Is 'separated' education defensible?

Obviously, I would criticise the programme for the absence of a secular viewpoint. There were several references to the need for Ulster's schools to maintain a 'Christian ethos', despite the fact that nearly 20% of the population have either no religion or subscribe to a non-Christian religion.

There was very little reference to the children themselves and what they wanted. We heard about the great 'diversity' of our system, a diversity which clearly doesn't apply to them. How can they experience it in segregated schools? It's a nonsense. What 94% of them experience in their school lives is a stultifying religious uniformity. The fact that many of the speakers didn't see this obvious point proves that we live in Humpty Dumpty land.

We also heard about parental rights, which in practice often means the right of churches to impose their segregated system on parents and the right of parents impose this surrender to church pressure onto their children. Don't children have any rights in these matters here?

When left to themselves, most parents speak of the importance of integrated education to a shared future.

Some years ago I did a short history course on the troubles at the QUB's life long learning centre, run by a local historian.

At the end of the course there was a substantial discussion/debate. I made the point that the segregated education played a major part in the years of unrest from 1969. At the very least they added fuel to the fire.

Interestinly, quite a number of the class were Catholic. When I made this point (which I still believe is correct) all of them profoundly disaggreed with me. They were adamant (indeeed, passionate) that the segregated education system here played little or no part in what has happened here over the last 30 years.

I was quite shocked at this. I got the impression none were interested in an integrated education system here, and that they vehemently wanted to maintain the status quo.

Given this experience, I would surmise a vast majority of Catholic parents are not in the slightest bit interested in change.

@brianmcclinton (1)

'There was very little reference to the children themselves and what they wanted.'

Chocolate I would imagine, and probably also chips. Maybe even chocolate chips.

More seriously though, what kind of input do you envisage children having? It's an issue we encounter in church as well and I'm not convinced how much children, particularly young children, have to offer in terms of making meaningful decisions about things like curriculum. What sort of questions would you ask children about the education system and what would be the criteria for the desires of the children to override the desires of the parents?

It was a good programme which showed the strength and determination of religionists to keep control of state education. William did put it to one religionist that the point of school was to educate and not to teach religion. Not surprisingly the reply was:

"Faith and spiritual development are part of education. You cannot separate the two."

This is the usual nonsense clerics spout forth in their endeavours to obtain or hold on to power and taxpayers' money: whatever activity there is in society faith makes it better!

A good state education system free of "Christian ethos" would include lessons on various religions and belief systems, but schools should not exist to benefit churches at the expense of social cohesion. Segregated schooling, as was pointed out, creates in-group bias, reinforces negative stereotypes of the "other" and contributes to children having fewer friends of a different religion.

If parents want their children to receive a religious education then they should pay for it themselves. Alternatively, they could send their children to church-run activities on Saturdays and Sundays or during the holidays.

Working from the beginning I'm pretty much opposed to state education. I don't think it's the state's job. Given that, segregation is a non-issue.

There is also something quite sinister about it; I'm quite taken by localist ideas and I tend to believe that the provision of education is the responsibility of parents. Choices made by different people in different places would, I think, result in a natural diversity in education - this might mean quality but I'm referring more to things like the role of religion, cultural values and so on.

As I understand it, part of the argument against the present 'segregated' system is that Protestant and Roman Catholic children, sorry professor Dawkins, do not mix, a result of which is the perpetuation of sectarianism.

Now, if we wish to argue that education should function as a pluralist, secularist nursery, a microcosm of society at large, then I think it must also be argued that education is the responsibility of the state and not parents. I say this for two reasons;

1) Education that is decided (not provided) by parents, in a place, will result in diverse kinds of schools overall, with different ethos’s that are simply not compatible with pluralism and secularism. A state, however, abstracting ever higher to the universal man, must choose education that is secular and pluralist.

2) Only the state can provide education that is systemically viable toward this end.

This relocation of responsibility from parents to the state rings too close to tyranny for my liking.

Jonathan Boyd (3):

‘Chocolate and chips’ is a supercilious tone in reference to children’s wishes here. The term ‘Children’ covers a wide age range. For those at school it refers to 5-18 year-olds. They have views on most things, and some of it is highly perceptive. There is no need to insult their intelligence.

Reference was made in the programme to surveys which indicated that children said they wanted to mix together but weren’t in most cases given the opportunity. In my own experience, first as a pupil, I never met a Catholic of my own age until I left school and went to university. Certainly, in retrospect, I feel that I was wrongly segregated in this way. There was no one of my own age to challenge my prejudices.

Secondly, as a teacher, many pupils expressed similar sentiments when the subject came up. ‘Why weren’t they all together’ was a frequent cry, though the percentage of Catholics in the school I taught increased during my time there. In the early days, they tended to keep quiet because they were in a big minority and the majority of their peers were conservative/unionist.

Reference was made in the programme to the fact that integrated schools blunted the edges of the unionism/nationalism, Catholic-Protestant divide. In other words, they work.

I think in these times when we are looking at ways of keeping costs down and having value for money we should look at the possibility of having of fully intrgrated education. It won't happen but because Sinn Fein are pushing for more Irish Language Schools and the Roman Catholic Church won't gave up their maintained schools. There is a Prep school in East Belfast closing because of lack of funding. I don't like to say this but my perception of education in this country now is that if you are not an Irish speaking Roman Catholic then there will be less funds available for your school if the Sin Fein minisiter of education has her way.

Although no children were amongst the programme's guests, a school chaplain claimed a pupil questioned the competence of Peter Robinson to take decisions on educational matters:

"When did Peter Robinson become an expert on education?"

Perhaps if the chaplain's school lacked a Christian ethos the pupil might have asked a better question and the person answering the question might have explained the role of the First Minister in protecting taxpayers' money? I do suspect, however, that many pupils when they see a school chaplain pass them in the corridor question the need for his religious role in the school.

@brianmcclinton (6)

You're far too serious Brian. Is there no room for humour in discussion?

My reason for hesitancy on this subject is that although our own experience may have been a desire to meet different people, we can't project our own childhood desires as a universal experience for children, or even assume that it is a majority desire. It may be that in some schools, a majority of children have zero desire to spend time with people from different cultures - they may even react strongly against the notion.

It's not a neat and tidy situation, which is why I asked how you would go about taking the views of children into consideration. What if children say they don't want to mix with other kids - what do you do then? What criteria do you use to decide when to take the views of children into account. If it boils down to listening to them when they agree with you, then it's not really listening to them.

I think this question is approached too often from the angle of what harm does segregated education do? Those with a vested interest will obviously shout none but we should ask those people who support it what good does it do? If your religious views can be protected and nurtured in an integrated system then why do you need to seperate our children from each other.

Maybe the Bill Gates Foundation could foster integration here & sponsor a set of non denominational schools. I really don't think the political class here are able to operate over and above their tribal/religious lines

Jonathan Boyd:

There are lots of things that amuse me, but I don't think that putting children down is particularly funny. That is not to say that there aren't immature children, and your comment is just the kind of excuse that one of them would give for making a facetious remark in class.

Younger children might not have a view on this matter one way or the other, but I can assure you that I have heard many, many children over the years support integrated schools and NOT ONE say that they favoured segregated schools. Certainly, I have no recollection of any child ever saying they preferred chocolate or chips to integration.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of 16-18 year-olds are way ahead of many adults on this question. Perhaps they are ahead of you, but then you haven't given your own opinion, have you?

I believe that there should be a frank and honest debate about the future of education but unfortunately there won't be because the political parties want the education system too go in different directions. Sin Fein and the SDLP for example wants to do away with accademic selection while the Unionist parties want to maintain the Grammar Schools and have some form of testing. Sin Fein want to see an end to prep schools and would want ALL our children to learn Irish. While we have a Sin Fein educatuion minister I believe that there can't be a serious debate and our education system will continue to suffer. Sin Fein talk about parental choice, but it seems their motto is you can parental choice as long there is no prep schools, no grammar schools and no accademic selection. Even this great scheme Sin Fein want to bring called "Education and Skills authority" is flawed because it only deals with Roman Catholic clergy on boards.I am not a member of the DUP or any Unionist party, but I'm a Unionist voter, Protestant and British. I beileve that what Sinn Fein is trying to do is to take away all Britishness from our school system. See much for diversity and mutual respect of cultures.

I seem to recollect a recent BBC news report which interviewed two groups of sixth formers, one Protestant, one Roman Catholic. The Protestants favoured integration, the Catholics were unanimously in favour of maintaining their own schools. I can to some extent understand this; having visited a couple of Catholic schools I was struck by how pervasive the ethos was and how strong the sense of being part of a cohesive community. In my very limited experience, however, I felt no overt sectarianism or hostility to innovative ideas from either staff or pupils.

In spite of that positive experience there can be no excuse in the Northern Ireland context, for perpetuating segregation. We need, not a cohesive Roman Catholic community, but a cohesive Northern Ireland community. Educating our children together is a crucial step in the integration of the two main traditions on this island. It is sinful to frustrate or delay that goal. We should, of-course, equally swiftly move to end the evil of academic selection.

