Faith Schools

[Maria Mac]

Latest post of the previous page:

Sorry if you feel I am being provocative. Yes provocation is part of an argument especially if you get the same arguments coming back.

Dermo, I have read your posts with interest and, unfortunately, you have started off rather badly by burying what may be a perfectly reasonable point under a huge fallacy. That is what is provocative about your posts here; fallacies should not be part of any argument, because they waste time.

I hope it’s fair to sum up your reasonable point thus:

“If humanists care about social and economic equality they should be opposed to all selective schools not just religious ones.”

This could be seen as provocative, though I dare say large numbers of self-identified humanists would agree with it. In any event, if you had posted that argument in your OP in place of what you did say, it’s possible that an interesting, useful and productive discussion could have ensued. Forgive me, but the content and style of your posts so far raise a suspicion that inspiring productive discussion is not your intention, though I concede it may just be that you haven’t yet learned how to argue rationally. In that case I hope your time spent on this forum will help you to improve.

Here in a nutshell is the fallacious argument you have presented:

P1. The BHA has a policy of opposing religious schools.
P2.The BHA has no policy on fee paying or schools that select on academic ability.
P3. Some of the BHA’s high profile supporters went to fee paying or grammar schools.
P4. These individuals are the ‘humanist priesthood’ aka the ‘humanist heirarchy’
C. Therefore the humanist position is that dividing children on the basis of class is OK.

There are several things wrong with the above argument and I invite you to look at it again and see if you can work out the flaws for yourself. If not, I'll be happy to help you when I've got a moment. As animist says, we’re not as stupid as you think but, to give you the benefit of the doubt, it may be that you are simply labouring under a misapprehension about what humanism actually is, in which case, this basic explanation will help you. You might also want to check the meaning of certain words such as ‘priesthood’ and ‘hierarchy’ because misusing them makes you appear rather ignorant.

[Maria Mac]

By the way, for the benefit of those who don’t know about the English education system, Dermo’s presentation of grammar schools is slightly mendacious.

The vast majority of children born in England and Wales during the post-war baby boom attended either a ‘grammar’ school or a ‘secondary modern’ school because there was no other choice (unless they were of the small minority whose parents could afford to pay private school fees). We sat an exam at age 11; those who passed went to one sort, those who failed went to the other. Our parents couldn’t have sent us to comprehensive schools even if they’d wanted to – and many did – because there weren’t any around. I reckon about 30 per cent of the kids at my (very traditional and academic) grammar school in the 60s/70s were working class, most of the rest were lower middle class by which I mean they couldn't afford private schools or even foreign holidays at the time.

I don’t know how many grammar schools there are left – but I understand that there are very few. There are certainly none where I live.

My point being that to assume a middle aged person comes from a background of wealth and privilege because they went to a grammar school is pretty silly.

[Nick]

First of all, Dermo, welcome to TH.

I am a bit confused by the Humanists position towards education in general. They oppose faith schools on the basis of amongst other things that "it also leads to segregation along religious and socio-economic lines". Looking at the Humanist Hierarchy the vast majority either went to Grammar or Public schools (and probably send their kids to the same) and there is no opposition to public and fee paying schools. So what gives?

Dividing children on the basis of class is ok, dividing children on the basis of religion is not ok.

Let's have a look at your analysis. In any policy there are going to be trade-offs between different objectives. There will also be differences between people who identify as humanists. The BHA is a representative organisation for humanists, but will represent any one humanist to varying degrees.

First of all, in my book, I do not think that taxation should be used to promote falsehood. That is reason enough for BHA policy all on its own. Secondly, faith schools lead to divisions within society. However, I also think that parents should not, in general, be prevented from raising their children as they see fit. Some parents should be given a very strong nudge, of course, but the sort of thing you seem to be advocating is to prevent parents from doing what they see as being best for their own children. I do not think that we should ever do that in a free society.

I think the segregation on religious grounds is straight-forward, and I don't think we disagree on that point. The BHA also point out, with some justification, that "faith schools" have tended to be favoured by those parents with the sharpest elbows, those who place most store by the education of their kids, those who understand more fully the benefits of deferred gratification. While this may be true, I think it highly likely that if faith schools were banned, the very same parents would be seeking other ways to identify the "best" schools, as they see them, and maintain the self-fulfilling prophecy of "middle class" parents getting the most from the state education. I, for one, think the BHA policy, based on "community schools" is somewhat misjudged because of this.

It is wrong of you, IMO, to accuse anyone of bias, just because of their education. They cannot do anything about their past, which was largely in their parents hands, not theirs, and I think it is unfair of you to criticise them on that basis. I also think you are mistaken that the same people are, in general, seking to preserve inequality. In many ways, I would accuse them of being too idealistic and ignoring the facts they should see before them.

There are many humanists who would indeed like to ban private education, and are represented here on this forum, but humanism is not exclusively right or left wing, hard or soft, as people see different solutions to the problems they see before them in the world. It is not for the BHA to provide a single point of view on education, but to repesent as large a proportion of humanists as possible. For any humanist with a particular view of education, the right path for them to follow in pursuit of such a view is through political representation, which is quite separate from the objectives of the BHA, but compatable with them.

For what it's worth, I think the best way of helping the disadvantaged is by nudging the "lower class" parents to be better parents, and to encourage them to abandon certain "class" issues which directly hinder their kids.