn't it,

I remember having a mate Michael who went to the catholic school. Absolutely no sense of sectarianism in our friendship. The erasure of RE from your curriculum just reflects your Hard secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I put it to you that was a long time ago, and the relevance of the Church as a cultural, political, social and financial institution has changed massively since then. You'd be as well citing the Whigs agenda.

Crap.

[Outrider]

It doesn't seem like it to you because you are probably a ''My way or the Highway'' sort of a chap.

As is evidenced by my advocation of equal access for all to parliament and the establishments of education, opposed to your more egalitarian concept of clinging to historic privilege by the instruments of historic religious power.

Yes a liberal education I remember having a mate Michael who went to the catholic school. Absolutely no sense of sectarianism in our friendship. The erasure of RE from your curriculum just reflects your Hard secularism.

Oh, shit, no, he's deployed an anecdote!!! Oh wait...

No-one is advocate eradicating religious education (teaching children about various religious positions and belief systems) but the time has come to end religious instruction (the indoctrination of children into a particular religion) as part of their education.

Crap.

Well, I see where you get the 'butt' in your rebuttal, now all you need is a point.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No-one is advocate eradicating religious education (teaching children about various religious positions and belief systems) but the time has come to end religious instruction (the indoctrination of children into a particular religion) as part of their education.

That's certainly what will happen in a school which is institutionally hard secularist and non religionist. I'm sorry but every inspection of every claim of equality and fairness you've made collapses. It seems that when it comes to religion it is not religion that is taught in the institutionally secularist school but history and geography.

You can run from your own proselytising, evangelical awfulness but not hide it seems.

You say you want only secular organisations to judge the teaching of RE. Where is the check that your conception of religion is not just a swivel eyed secular bigots caricature?

[Outrider]

That's certainly what will happen in a school which is institutionally hard secularist and non religionist.

And who in the thread is advocating such a thing?

I'm sorry but every inspection of every claim of equality and fairness you've made collapses.

Does it? Does it really? Are we not a more egalitarian society now than we were, say, in the 1800's (you know, the era you raised when religious institutions were one of the founding forces in public education)? Have we not achieved universal suffrage, equal marriage, child labour laws, a publicly-funded National Health Service...

It seems that when it comes to religion it is not religion that is taught in the institutionally secularist school but history and geography.

I don't think you've seen enough of what happens in modern classrooms; I'm married to a teacher, I am regaled with classroom tales every day.

You can run from your own proselytising, evangelical awfulness but not hide it seems.

Nobody hiding here, I'm owning every single thing I put on the page. You're the one that's spouting strawmen and citing irrelevant fallacies to try to obfuscate your apparent lack of any foundation for the argument you're attempting to make.

You say you want only secular organisations to judge the teaching of RE. Where is the check that your conception of religion is not just a swivel eyed secular bigots caricature?

Ofsted, probably, or the Independent Schools Inspectorate, if you're that way inclined. And, to be clear, it's not the judging of the teaching of RE, a religious input on whether the relevant aspect of the curriculum has been well delivered could conceivably be useful; it's the designing of the curriculum, the establishing in the scheme of work what the purpose of the lessons is (to educate, not indoctrinate, to inform without advocating) and to ensure that the individual lesson plans conform to that best practice.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And who in the thread is advocating such a thing?

Does it? Does it really? Are we not a more egalitarian society now than we were, say, in the 1800's (you know, the era you raised when religious institutions were one of the founding forces in public education)? Have we not achieved universal suffrage, equal marriage, child labour laws, a publicly-funded National Health Service...

I don't think you've seen enough of what happens in modern classrooms;

Ha ha ha

I'm married to a teacher, I am regaled with classroom tales every day.

Nobody hiding here, I'm owning every single thing I put on the page. You're the one that's spouting strawmen and citing irrelevant fallacies to try to obfuscate your apparent lack of any foundation for the argument you're attempting to make.

Ofsted, probably, or the Independent Schools Inspectorate, if you're that way inclined. And, to be clear, it's not the judging of the teaching of RE, a religious input on whether the relevant aspect of the curriculum has been well delivered could conceivably be useful; it's the designing of the curriculum, the establishing in the scheme of work what the purpose of the lessons is (to educate, not indoctrinate, to inform without advocating) and to ensure that the individual lesson plans conform to that best practice.