I haven't listened to all of this yet, but a couple of things strike me as hilarious: firstly, many from the Catholic sector are vociferous (hysterical, indeed) in lambasting Peter Robinson for calling for an open debate on this issue, and then in the very next breath saying how much they welcome debate and how open they are to suggestions for the way forward. It's pretty clear what is going on there. It was also interesting to hear how *nervous* many of these people were; Donal McKeown was much more tremulous on-air than he has ever sounded before, and Aidan Whatsisname sounded like he was about to break down. I suspect the Catholic Maintained sector know that the game is up and that their position really is not defensible.

And then the "transferrers" - what a load of throwbacks! Yes, it is time to sever this unwarranted influence of the churches in the running of schools. Brian commented on the "Christian ethos" as some of those commenters tried to spin it, yet when they are asked to point out exactly what this "Christian ethos" involves, it is a purely secular humanistic ethos! Are they really saying that schools *should* teach secular humanistic values and just perpetuate the myth that they are "Christian"? Goodness me!

I agree with Brian's point - secular people form the second-largest "denomination" in Northern Ireland - there are more people of no religion in Northern Ireland than there are Anglicans, and as Donal McKeown said, going to church is now a minority activity. There should have been a secular viewpoint on the panel. Indeed, when people in NI (and journalists) talk about the "4 main churches" they need to realise that these guys, nice blokes as I'm sure they all are (both nice and blokes) are really only in a position to offer a minority opinion, even collectively.

And I say that as a Christian, albeit one who does not believe in God.

Pharsios, you mention RC children feeling they are part of a cohesive community. I am sure you are right, unfortunately that is only part of the wider community.
Also, overt sectarianism is only an aspect of our social problem. There is a much deeper disguised sectarianism which permeates our community. Take for example what happens when somebody who is a perceived Protestant criticises the RC church record on cild abuse. A perfectly valid point of view but the chances are in NI that person will be viewed as coming from the "other side" by people who are RC and they will be very uncomfortable with that criticism, even if deep down they know it is right.
The long term solution is for people to feel that they are part of the bigger community, not a part of it.

Parrhasios:

I agree with you entirely that there are two major iniquities in NI education: segregation on grounds of religion and segregation on grounds of class. Both are a disgrace to so-called Christians. The two extreme parties are competing to proclaim who is more progressive on education: Sinn Fein by seeking to abolish selection and the DUP by seeking to abolish segregation. Both are right, even for perhaps the wrong reasons, on the change they champion and wrong on the change they oppose.

That is the position we are now in. Each is defending the indefensible status quo on or other of these two issues. On the other hand, Caitriona has been pursuing a just way forward in abolishing selection but has been assailed by Protestants and unionists; now Robinson is pursuing an equally just way forward and is being assailed by Catholics and nationalists.

Probably only in this Humpty Dumpty land would this happen.

No voices being raised in support of the Catholic schools and benign apartheid? Strange. What has happened to the Pope's fan-base? Could it be that the integrationists have finally persuaded them of the vileness of segregation? Could a blaze of human solidarity have been kindled in their hearts, so that they now accept that religiously divided schools foster sectarianism and that a unified neutral system offers us the prospect of better relations between all the various social identities that we have?

Na.... I don't believe it either. Tribal attitudes like that do not dissolve overnight.

Anyway, the moral and educational arguments against segregation have been around for years and the supporters of apartheid have never been swayed one centimetre by any of them. Maybe it will take the big stick of economic crisis to knock some sense into them.

Phil Lucifer:

Don't be such a cynical devil – a fiendish philosopher decrying the uses of reason and proclaiming the hegemony of mammon. Or are you just being a Devil’s advocate?

If you haven't abandoned a faith in ideas altogether, you could read Chris Moffat's article in Friday’s Tele. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child gives children the same moral status as adults when it comes to freedom of 'thought, conscience and religion' and states that a child is 'capable of forming his or her own view'.

We may debate at what age a child is entitled to enjoy these rights, but we cannot deny that a system which imposes essentially one sect of religious belief on 94% of them right through to the age of 18 is a fundamental breach of these freedoms.

What happens here is that a parental right is made to trump that of the child and is then presumed to favour segregation, even though many opinion polls suggest otherwise. The churches, particularly the Catholic Church, then use this presumed parental choice as a justification for maintaining their own segregated schools.

Now all this may be obvious to you and me already, but you may be surprised how many people aren’t really aware of how iniquitous the system is in Northern Ireland, or haven’t given it much thought.

It is now being debated more openly than ever before. This must be a good thing and surely a source of hope. Perhaps reason AND economics will get us there.

A same-sex school is a school that promotes the education of one sex. This has been the traditional situation of the independent school in the UK, especially public schools and elementary schools, but many of them have become mixed. In the state sector of the UK education system, schools of one sex only are the school principal and Winterbourne Junior Girls' School Winterbourne Junior Boys (both in the London Borough of Croydon). The number of public schools of [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] the same sex has dropped from about 2,500 to just over 400 in 40 years. According to Alan Smithers, Professor of Education at the University of Buckingham, there was no evidence that single-sex schools were consistently higher. However, a 2009 analysis of Key Stage 2 and GCSE results of over 700,000 girls, has revealed that women of all comprehensive make better progress to attend mixed secondary

NO!

The end is surely nigh for the promotion of religious belief against common sense, reason and of course science.

Why give any more bandwidth to those who speak through a magical mindset?

'NO!

The end is surely nigh for the promotion of religious belief against common sense, reason and of course science.

Why give any more bandwidth to those who speak through a magical mindset?'

Yes, all those with a religious belief against commonsense, reason and science should be refused bandwidth to speak about their religious belief against commonsense, reason and science on the grounds that bandwidth was created by people who believed in commonsense, reason and science. This is the new orthodoxy, wonderful!

If this leads to the closure of Hogwarts, you will have outdone the Dark Lord himself.

As much as it pains me sometimes, we cannot stop people saying what they think and what they believe, even if I find it offensive and/or wrong.

However, to propagate it as truth, or to claim it's a sacrosanct viewpoint that should be protected due to some strange invisible overlord saying it's more special than other viewpoints given by invisible overlords, is not okay.

Separated education promotes and propagates sectarianism, and will always lead to an 'us and them' mentality that humanity is so prone to lapse into at the best of times.

You would never get away with a school that segregates pupils on the basis of their parents political views (although the system in NI is virtually synonomous to that) or on skin colour or parentage. so why is religion deemed so much more acceptable?

Is it that the propagators of such supernatural bunkum are afraid that their beliefs are not strong enough to survive a secular education and it must be force fed down the throats of children before they're too young to know any different and the evil atheists get their claws into them?

'Separated education promotes and propagates sectarianism, and will always lead to an 'us and them' mentality that humanity is so prone to lapse into at the best of times.

It won't actually, but assuming you're correct what's wrong with an 'us and them mentality', bearing in mind, of course, in your final paragraph you split the world into the 'supernatural bumpkin' crowd and the 'evil atheist' crowd?

'You would never get away with a school that segregates pupils on the basis of their parents political views (although the system in NI is virtually synonymous to that) or on skin colour or parentage. so why is religion deemed so much more acceptable?'

Get away with? It's no one else's business what parents teach their children, certainly not yours.

'Is it that the propagators of such supernatural bunkum are afraid that their beliefs are not strong enough to survive a secular education and it must be force fed down the throats of children before they're too young to know any different and the evil atheists get their claws into them?'

If your posts are a measure of the relative strength of atheist belief compared to orthodox Christianity then the orthodox should have nothing to fear.

I didn't know atheists have claws. As far as I know there is no oral medication that can prevent a mauling. If you have had an experience where your claws couldn't perforate the skin it's probably because they're not sharp enough. I can sympathise though, this one time I was mugged by a small child and I couldn't live with the embarrassment so I told everyone a gang of marauders from the hills did it. Still, 'theists invent a pill that makes the skin impregnable' is a bit sensationalist, even for you; we're not that scientific.

"Get away with? It's no one else's business what parents teach their children, certainly not yours. "

I think you'll find it's everyone's business. Do you honestly think it's acceptable to raise a child to believe that all black people are stupid and lazy? Or that all Jews are money-grabbing child-eaters? Or that the world is flat and is carried on the back of a turtle?

The myth that somehow no one can tell a parent how to raise their child is just that. If people were allowed to restrict their child's learning to only the things that the parent found acceptable, then it would be tantamount to child abuse in some cases.

Do you, Andrew, think that if someone set up a school whose admission policy included 'no blacks', that would be acceptable? Or perhaps denied entry to those pupils who were not 'native born'?

And if that's not acceptable, then why is religion?