O.

Yes  Centralising, delocalisation would certainly be the tendencies of the cult of the aspiritual homonculus. I'm glad you've come clean on your Hard secularism. Are you aware that the first OFSTED supremo was a guy called Chris Woodhead who I believe was a very public secular Humanist. Presumably OFSTED would draw their ''expertise'' from their wellspring of secular humanism with politbureau oversight.

So it is an expertise thing. Hard secularists don't want to gain any, since getting to close might result in going native, so we end up with the soviet approach where subjects are taught around the ideology.

[ProfessorDavey]

You make that sound like a secular society revolution.

Actually when you consider the society of the day in the 1860s the political battles that led up to the 1870 act were about as close to a secular society revolution as you'd get.

So the Act:

1. Was based on the establishment of schools without religious foundation that were state funded and non-faith.
2. Enshrined the principle that holds today that non-faith schools should not favour any specific religious denomination.
3. Enshrined the principle that holds today that any religious education must not be compulsory and that parents must have the right to remove their children from RE.
4. That the schools are controlled by secular School Boards, later LEAs, that did not include representations from religious organisations.

Effectively the schools established by the 1870 are the direct forefathers of what we now consider to be non faith schools.

You may also like to know that there was a humungous battle between two organisations leading up to the 1870 Act - firstly the National Education League that aimed:

'at making education secular (to remove it out of the hands of priests of all denominations), compulsory (to overcome the tendency of squires and small manufacturers to keep children away from school), and free (in order to overcome the artisan's objection to losing the labour of his children)'

And the National Educational Union that demanded that state funding should simply go toward the provision of more schools with religious foundation that regarded that state funding (again direct quote):

Not a farthing of its funds is available for secular schools, nor for the promotion of mere bible-reading schools where no catechism of formula is allowed or taught ... It must regard a mere secular school as a source of great danger'

It was, without doubt a battle between the secular and the religious. Although there were some compromises it is absolutely clear that the secular argument won, with the establishment of state-funded non-religious schools effectively with exactly the features we see today. The churches actively tried to undermine the new Act, for example by trying to block the election of members of the new School Boards.

[Outrider]

Ha ha ha

Sadly, that's approaching the most coherent argument you've not offered.

Yes  Centralising, delocalisation would certainly be the tendencies of the cult of the aspiritual homonculus.

Those functions are already centralised - I'm open to a discussion on reform of Ofsted, if you've a strong opinion, but it's (again) a different discussion.

I'm glad you've come clean on your Hard secularism.

Yawn.

Are you aware that the first OFSTED supremo was a guy called Chris Woodhead who I believe was a very public secular Humanist.

I don't see anything about that in his wikipedia bio; as he's dead now, I'm not sure how relevant that is.

Presumably OFSTED would draw their ''expertise'' from their wellspring of secular humanism with politbureau oversight.

Why would you presume that? I'm sure that Ofsted would consult with, say, the various Christian communities on what should be included in the RE curriculum, just as they would with Public Health England on what should be included from a medical point of view in PSHE, indeed with the relevant experts in various fields.

So it is an expertise thing.

Shouldn't everything be?

Hard secularists don't want to gain any, since getting to close might result in going native, so we end up with the soviet approach where subjects are taught around the ideology.

Says the man, talking to 'soft' secularists, from the position of wishing to maintain ideologically religious influence in schooling. In a potentially infinite universe I'm not sure I can get an irony meter far enough way from you...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually when you consider the society of the day in the 1860s the political battles that led up to the 1870 act were about as close to a secular society revolution as you'd get.

So the Act:

1. Was based on the establishment of schools without religious foundation that were state funded and non-faith.

yes and of course it's not going to deal with schools that are already church foundations or those schools that would be founded later.

2. Enshrined the principle that holds today that non-faith schools should not favour any specific religious denomination.
3. Enshrined the principle that holds today that any religious education must not be compulsory and that parents must have the right to remove their children from RE.
4. That the schools are controlled by secular School Boards, later LEAs, that did not include representations from religious organisations.

In England only and then I doubt that  English LEA's had no consultation with diocesan Boards of education

Effectively the schools established by the 1870 are the direct forefathers of what we now consider to be non faith schools.

Ah and this is it Prof, In 1870 it doesn't feel like a secular humanist triumph. It feels like extension of achievements in education.