Andrew:

You say that "it is no one else's business what parents teach their children". You mean, then, that it's all right to teach children to commit suicide, as some religious sects have done? Hundreds of children have died in suicide pacts - Heaven's Gate, Solar Temple, People's Temple, Aum Sect etc?

Children are not the property of their parents to do with them as they will. They have rights too.

Let's be more local. The language used in segregated schools here differs. Take history. On the one hand, 1916 is justified; on the other, 'Ulster Resistance' to Home Rule is proudly taught. Or move it nearer to now. Both teachers and pupils may say that loyalists (IRA) had 'death squads' while the IRA (loyalists) had 'active service units, and our side 'executed' whereas the other side 'murdered'. And so on.

These differences, often subtle, filter down into the psyche of kids and generate prejudices and hatreds. In a deeply divided society such as ours, segregated education is criminal abuse of children. Period.

'I think you'll find it's everyone's business.'

Where will I find this?

'The myth that somehow no one can tell a parent how to raise their child is just that. If people were allowed to restrict their child's learning to only the things that the parent found acceptable, then it would be tantamount to child abuse in some cases.'

You have repeated the same point as before - 'Parents shouldn't be able to decide how their children are educated'. To be fair you have added, it's because 'in some cases' it would be child abuse. Assuming this is correct, can you explain how child abuse in some cases removes responsibility from all parents to decide their children's education? Of course, you may not think it is parents responsibility, but then the child abuse argument is irrelevant, no?

'Do you, Andrew, think that if someone set up a school whose admission policy included 'no blacks', that would be acceptable? Or perhaps denied entry to those pupils who were not 'native born'?

And if that's not acceptable, then why is religion?'

Are you asking me do I agree with racist beliefs? Besides which, you keep asking is it acceptable, acceptable to whom?

No, I wouldn't send my children to a school with a racial admissions policy but I would send my children to a Christian school. So in one sense the answer, the reason religion is acceptable is because I am a Christian and the reason racism is not, is because I'm not a racist.

However, I don't accept the comparison. For one, racism is illegal and Christianity is not. So in that sense you're inviting a false dichotomy to try and make your own position seem to be the only reasonable alternative. Which it isn't.

For an atheist and materialist your moral certainty is a little off putting; didn't you say elsewhere that humans make up the difference between right and wrong? Now you're over here making a moral argument for universal secular education. Go figure!

Post 25 Quote "what's wrong with an 'us and them mentality'"

What are your proposals. Are you saying keep the status quo. If you are, then you really are enforcing the "us and them mentality"
If you can't see Religion and Education as being separate and that it's solely your job to take care of your childs religious indoctrination, not the states, then you owe a massive apology to society as a whole in Northern Ireland for your segregational, selfish beliefs.
If you can't see how a non-denominational school sysytem would blunt off the extremes on either side of society in N.I and work towards a more mutually understanding ,peaceful place for you, your children and their children to live and work, then you are as responsible for perpetuating the mentality that's led to 40yrs of pain, bloodshed and death as any weak minded individual seduced by violence
We all have a part to play in reducing the extremes here, to blunt the *us and them metality* and to stop the hemorrhaging of the reasonable and educated to healthier environments

Andrew,

So, in effect, you're saying it's acceptable to disciminate on some grounds, but not others? Who decides which grounds are acceptable and which are not? Why is religion a valid grounds for exclusion for entry into a school, but skin colour isn't?

Any segregation is going to exclude children based on arbitary values assigned by adults that normally have nothing to do with education.

"how child abuse in some cases removes responsibility from all parents to decide their children's education?"

Why do you think parents are the best to decide what's best for their child?

You're creating strawmen to avoid the bigger question of why you think it's acceptable to tell a child "Sorry kid, you can't go to the better school and give yourself a better start in life because your parents believe in a different version of god than they do."

Racism isn't illegal - discrimination is. This is just state-sanctioned discrimination allowed because religious zealots think their fragile faith is more important than tolerance.

Hi Brian

'You say that "it is no one else's business what parents teach their children". You mean, then, that it's all right to teach children to commit suicide, as some religious sects have done? Hundreds of children have died in suicide pacts - Heaven's Gate, Solar Temple, People's Temple, Aum Sect etc?

Children are not the property of their parents to do with them as they will. They have rights too.'

No I don't think it is 'alright' to teach children to commit suicide. This is an issue for the law. I would need to think it through, though. There are two issues, the teaching of and acting on. I can hazard a guess about the latter; parents/teachers of such children should be tried under murder laws and punished if found guilty.

Maybe I have been unclear in places; not least the sentence you quoted. By all means the life and rights of the child should be protected by the state. This is a separate matter from the responsibility for, and provision of, education, which is what I am addressing.

Natman

You really should learn to read.

Where did I say anything about discriminating on religious grounds? Sending your child to a Christian school doesn't mean they have to be a Christian.

'Any segregation is going to exclude children based on arbitrary values assigned by adults that normally have nothing to do with education.'

Yes, you're a statist absolutist, I get that. If you could you take the children of the theistic parents and have them placed under care, you probably would. Indeed, why not?

Nextly, worldviews have quite a bit to do with education. Also, state education is not valueless.

Why do you think parents are the best to decide what's best for their child?

For the most part they both know and love their children.

'You're creating strawmen'

Is it a strawman, explain?

'...to avoid the bigger question of why you think it's acceptable to tell a child "Sorry kid, you can't go to the better school and give yourself a better start in life because your parents believe in a different version of god than they do."

Since I never said that, this is an example of a real strawman.

'This is just state-sanctioned discrimination allowed because religious zealots think their fragile faith is more important than tolerance.'

Actually, I'm advocating a system of education where you can raise little atheists to your hearts desire. On the other hand, you want to outlaw Christian schools. Now that's tolerance!

Andrew,

The header article and the comments posted so far refer to separated education - schools in which you cannot send your child to if you're of the wrong denomination or faith. Do try to keep up.

If this isn't what you were referring to, then I have no issue with your comments. However, I was under the impression that you were advocating a christian school in the sense that the parents must be Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox FSM/insert random religion of choice here.

"For the most part they both know and love their children. "

So? Most child abuse is demonstrated by adults who claim to both know and love their children, adoration is not a good indicator of the worthiness of someone to care for something. In fact, I would say because parents love their childen that they can often be blind to what is best for their child, focusing instead on what they (or their child) wants, as opposed to needs.

I could happily claim to 'know and love' Guinness (or a generic BBC safe brand of Dublin brewed stout), but placing me in charge of the brewery would probably be a very bad idea indeed.

Andrew,

The header article and the comments posted so far refer to separated education - schools in which you cannot send your child to if you're of the wrong denomination or faith. Do try to keep up.

See post 5. Do try to keep up.

Andrew,

My apologies then.

But I still don't think parents are right to decide what's best for their children (and I say that as a parent).

Andrew,how would your vision blunt the extremes of a sectarian *us and them mentality*

Each of us has a responsability to the society in which we live and that means finding common ground where it exists.
As long as you carry on supporting successive generations being brought up along religious and tribal lines, you are contributing to the problems in this sectarian and radicalised society- just as in any other of the globe where sectarianism is rife.

It's pretty clear, those who are struggling financially and socially here- who are embittered and don't benefit from the current segregation of our society are being handed an idealogical basis to vent their frustrations by your continued belief in separation along religious and tribal lines. As such, you will have to resign yourself to the current impasse and expect to live in a society where you and your childrens lives will be punctuated and perhaps directly touched by on going sectarian violence. It's a high and selfish price to pay for exhalting your tribal and religious beliefs above the common good

Natman - In the example of religious belief is it really doing the right thing to infect developing minds with ideologies are are to date proven to be nothing more than ridiculous magical superstitions?

KKK parents can dress their kiddies in matching outfits and ideologies, is that a good thing too?

"Winnipeg children seized from neo-Nazi father"
https://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/439720

Did Manitoba Social Services do the right thing in taking kids from parents with Nazi values? If as you and others suggest that parents must be free to infiltrate minds with any old absurd beliefs can society discriminate?

Andrew:

You say that "by all means the life and rights of the child should be protected by the state. This is a separate matter from the responsibility for, and provision of, education, which is what I am addressing".

But it isn't. You originally stated that "it is no one else's business what parents teach their children". And in effect you are admitting that your statement was wrong. Biological parentage does not justify thought control.

If children have a right to freedom of religion and belief as stated in the UN Convention, then we have all a duty to ensure that this right is upheld. This is difficult because "a man's home is his castle', and we do not know what nonsense some parents might be instilling into their children in the privacy of their home. The state therefore assumes the role of ensuring through education that freedom of belief is ensured for the child as much as possible.

This implies that the child should be taught in a neutral environment and given the opportunity to learn about all the major lifestances and philosophies and that he/she may be open to learn from other children of different backgrounds and philosophies.

In the end, the child has to develop to a position where he/she can think for himself/herself and freely choose.

It is a crime against children for an educational system simply to replicate and perpetuate the divisions of the parents and the wider society, which is exactly what happens in NI.

Hi Ryan

Andrew,how would your vision blunt the extremes of a sectarian *us and them mentality*

I do not think schools should serve this purpose. I appreciate why people advocate this view, it may work but I disagree with it for reasons already given.

One point to clarify; I'm not advocating a division of schools in specific ways, Protestant or Roman Catholic etc. The kinds of schools that exist would depend on the communities that establish them. I'm not being prescriptive. I do not want to get into the issue of funding here but I would basically like to see an end of the state monopoly in education.

Ho ho ho, have I got a set of views for this debate or what?

First of all, as a taxpayer I reserve the right to stick my nose in wherever my money is being spent. If you want me to 'mind myself own business,' I'm afraid you'll have to stop supporting the use of public funds before I'll be persuaded to remove my proboscis.

I'm totally opposed to giving public funding to schools which promote any particular religious code. To me, this is an issue of the separation of church and state. If the state is truly committed to religious freedom, it must never be seen to favour the activities of one church over another. The Catholic Church in NI is having its mission to indoctrinate children into adult Catholics funded by the taxpayer, and THAT is the real crime here.

As for academic selection, I'm bang in favour of it. Like it or not, society is stratified with regard to academic aspiration, a fact that comprehensive education does not change in the slightest. To the charge of elitism, I respond in the absolute affirmative! I favour maximising academic opportunity for those inclined in that direction, and concentrating academic resources on those who show commitment to such scholarly endeavour. Academic competition is extremely good for society, because it encourages everyone to maximise their potential and leads to a stronger intelligensia. These are the people who will drive progress and development; the faster they accomplish this, the better for everyone. With this in mind, it seems so obviously beneficial to foster competitive academic elitism and, conversely, so short-sighted to stunt that competition in order to pander to the vague Trotskyite notion that the only way to ensure the equality that all deserve is to enforce homogenous educational experience.

I believe in a meritocracy, and in equality of opportunity. I just don't see how this wasn't being provided under the 11+.

Society is not able to support itself with academia alone. We need soldiers, farmers, truckers, retailers, and street sweepers. As long as this holds true, provision of education will, by necessity, be stratified to reflect society's needs and to avoid wasting resources. By making access to more advanced education a privilege earned through competition, you ensure a healthy respect for intellectual rigour.

Under the comprehensive system, there are no incentives until one's GCSEs...

Did nobody ever see the connection between NI's pre-eminent position in educational attainment relative to the rest of the UK and the widespread practice of academic selection?

I personally have no problem with a school being religious in ethos, as long as it doesn't seek state funding as part of its revenue stream. I think choice is a different word than entitlement; as such I believe making a choice like this should have the requirement to put one's money where one's mouth is as part of the package. Yes, you're free to choose, but that choice carries with it the costs involved.

Brian

'But it isn't. You originally stated that "it is no one else's business what parents teach their children". And in effect you are admitting that your statement was wrong. Biological parentage does not justify thought control.

You're being selective. Yes, I stated "it is no one else's business what parents teach their children". I did say other things as well and in my previous response to you I admitted that this statement in particular was unclear. Post 5 is a frame of reference for later comments.

'If children have a right to freedom of religion and belief as stated in the UN Convention, then we have all a duty to ensure that this right is upheld.'

Rights and the UN Convention on human rights are not necessarily the same thing.

Given that all teaching implies an ethical 'ought' you must show that secular public education would not infringe this right in the same way you believe parental choice would.

'This is difficult because "a man's home is his castle', and we do not know what nonsense some parents might be instilling into their children in the privacy of their home. The state therefore assumes the role of ensuring through education that freedom of belief is ensured for the child as much as possible.'

You have made the leap from the rights of the child to mandatory public education on the basis that *some* parents *might* instil nonsense into their children. But how can this conclusion be justified?

This is similar to what I asked Natman in #28. How does an abuse in some cases remove responsibility from *ALL* parents? Again, you might not believe that it is the parents responsibility but if you do not believe that, how is the abuse/instil nonsense argument relevant?

In the last sentence you say 'ensuring through education that freedom of belief is ensured for the child as much as possible ' . This is similar to the argument I make in #5, except you believe it is a good thing.

'...freedom of belief is ensured for the child as much as possible'

Yes, all parents are, theoretically or otherwise, enemies of their children's rights; we should look to the state to mollify their iniquitous influence as much as possible.

'This implies that the child should be taught in a neutral environment '

I'll not say neutral but yes, it does imply that children should be taught in secularist schools away from the evils of time, place and history. But I reject your premises.

Andrew, the state does not have a monopoly on education. If you don't like state schools, you're free to choose a public school.

If you choose a state school, you must accept that public money will be subject to the democratic mandate. Part of government's job is to promote social cohesion as part of its commitment to peace and prosperity.

You cannot seriously expect government to provide state funding without proviso, and equally you cannot seriously expect government to leave education provision entirely to the private sector...it seems to me that you have not given the full implications of the policy changes you clamour for enough serious consideration.

Hey Andrew,
To refer to your reply
"I do not think schools should serve this purpose. I appreciate why people advocate this view, it may work but I disagree with it for reasons already given."

I appreciate that you don't agree with it. Many people here feel like that.Instead of each one of us taking reponsability for the problems in this society- it's somehow someones else's problem or fault. Instead of finding the most expeditious route with the healthiest outcome for new generations born onto these lands, we choose the most agonizing ,most protracted path.

Isn't it time to say enough is enough- that no child should be inducted into ethnic, tribal and religious segregation that's stunted and cut down the lives of so many in N.I- with all its toxic overspills, sectarian violence and ramifications for the human spirit.
Here you have two polarised communities,Both with the same genetic background, Both Christian, Both with the same Bible being used to defend their rights against the other. Do you think Jesus would be proud of being used as a figurehead to pit 2 communities against one another.
Here's a link people might find interesting from the BBC newsite
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11741350
We need to wake up a bit. Everybodies caught up in their own private daydream. No wonder politicians find political life here so difficult and ineffectual. They're like Jesters going through an elaborate hoop to woo their religious and ethnic tribe. When they get power and realise they have to work on everyones behalf and take the middle ground they get kicked out because each community selfishly believes they are the only ones that matter. So really the people here deserve no better and no worse than they have and have been given over the last 40 yrs. Each and every individual who supports their own community over and above the good of the broad spectrum that exists contributes to the problems, the death, the pain, the suffering. A nice legacy to leave your offspring, when it's all so avoidable.

Hi seanthenoisemaker

You cannot seriously expect government to provide state funding without proviso, and equally you cannot seriously expect government to leave education provision entirely to the private sector...it seems to me that you have not given the full implications of the policy changes you clamour for enough serious consideration.

I can seriously expect government to leave the provision of education to the private sector, and I do expect it. The issue is obviously much more complex than this, but in general that is my position.

Ryan

I don't have the time at present to go through your latest post, I won't do for at least a few days. At a glance, it has little to do with anything I have said.

Well I don't see any practical benefits to that Andrew. Would you suggest that education should be the preserve of only those that could afford it?

You must surely realise how far from orthodoxy you are on this. As such I implore you to share the details of this insight you possess, that it might be subject to the most rigorous criticism and thus attempt to establish the credibility it currently lacks.

On a practical level, don't you fear that educational provision for the poor would disappear? Can you not see how this might see your country's ability to compete internationally diminish?

Andrew:

You keep saying that the issue is complex, yet you are the most guilty here of making simplistic statements. You have now added to the one about the parents by saying that the state should leave education to the private sector.

Education is a merit good and like all merit goods (health is another example) it would be underprovided if left to the private sector. As Sean says, only the rich could afford it. This is apart from the issue of whether we should trust the private sector, especially after the recent economic disasters. At least, the state is represented by people who have been elected.

Like all merit goods, there should be a mixture of state and private provision. But the rights of the children should be an important part of the mix.

You say that "rights and the UN Convention on Rights are not necessarily the same thing". Hmmm. What's the difference in this case? Are you saying that children do not have a right to 'freedom of religion and belief'?

I fail to see how leaving education to the private sector would produce a different result this time. Don't forget, the state has not always provided education; since it began to do so, progress has been many times more rapid and continues to accelerate as education provision improves.

Hi Brian

A complex issue does not preclude simple statements, especially given the medium of discussion. In general, I support private provision of education. That shouldn't be complicated to grasp, yet you say:

'You keep saying that the issue is complex, yet you are the most guilty here of making simplistic statements. You have now added to the one about the parents by saying that the state should leave education to the private sector.'

But of course, I did not say the state should leave education to the private sector, I said: I can seriously expect government to leave the provision of education to the private sector, and I do expect it.(#45)

Now I wonder, since you seem incapable of understanding these simple distinctions, what point would there be in making the argument complex?

If you are still unclear; the state should not provide education.

Education is a merit good and like all merit goods (health is another example) it would be underprovided if left to the private sector. As Sean says, only the rich could afford it.