You may also like to know that there was a humungous battle between two organisations leading up to the 1870 Act - firstly the National Education League that aimed:

'at making education secular (to remove it out of the hands of priests of all denominations)

Undeniably an anticlerical move but secular? and one toward professionalism certainly

, compulsory (to overcome the tendency of squires and small manufacturers to keep children away from school), and free (in order to overcome the artisan's objection to losing the labour of his children)'[/i]

Do you know if any of these aims took precedence?

And the National Educational Union that demanded that state funding should simply go toward the provision of more schools with religious foundation that regarded that state funding (again direct quote):

Not a farthing of its funds is available for secular schools, nor for the promotion of mere bible-reading schools where no catechism of formula is allowed or taught ... It must regard a mere secular school as a source of great danger'

were these people soft and hard secularists? It seems they wanted money to go to bible reading schools where no catechism is taught.

[ProfessorDavey]

yes and of course it's not going to deal with schools that are already church foundations or those schools that would be founded later.

But the point is that the churches and the National Education Union opposed the establishment of any school unless it had a church foundation.

In England only ...

Nope, in England and Wales.

Ah and this is it Prof, In 1870 it doesn't feel like a secular humanist triumph.

Humanism has nothing to do with it - but in the context of society in England & Wales in 1870 - yes it was a major step forward for secularism - the establishment of state funded secular schools (i.e. without a church foundation) which were accountable to an elected school board that had no automatic church representation.

It seems they wanted money to go to bible reading schools where no catechism is taught.

They wanted to establish what would have been considered in 1870 to be secular schools - in other words schools with no church foundation that were not accountable to a religious organisation. Sure the schools included RE on the curriculum (just as non-faith school do now), but that RE was to be non-denominational and not about bring up children within a particular religion. And the 1870 Act enshrined the principle still in place today that parents can remove their children from any RE or religious observance.

The schools established in 1870 are very similar in foundation and operation to the non-faith primary schools we still have today, which of course are the majority of primary schools in England & Wales. The 1870 Act and its establishment of secular state funded primary schools is the backbone of the system we still see today.

In fact had the established churches got their own way we'd have no system recognisible as the one we have today, as they explicitly opposed:

1. The establishment of schools without a church foundation.
2. Compulsory primary education.
3. Free education.
4. The extension of compulsory education beyond the age of 12.
5. State schools, rather than private schools with grants from the state

These are all things that are absolutely fundamental to our state education system - every one of them was opposed by the church establishment when they were proposed. I'd have thought you'd be in favour of free, compulsory, state education up to the age of 16/18 that includes non-faith schools - if so you'd be on the other side of the argument from the churches through the history of our educational system.

[Outrider]

yes and of course it's not going to deal with schools that are already church foundations or those schools that would be founded later.In England only and then I doubt that  English LEA's had no consultation with diocesan Boards of education Ah and this is it Prof, In 1870 it doesn't feel like a secular humanist triumph. It feels like extension of achievements in education. Undeniably an anticlerical move but secular? and one toward professionalism certainlyDo you know if any of these aims took precedence? were these people soft and hard secularists? It seems they wanted money to go to bible reading schools where no catechism is taught.

"Not an anachorinism... blah blah... fallacy of modernity... blah blah..." But just let me try to reach back to the 1800s to try to find a mote of relevance...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the point is that the churches and the National Education Union opposed the establishment of any school unless it had a church foundation.

OK

Nope, in England and Wales.

OK

Humanism has nothing to do with it

Then in what way can they take any credit for it?

- but in the context of society in England & Wales in 1870 - yes it was a major step forward for secularism - the establishment of state funded secular schools (i.e. without a church foundation) which were accountable to an elected school board that had no automatic church representation.

I'm not opposed to this. Fast forward to today though and we see the NSS and the secular Humanist are against foundation since they do not take up the equal opportunity of founding their own free schools.

They wanted to establish what would have been considered in 1870 to be secular schools - in other words schools with no church foundation that were not accountable to a religious organisation.

Yes I get that and I am not opposed to that but the faith schools campaign it isn't.

Sure the schools included RE on the curriculum (just as non-faith school do now),

I think they also wanted funding for ''Bible-Reading schools'' though according to you

but that RE was to be non-denominational and not about bring up children within a particular religion. And the 1870 Act enshrined the principle still in place today that parents can remove their children from any RE or religious observance.