I haven't mentioned funding, but since you bring it up.

Whether education is a 'merit good' is highly contestable. For instance, read James Tooley's account of private education in the slums of India. You should also consult Tooley's work with the E.G West Centre at Newcastle University, on how to provide universal non-state education. E.G West himself, should also not be ignored. I don't agree with all they have to say but you cannot make the claims you do without paying attention to their work.

What about Milton Friedman's proposal in 'The Role of Government in Education'? Friedman writes:

Governments could require a minimum level of education which they could finance by giving parents vouchers redeemable for a specified maximum sum per child per year if spent on approved educational services. Parents would then be free to spend this sum and any additional sum on purchasing educational services from an approved institution of their own choice. The educational services could be rendered by private enterprises operated for profit, or by non–profit institutions of various kinds.

This proposal has been adopted in varying degrees now in many countries with great success. Yes, in most cases there is still a state education system but it has been put into competition with private schools resulting in better education. I don't see any reason, in these circumstances, that government should continue in the long term to provide education.

These governments regulate education in the sense, if you want vouchers certain basic criteria must be met. But the criteria, as far as I know, is never onerous and in many cases funding is provided to explicitly religious schools , the qualifier being, for all schools, they cannot discriminate based on religious belief, ethnicity and so on.

This is built on two truly shocking principles; parents know how their children should be educated better than state bureaucrats and the private sector is better at using scarce resources than state central planning. For more on this, try Friedman or better yet, try Mises and Hayek.

'This is apart from the issue of whether we should trust the private sector, especially after the recent economic disasters.

This is biting the hand that feeds you. Incidentally, if you want to know how well the state is at providing food look no further than the Soviet Union; if your eyes aren't strained looking there, have a look at the communist regimes in the far east.

Financial institutions were complicit in the downturn but don't overlook the role of the central banks. Indeed, one of the major reasons for the crash is the central banks under writing the risk of collapse in their capacity as 'lender of last resort'. If you make it so something cannot fail, of course moderation will be taken out the back and shot.

The rights of the children should be an important part of the mix.

I agree, which is why the long term goal should be to remove the state from the provision of education.

'You say that "rights and the UN Convention on Rights are not necessarily the same thing". Hmmm. What's the difference in this case? Are you saying that children do not have a right to 'freedom of religion and belief'?'

No, I'm saying that not everyone believes the UN Convention is a revelation from God.

Freedom of religion and belief in the UN convention is used within a specific framework and context. But don't assume that we would all use 'freedom of religion and belief' in the same sense, or even that we use the words individually in the same sense. There are many competing definitions of freedom, for instance. Liberals, in the classical sense, talk about freedom being 'non-interference' whereas classical Republicans, like the philosopher Philip Pettit, talk about freedom as 'non-domination'. Communitarians will offer a different definition of freedom again, read Philip Blonde's book 'Red Tory', particularly his chapter on the 'illiberal legacy of liberalism' (you can also find a similar lecture on this at youtube).

Hold on, didn't you accuse me of being guilty of making simplistic statements?

As far as your position goes I think you are being inconsistent. You say it is a breach of a child's rights to teach them that God is three and one because they should be able to decide for themselves, they have a 'freedom of religion and belief'. On the other hand you are quite happy that a child is taught that 'water is a liquid.'

So what you're saying is this; you can tell a child they ought to be believe that water is a liquid but you cannot tell a child they ought to believe that God exists. Evidently in some cases you do think it is okay to tell a child what to believe, but why should this be?

OK Andrew, I get you. Under your model, the state still provides for education, at the very least for those that can't afford it.

I would argue that, like the military, the wider society maintains such an important strategic need in this area that it is right to maintain political control over it as a reflection of that wider strategic importance.

Andrew,

Water is a liguid. It can be tested and proven, it's hard fact easily shown in the classroom. It's not a belief.

The existance of god is not as easily proven, and even if it is, which god do you teach as being the true one?

I can not believe in god without much consequence aside from people yammering at me that I'm going to burn in an equally unprovable hell.

If you believe water isn't a liquid, then you'll drown, or die or thirst.

Thank goodness you're not in charge of educational policy.

Natman

Your shooting the same old ducks. I want to say they're dead already but I don't know, you seem so gosh darn happy doing it.

Your ability to continually miss the point is impressive though, I even bolded the key word and you still missed it. Kudos.

You're right though, God is long suffering and water is not.

I think alot of us miss the point. If you lived somewhere sensible with a democracy free from "emotive sloganeering" and tribal/religious considerations, then Andrew your choice to educate your child privately and in a religious setting you feel comfortable with would be a given.
Unfortunately those rules only apply to places where people are settled and peaceful. Usually secular or religiously liberal industrialised regions.
You notice around the world, countries that identify themselves too strongly along tribal and religious divisions don't really function very well or smoothly, or have a very effective form of governance. These are regions where the more extreme the sentiments , the less freedoms individuals have to lead the lives they wish to lead.
As a region then, Northern Ireland and its people fall into this category. The extremes cancel out the ability and the luxury to make individual choices to the extent we would ordinarily wish for ourselves and our children. One way to combat that is by providing a new generation with the necessary tools to dissolve the extremes of these tribal and religious divisions. It's beyond the point of portioning out blame on either side for all the trauma and suffering and lack of trust between the 2 sides of the divide.
If people truely believe in peace, tranquility and christianity a non denominational approach to schooling would be adopted.Maybe combining both State and Private sector investment. Andrew , you say God is long suffering. He certainly must be to watch Christian people here tear each other apart then being painfully unable to make ordinary democratic functions work cohesively like the rest of the developed world.

I agree Ryan. Only the other week, whilst walking along the Lisburn Road, I mentioned to my brother that, as an atheist, I feel disenfranchised in Northern Ireland because no political party makes any attempt to demonstrate that it respects my personal beliefs (or lack of them) enough and represent me at the legislative level regardless of the fact that I don't belong to any of the Christian factions that dominate the voting demographic.

His response was to accuse me of endangering his and my personal safety by publicly proclaiming my atheism, and he stated that if I couldn't commit to keeping my mouth shut about it, he would not be prepared to associate with me in a public place!

That's ridiculous!. If you'd been anywhere sensible- it would be affirming your religious zealotry that would spark the reaction to shut up. Im surprised you didn't pinch yourself to see if you weren't in Kabul :p

Seriously though, what you say about political parties is correct. This place is in such a tangle that you have Sinn Fein- who work towards civil rights and have progressive, enlightened policies aligned in society to something as anachronistic as the Catholic Church, that as the post # 47 says in - Silenced by the Vatican- (in defence of the Catholic Church)-"it isn't a democracy", "it is basically like any private club that you join" For these 2 organisations to be so closely joined with one side of a community is ridiculous. If anything, Sinn Fein are idealogically more like Protestants- the same thinking behind the Levellers or the Diggers and at least in modern terms, more like enlightened liberal Anglicans.If it wasn't so cruelly ironic it would be funny. And you have conservative Catholic posters like Mccamley who ,once you take out the *which parent do you want to live with- the UK or Ireland,(although Ireland is in a foster home with the EU)* his social policy views are more in keeping with conservative right wing evangelists.

I remember going to my grandparents Church in a Gaeltacht, and listening to the parishioners reply back to the Priest during Mass.They sounded like Zombies, monotonous drone, no connection to the words they were uttering as they were so used to repeating them over and over. Instead of finding the experience uplifting, it was saddening.And to think all that the Catholic Church stands for, at odds so deeply with Sinn Fein civil rights policy. If any party should break away from its religious associations within its community to set the example, it should be Sinn Fein, and not just by setting up Irish language Schools that immediately make one half of society here feel frozen out.

Andrew:

Look, man. Saying that the state should leave the provision of education to the private sector is a pretty sweeping statement. You are now backtracking and arguing that the word 'provision' somehow alters the meaning of your statement. Let me tell you that it doesn't. I suggest that you be more precise in what you are saying. What exactly is your conception of the role of the state in education? (Milton Friedman was a right-wing economist whose view on education were way beyond good sense). Should it insist that every child is educated? Should it lay down a common syllabus? Should it protect the child from indoctrination? Or do you just leave all these things to the parents' wishes?

You accuse Andrew of an ability continually to miss the point, but you continually evade the point. Is it right to guarantee a child 'freedom of religion and belief'?

This question is not of the same kind as whether water is a liquid. There is no dispute about it, whereas lifestances and belief systems are in constant dispute and disagreement. Most children in the world, like most adults, don't believe that God is three in one. Most children, like most adults, don't believe that they should go on a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. Most children, like most adults, don't reject the existence of a God. On the other hand, millions of children and adults do believe these things. Don't you think that the child has a right to know about these different beliefs?

Let's come to NI. Nearly half the children and adults believe in transubstantiation; most of the other half don't. The same with 'justification by faith alone'. Nearly half believe in the power of confession; the other half don't. And so on. Don't you think children in NI have a right to discover what the other half believe or don't believe? Or is it right just to keep feeding them one story?