Fine but it still isn't the HumanistUK NSS faithschools campaign chiefly because they wanted funding for bible reading schools.

The schools established in 1870 are very similar in foundation and operation to the non-faith primary schools we still have today, which of course are the majority of primary schools in England & Wales. The 1870 Act and its establishment of secular state funded primary schools is the backbone of the system we still see today.

I don't think anybody is arguing against that pattern of education. It seems that Hard secularism though now opposes school foundation and thus finds itself in a universe where some of the thinking behind the faith schools campaign does not stack up.

In fact had the established churches got their own way we'd have no system recognisible as the one we have today, as they explicitly opposed:

Given the differences between their campaign and yours where do you now put yours? Hard secularist or soft secularist and would you say that I, who approve of these 1870 campaigners and their aims, was secularist or nonsecularist? and finally......am I a secular Humanist?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think they also wanted funding for ''Bible-Reading schools'' though according to you.

No - it was the church establishment and the National Educational Union that used that term, in dismissive language, not those from the National Education League who wanted non denominational secular schools to be established.

The 'secularists' clearly expected RE to be taught in the new secular schools - why wouldn't they noting that this is 1870. And I'm not aware that this has changed 150 years later. I don't believe that the NSS thinks that there should be no mention of religion in schools - nope they support religious education, but on the basis that it is 'education' not instruction and delivered in a neutral and proportionate manner.

Interesting historical point - the NSS was established in 1866, so just 4 years before this landmark act. I'm not up in the history of the NSS enough to know to what extent they were involved in the push for secular education that was established in the 1870 act, but I'd not be surprised if they were.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - it was the church establishment and the National Educational Union that used that term,

OK...But there must have been a class of school that wasn't a catechical establishment nor a secular school and that people were suggesting should, if not actually, be funded.

not those from the National Education League who wanted non denominational secular schools to be established.

But here's where you are in error linking all non catechical schools with modern state schools where RE is taught. Where was the evidence that founders of secular schools wanted these ''bible-reading'' schools abolished...or even church schools abolished?

The 'secularists' clearly expected RE to be taught in the new secular schools - why wouldn't they noting that this is 1870. And I'm not aware that this has changed 150 years later. I don't believe that the NSS thinks that there should be no mention of religion in schools - nope they support religious education,

But we are still miles away from the faith schools campaign of the NSS and Humanist UK

but on the basis that it is 'education' not instruction and delivered in a neutral and proportionate manner.

Is that in the 1870 act in the words and format you describe it? Surely the secularist and humanist organisation want religion taught as geography and history. Neutrality can never be the case since Faith schools campaign is a manifesto for all state schools to be uniquely secular humanist

Interesting historical point - the NSS was established in 1866, so just 4 years before this landmark act. I'm not up in the history of the NSS enough to know to what extent they were involved in the push for secular education that was established in the 1870 act, but I'd not be surprised if they were.

They may have been. But would it have amounted to Hard secularism of the faith schools campaign? It looks like it, because of a class of not quite secular, not quite church school ''Bible reading'' schools existed and Secularists have become more extreme and less tolerant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'secularists' clearly expected RE to be taught in the new secular schools - why wouldn't they noting that this is 1870. And I'm not aware that this has changed 150 years later. I don't believe that the NSS thinks that there should be no mention of religion in schools - nope they support religious education, but on the basis that it is 'education' not instruction and delivered in a neutral and proportionate manner.

Proportionate to who?, I understand that the NSS consider the amount of religious broadcasting to be disproportionately high, when it is in fact miniscule. It is that kind of exaggeration and hyperbole that gives it the impression of being a bit off the wall. IMHO.

[Outrider]

I understand that the NSS consider the amount of religious broadcasting to be disproportionately high, when it is in fact miniscule.

1 - why is your subjective opinion 'in fact', whilst the NSS's subjective opinion is a 'consideration'?
2 - it could be both be objectively miniscule and still disproportionate.

BBC religious output is required to produce 115 hours of tv and 370 hours of radio dedicated to religious content each year - approximately 10 hours a week of TV? Seems disproportionate to me, especially when you look into the content and see how Christian-centred that output skews, too.

O.