And isn't the best way for them to discover what others believe that they live together, work together, and love together?

I do think we should get back to the subject of thread instead of riding off in different directions on our own hobbyhorses.

Brian

'You are now backtracking and arguing that the word 'provision' somehow alters the meaning of your statement. Let me tell you that it doesn't. '

Oh, why not?

As far as I can see, the' state has nothing to do with education' is a very different statement from the 'state should not provide education'. If you can show how they are the same, by all means show it.

'(Milton Friedman was a right-wing economist whose view on education were way beyond good sense).

Does being 'right-wing' make his views wrong? Why were his views on education beyond good sense? Because they were 'right wing'. What is good sense, anyway?

Your begging the question, and not for the first time.

'What exactly is your conception of the role of the state in education?...Should it insist that every child is educated? Should it lay down a common syllabus? Should it protect the child from indoctrination? Or do you just leave all these things to the parents' wishes?'

No, no, yes (depending on what 'indoctrination' means) and no.

What education/ school a child goes to should be up to parents. If it is financed by the state then I have no objection that conditions be required, provided they are not onerous.

'You accuse Andrew [I presume you mean Natman] of an ability continually to miss the point, but you continually evade the point. Is it right to guarantee a child 'freedom of religion and belief'?'

Do you think repeating 'freedom of religion and belief' makes it any clearer?

I think parents have a right to teach their children religious belief. If that contravenes your usage of 'freedom of religion and belief' I'm not really bothered.

This question is not of the same kind as whether water is a liquid. There is no dispute about it, whereas lifestances and belief systems are in constant dispute and disagreement. 'Most children in the world, like most adults, don't believe that God is three in one. Most children, like most adults, don't believe that they should go on a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. Most children, like most adults, don't reject the existence of a God. On the other hand, millions of children and adults do believe these things. Don't you think that the child has a right to know about these different beliefs?

Truth is not a head count.

You also need to make an argument why children should only be taught what is 'not disputed'.

No, I don't think they have a right to know about these things. Not that I would deny teaching a child about them but there is no necessity here.

'Let's come to NI. Nearly half the children and adults believe in transubstantiation; most of the other half don't. The same with 'justification by faith alone'. Nearly half believe in the power of confession; the other half don't. And so on. Don't you think children in NI have a right to discover what the other half believe or don't believe? Or is it right just to keep feeding them one story?

Assuming it's true that children do have 'a right to discover what the other half believe or don't believe' that doesn't get you to state education. These are big leaps you make without sure footing.

And isn't the best way for them to discover what others believe that they live together, work together, and love together?

If that means state education, no.

I'm all for strong communities though, built on interdependence, liberty, peace and prosperity.

I do think we should get back to the subject of thread instead of riding off in different directions on our own hobbyhorses.

Okay.

Andrew:

No, yes, no, explain nothing, yet you criticise me and others for not fully explaining our statements!! That's priceless.

In response to a child's right to freedom of religion and belief, you answer by reference to the parent's right to teach their children religious belief. More evasion.

You are not dealing with the questions. What's the difference between "the state should have nothing to do with education" and "the state should not provide education". For example, you say that the state should not provide a common syllabus, yet it should protect the child from indoctrination. Might the latter not involve interfering with the syllabus?

Your obsessive anti-statism and pro-religion colours your entire argument. Milton Friedman's ideas on education don't find much favour in most humane western European societies

You don't believe that children should live together, work together and love together if it means state education. What do you mean by 'state education' and what do you mean by private education?

It seems that you object to what you regard as state indoctrination but are quite happy with religious indoctrination (teaching that God is three in one) and with parental indoctrination (it's no one's business what parents teach their children).

Why don't you just outline what you think? Ignore us for the moment and give us something to examine in detail, rather than indulging in point scoring.

I explained it above Brian. Under his model, the state provides funding for education, perhaps on the basis of means testing, but does not subject the sector to central planning or control. Try to keep the debate pragmatic here; if we start to engage in theoretical dogma nobody's going to learn anything they didn't already know.

Any rebuttal to my criticisms Andrew? Specifically, strategic interest of the state and a nation's ability to compete internationally?

Ryan, I take it you're a Protestant who's prevented from voting for Sinn Fein by their religious affiliation, which, if your policy ideas match theirs is a political absurdity. I would be willing to vote for either unionist party as a result of their support for the continuation of the 11+, but am prevented by their continued promotion of Christian ethos.

Politics should be about policy, not religious bloc voting.

Brian

No, yes, no, explain nothing, yet you criticise me and others for not fully explaining our statements!! That's priceless.

You asked me a series of questions, I answered them. Was explanation required?

In response to a child's right to freedom of religion and belief, you answer by reference to the parent's right to teach their children religious belief. More evasion.

You've given me nothing to evade. Try again.

You are not dealing with the questions. What's the difference between "the state should have nothing to do with education" and "the state should not provide education".

The sentences are different propositions, clearly. You are the one who says they mean the same thing.

'For example, you say that the state should not provide a common syllabus, yet it should protect the child from indoctrination. Might the latter not involve interfering with the syllabus?'

Why does protecting a child from indoctrination automatically entail a common syllabus? You keep jumping to conclusions.

Your obsessive anti-statism and pro-religion colours your entire argument.

And your obsessive statism and anti-supernaturalism colours your entire argument.

You're right, though. But what's your point...

A distinction should be made between 'anti-statism' and 'anti-state', though. I'm not against the state but I am against statism.

Milton Friedman's ideas on education don't find much favour in most humane western European societies

More question begging.

You should check out Sweden by the way, they have implemented a scheme very close to Friedman's voucher idea. I'm sure the Swedes would be pleased to know they don't meet your criteria for a humane western European society. Versions have also been implemented in Denmark and the Netherlands. The Dutch, of course, are renowned for their 'extreme right wingedness'.

You don't believe that children should live together, work together and love together if it means state education. What do you mean by 'state education' and what do you mean by private education?

This is a bait and switch. Why should opposing state education mean opposition to children 'living together, working together and love together'? Or if you like, why should desiring children to 'live together, work together and love together' necessarily entail state education?

State education is schools administered by the state.

Private education is education supplied by voluntary association. It's probably better to say Private schools.

It seems that you object to what you regard as state indoctrination but are quite happy with religious indoctrination (teaching that God is three in one) and with parental indoctrination (it's no one's business what parents teach their children).

It seems you can't read.

You're assuming these things are indoctrination. But since you refuse to answer what you mean by 'freedom', 'religion', 'belief' you haven't done the ground work to make that claim.

On the other hand, if telling a child they ought to believe something is indoctrination then you cannot teach them anything without 'breaching their rights'. And if you want to make a distinction between the 'kind' of propositions to escape this then you're assuming the point at issue, nothing new there then!

Why don't you just outline what you think? Ignore us for the moment and give us something to examine in detail, rather than indulging in point scoring.

I have outlined what I think, you choose to ignore it.

Here are some examples of point scoring:

#47 - You keep saying that the issue is complex, yet you are the most guilty here of making simplistic statements. You have now added to the one about the parents by saying that the state should leave education to the private sector.

#56 - You are now backtracking and arguing that the word 'provision' somehow alters the meaning of your statement. Let me tell you that it doesn't.

#58 - No, yes, no, explain nothing, yet you criticise me and others for not fully explaining our statements!! That's priceless.

Practice what you preach.

Hi Sean

Sorry I missed out on responding to your post.

I don't have time now, but I'll try to post something in the evening.

Andrew "Politics should be about policy, not religious bloc voting."

Exactly! Shame that Norn Iron doesn't operate on those lines isn't it. You might be enlightened enough to see through the nationalist/unionist divide,but plenty aren't. And you can imagine with some hilarity that there are devout catholic nationalists voting along tribal lines that are in essense ticking the box for all the civil rights the Catholic Church tries to stamp out

Andrew:

You say: that I asked you some questions, you answered them, was explanation required? Well, I suppose we could just give yes and no answers to every question on the blog. Not much dialogue there, though. The thread itself is a question: Is ‘separated’ education defensible? Your answer seems to be yes, but it’s not clear why. Perhaps you might enlighten us.

Explanation is required because, as we have established, you seem to have a habit of making sweeping statements which you don’t really explain but talk around.

To say that I have given you nothing to evade when you answer a question about a child’s right by substituting a parent’s right is clearly wrong. You need to explain yourself. Are you saying that the parent’s right trumps the child’s right? If so, why?

When I ask you what’s the difference between “the state should have nothing to do with education” and “the state should not provide education”, I am asking YOU what the difference is. You reply by saying that they are two different propositions. That’s not an explanation. I have not said they mean the same thing. I am asking YOU what the difference is.

Although there are some free schools in Sweden, the vast majority are state-run (by municipal authorities). They are compulsory, comprehensive, both-sex, and all religion and none for children between 7 and 16. The majority of schools in the Netherlands are public, state-run schools. 87% of children in Denmark attend free, state-provided schools. Education in Finland is entirely state-provided, state-run, comprehensive, all-sex, all-religion up to 16. The same is true in Norway. In all these countries the standard of educational attainment is among the highest in the world.

You lit upon a few Swedish experiments and made them the norm! How’s that for twisting the evidence!

In most advanced countries the state lays down certain rules and guidelines for education, whether state-run or privately organised. They stipulate, for example, that it is compulsory, that it covers certain ages, that there are public examinations (and therefore common syllabuses), and so on.

These syllabuses include what is currently called RE. Either it is laid down at the Centre or by local authorities and public examinations (GCSE and A levels) have syllabus drawn up by Exam boards.

My view is that RE, as CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE AND ITS AGENCIES, is too restrictive and should be replaced by Philosophy or Religion and Beliefs or RMPE (Religious, Moral and Philosophical Education) or some such alternative. This syllabus would be more inclusive in that it would cover both religious AND secular beliefs. IN the NI context, it would also cover the alleged differences between ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’ beliefs to give children an idea of some of the background to our religious divide.

Also, it seems to me that religious schools in a divided society such as ours is a bad idea. How can it avoid perpetuating the divide? Perhaps you think the divide is a good thing.

Brian

You say: that I asked you some questions, you answered them, was explanation required? Well, I suppose we could just give yes and no answers to every question on the blog. Not much dialogue there, though. The thread itself is a question: Is ‘separated’ education defensible? Your answer seems to be yes, but it’s not clear why. Perhaps you might enlighten us.

The questions you asked didn't require clarification.

It's a non-issue for my position whether or not separated education is defensible. Children should be free to go to whatever school their parents decide.

Explanation is required because, as we have established, you seem to have a habit of making sweeping statements which you don’t really explain but talk around.

Actually, you haven't established this.

To say that I have given you nothing to evade when you answer a question about a child’s right by substituting a parent’s right is clearly wrong. You need to explain yourself. Are you saying that the parent’s right trumps the child’s right? If so, why?

Since you refuse to define your terms, I have nothing to answer beyond what I have already said. You need to spell out how teaching children religious propositions breaches their rights and why, since all teaching involves an ethical ought, you are happy enough to teach a child to believe other propositions, yet without breaching their rights. And if you want to make this distinction between the 'kind' of propositions taught then you're assuming the point at issue against religious propositions.

Clearly I don't believe teaching a child theological propositions is a breach of their rights. I believe Christianity is true because there are good reasons for believing it to be true, so why would I have a problem teaching my children what I believe to be true?

When I ask you what’s the difference between “the state should have nothing to do with education” and “the state should not provide education”, I am asking YOU what the difference is. You reply by saying that they are two different propositions. That’s not an explanation. I have not said they mean the same thing. I am asking YOU what the difference is.

Since you are the one who described my position as 'the state should have nothing to do with education' it is up to you demonstrate that this is a faithful description of my claim 'the state should not provide education'.

As yet you haven't done this.

Although there are some free schools in Sweden, the vast majority are state-run (by municipal authorities). They are compulsory, comprehensive, both-sex, and all religion and none for children between 7 and 16. The majority of schools in the Netherlands are public, state-run schools. 87% of children in Denmark attend free, state-provided schools. Education in Finland is entirely state-provided, state-run, comprehensive, all-sex, all-religion up to 16. The same is true in Norway. In all these countries the standard of educational attainment is among the highest in the world.

I brought up Friedman and Free schools because you said:

Education is a merit good and like all merit goods (health is another example) it would be underprovided if left to the private sector. As Sean says, only the rich could afford it.

Free schools is an alternative to state education, which could provide for every child. So there are practical alternatives to state education.

You lit upon a few Swedish experiments and made them the norm! How’s that for twisting the evidence!

Did I make them the norm? I don't think so, I said Sweden is an example where the state has implemented Friedman's education proposal which if taken seriously, according to you, casts doubt on your humaneness. How's that for twisting the evidence!

Sean

It's not something I have thought about much. I'll give you some initial thoughts though.

I assume when you say 'strategic' you mean the state can arrange the skills base of a country to attract investment. I'm not sure it has the knowledge to do this. I mean, how does it know how many of this profession or that profession is needed?

If you have wealth creation in mind then the best way to do this is, I think, through free enterprise.

I'll not be posting for at least a few day.

Andrew - "Children should be free to go to whatever school their parents decide".

You seem to think you live somewhere with a functioning democracy to support a multicultural society- like the mainland UK, or Canada. We don't. The polar extremes in this society have forfeited your right to make these choices with a clear conscience for the repurcussions they have for peace and proper functioning of society. To create a society that's not constantly de railed by its people- enthused with feelings of separateness of religion,ideology and nationalism, you have to start with its children- who (hopefully) aren't too damaged or warped by the behaviour of the adults around them.

We have to earn our rights back until society here normalises.If you can't see your individual responsability to the wider society here then you can't expect anything to change. Because so many don't want to budge one inch.They say it's something for politicians to fix. No it isn't. It's for christian people to understand their responsability to create a culture of understanding and cohesiveness

Andrew:

Teaching children ONLY one's own religious propositions and not those of others or the corresponding secular viewpoints IS a breach of their freedom.

Saying that "children should be free to go to whatever school their parents decide" is again responding to the question of children's rights by substituting parents' rights. Again, we ask: what about the rights of the CHILD?

You say: "It's a non-issue for my position whether or not separated education is defensible". The only thing that is clear about your position relates to the parent's right to indoctrinate their children with their own particular religious viewpoint. Everything else seems to be totally irrelevant. In that case, any further discussion with you on this matter is frankly a waste of time.

Personally, I've never seen state education provision as being borne of benevolence. It's borne out of an interest the state has in ensuring that the economy runs as smoothly as possible.

School is about teaching people how to pick up skills, how to learn effectively and think critically. What skills pupils emerge with in particular are often moot, as the economy moves at such pace these days that people face a lifetime process of learning new skills to remain competitive anyway, so that skills learned at school become obsolete very quickly.

For example, every assignment I did at school was marked down due to poor handwriting. I didn't care though, because I knew I was good at typing and that that was a much more important skill. School taught me how to teach myself to type effectively though.

As for free enterprise and wealth creation, I would say there is a huge strategic interest for the state in equipping children with the skills and knowledge necessary to pursue these paths and goals when they reach adulthood. As the state exerts great influence over market function, law and enforcement, I would argue that the state is perfectly equipped for the task of preparing children for participation in the marketplace, as well as its more obvious interest in developing the skill base needed to run an effective public sector.

Brian, I've got to protest. Andrew has made it pretty clear what his policy idea entails. If you don't understand, allow me explain.

Andrew feels that the state has a poor record when it comes to participating in business. He is a Liberal, which means that, other than military protection and the protection of property, he believer the state should play no role in the lives of private citizens.

This might seem crazy to you, as in Northern Ireland it's likely that society would fall apart into civil war and starvation without the state's participation.

He would argue, however, that such state dependancy creates more problems in the long run than it solves because heavy state involvement stifles enterprise and trade, thus restricting the growth of wealth.

Instead of the state being involved, Liberal theory encourages a policy of allowing market choices and forces to dictate economic activity.

It's a pretty old-fashioned strand of economic thought, and it fell out of favour in its pure form for two reasons. Firstly, an unregulated market is vulnerable to abuses such as the development of monopolies and major swings between boom and bust.

Secondly, the market doesn't always look after the long term interest of the wider community, because everyone is motivated purely by self-interest and there is no direct incentive to make sure that key sectors like agriculture are still capable of production during times of short capital.

Your arguments about the duty of the state will fall on deaf ears because to Andrew, exerting social influence in this way is indicative of state tyranny. No matter how good a cause for this you advocate, to him it is simply not the state's job.

I have been trying to get him to accept the argument for state provision and supply of universal education based on an extremely pragmatic argument of the collective necessity of doing so due to strategic concerns. Once you get him onboard, then you can quibble about the details.

Teaching children ONLY one's own religious propositions and not those of others or the corresponding secular viewpoints IS a breach of their freedom.

You keep repeating that but i've yet to see an account of how it breaches their freedom. Apparently it just does. According to you, everybody talks about rights in the same way, everybody talks about freedom in the same way, belief, ethics, epistemology and the list could go on and on.

There is a difference between teaching about something and teaching that something is true. Teaching children about other peoples' views is a good thing but this doesn't mean they can't be taught that, say, Christianity is true.

The only thing that is clear about your position relates to the parent's right to indoctrinate their children with their own particular religious viewpoint.

These are weasel words.

In that case, any further discussion with you on this matter is frankly a waste of time.

Likewise.

Ryan

I'm all for individual responsibility and strong communities but as Sean has pointed out, I do not think state intervention is the best way to achieve these things.

Sean

You're description of my views is basically accurate. I'd be reluctant to call myself a classical liberal at present, in many ways I do like their conclusions but I'm not sure I agree with how they get there.

The criticism about communities is one i'm sensitive to. This is something I am thinking about quite a bit at the moment. I like what Wendell Berry says on this subject.

Seanthenoisemaker (68):

I understand what you say, but I am not sure that your analysis of Andrew’s position is correct, even if he thinks it is (or may be).

Liberalism is, of course, an essentially contested concept. But I would suggest that its origins are not Lockean but pre-Lockean and lie in secularism, i.e. freedom from religious power and control (i.e. Renaissance, Reformation). The English think they invented every concept, but they didn't.

This mental liberation process continued in the rationalist philosophy of Descartes and in the philosophers of the French Enlightenment. The core of this continental liberalism, unlike the British tradition, was not so much a political doctrine as a general mental attitude, a demand for an emancipation from all beliefs which could not be rationally justified and for an escape from the authority of ‘priests and kings’.

The British tradition, which may be said to have begun with Locke and the period of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, is thus a narrower focus on freedom from arbitrary control by the state. We could say that while continental liberalism questioned all authority, British liberalism at first largely confined itself to questioning political authority. Later, in the 18th century, it began to question economic authority as well, so that by the early 19th century British liberalism largely focused on limited, constitutional government and a free market. It was this ‘classical’ conception of liberalism that inspired the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution.

The continental variant, however, was not so anti-statist nor so laissez-faire. It was not the classical or individualist liberalism but this continental kind of social liberalism that British and American liberals eventually espoused in the 20th century. Old age pensions, the Welfare State, the New Deal were all products of liberal politicians and thinkers (Keynes was a Liberal).

In the decades of the 1980s and 1990s there was a strong revival of elements of classical liberalism in the US and UK under Reagan and Thatcher. Or, rather, it was an economic revival; politically, both adhered to the conservative view of the state. However, by the 21st century classical liberalism seemed to have reached a dead end everywhere except in America (where, paradoxically, to be called a liberal is an insult).

What happened there was that the political and economic dimensions of liberalism became separated and regarded as antithetical - a position of no coherence whatsoever. Thus it became possible to demand that the government get off people’s backs and at the same call for tougher government action against crime, the prohibition of abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriages and the general curtailment of civil liberties! To which we could add the denial of the rights of the child, which Andrew is trying to conceal under the cloak of ‘parental rights’.

Of course, so-called classical English liberals like Mill and Bentham were atheists. That OUGHT to be Andrew’s position as well, since religion is the greatest enslaver of the human mind known to man. But he is a Christian and that’s where his ‘liberalism’ comes apart at the seams.

Sean:

The essential point is this: if Andrew was a genuine and true liberal, he would be very keen to ensure that his children and other children were FREE to make up their own minds about things. He wouldn't be obsessed with 'teaching' them that 'God is three in one'.

Sean "It's a pretty old-fashioned strand of economic thought, and it fell out of favour in its pure form for two reasons. Firstly, an unregulated market is vulnerable to abuses such as the development of monopolies and major swings between boom and bust.

Secondly, the market doesn't always look after the long term interest of the wider community, because everyone is motivated purely by self-interest and there is no direct incentive to make sure that key sectors like agriculture are still capable of production during times of short capital"

There you encapsulate the main reasons behind the hatred caused by the Irish Famine-that kept markets unregulated, regardless of what was unraveling on the ground- the subsequent unrest in the decades following and the ultimate reality in which we find ourselves in right now on this tiny Island.
Famine coupled to the free market, unregulated Victorian economic ideas also played a very large and decisive part in India's movement towards independance and were pivotal in Gandhi's argument against British rule. The parallels between India and Ireland are quite telling.The subcontinent divided up into territory along religious lines

To which we could add the denial of the rights of the child, which Andrew is trying to conceal under the cloak of ‘parental rights’.

You've yet to explain how it is a denial of the rights of a child. It just is, is that the sum of it?

Of course, so-called classical English liberals like Mill and Bentham were atheists.

Not all classical liberals were atheists, though.

As I recall Mill, towards the end of his life, prefigured the welfare state, maybe he was a 'continental social liberal' in disguise?

That OUGHT to be Andrew’s position as well, since religion is the greatest enslaver of the human mind known to man.

This a mischaracterisation that amply demonstrates your own prejudice.

But he is a Christian and that’s where his ‘liberalism’ comes apart at the seams.

I don't mind if you think I'm a liberal or not, I'm not attached to that label.

The essential point is this: if Andrew was a genuine and true liberal

Says Brian above #71: Liberalism is, of course, an essentially contested concept.

I'm not a genuine follower of an essentially contested concept, wonderful!

... he would be very keen to ensure that his children and other children were FREE to make up their own minds about things.

But not all things, right? Just the things you believe there's no justification for.

Andrew:

The world is full of beliefs and lifestances. To instil only one into a child is a denial of its right to find out about all the others and freely choice for itself between them. For parents to impose their beliefs only is a denial of that freedom.

The child may want to find out about Buddhism, for example. Or even Humanism. The parent may try to prevent him/her from doing so. That would be a parental interference with the right of the child. If a Protestant child wanted to find out in what ways his beliefs differed from a Catholic child, and he was sent to school where religion was taught only from a Protestant perspective, then his right would be denied.

If the child attended a Catholic school which included confirmation classes, confession booths, statues around the corridor, masses, etc then he would be imbibing a very one-sided view of Christianity. His freedom of choice would be limited.

Most children in NI are fed a daily diet of the religion of their parents. How can this fulfil their right to a broad perspective on various lifestances? Do you accept that the rights of a child may conflict with the rights of the parent?

All concepts about beliefs are essentially contested, including Christianity. It doesn't mean they are 'wrong'. Okay, so you're not a liberal. Are you a Christian, for example?

Andrew, I would accuse you of sticking to a pre-conceived theoretical principle without addressing the pragmatic consequences of that principle's translation into real life policy. There remain very real criticisms of your ideas. I was not seeking to defend your view. I simply objected to the attack on you implying that you were completely ignorant, so I wanted to illustrate that there is a grand tradition of this strand of thought that still partially permeates orthodoxy, and therefore my point was that your ideas should be debated on merit.

Ultimately Andrew, it boils down to one very easy to understand concept. What makes a successful family. What makes it flourish and thrive.
Economic comfort, love, support, nurturing, understanding and the skills to embue confidence, economic independance and a healthy moral and ethical code into its children. National govt and society should be the macro version of the *successful* micro nuclear family.
Everybody needs to be on the same page not pulling in different directions.

Take California for example. Southern California and LA couldn't have progressed & thrived without the grand plans of the federal government to provide water to that region. For all the popular myths of how the west was won by pioneers and cowboys, it was the federal government providing the basic necessity of water that fuelled its success and development.
A religious collective could have moved to California to live in peace and prosper but without that imput from the federal government, their community would be at the mercy of the elements, drought, lack of economic opportunity.
Your wish for religious and social distance from the state and those of other backgrounds, although understandable, will be your undoing

Shall we then consider the criticisms well founded and preclusive for your policies Andrew?

Sean said:

'Shall we then consider the criticisms well founded and preclusive for your policies Andrew?'

I thought you already did, Sean?

I've been busy as it happens. I'll get back to you when I can.

It would be helpful if you could provide a list of the criticisms you have in mind.

'I' is not the same as 'we.' Come now Andrew, semantic diligence. And fair does if you've been busy, I was just trying not to let the thread die before you'd a chance to defend yourself.

It's all there above. Posts 50 and 67, I believe.

'I' is not the same as 'we.' Come now Andrew, semantic diligence.

Come now Sean, you can only speak for yourself.

I was just trying not to let the thread die before you'd a chance to defend yourself.

This assumes your criticisms land. At one level I am happy to let the conversation go, thoughtful readers can make the judgement. Despite this, I am going to take the time to go through your posts (#50 & #67), mostly because, for some odd reason, you believe you have critique my position.

#50

I would argue that, like the military, the wider society maintains such an important strategic need in this area that it is right to maintain political control over it as a reflection of that wider strategic importance.

Your appeal to the military overlooks some important distinctions. For a start, the reasons offered for the politicising of armed forces will be very different from reasons given for state 'control' of education.

To by-pass this you have made an appeal to 'strategic need'. There are multiple problems here.

(I) You cannot assume that whatever is of 'strategic need' to society ought to be nationalised. This is something you need to demonstrate.

(II) The link itself is also questionable between society 'maintaining...an important strategic need' in education and political control over education 'as a reflection of that wider strategic importance'. The strategic need belongs to society but control belongs to the state. This assumes a one to one correspondence between society and state, again something you need to demonstrate.

(III) Following on from this, if a correspondence is asserted, not only must the one to one correspondence itself be demonstrated but you must also show that the content of the strategic need (i.e. What the strategic need actually is), is furthered by the correspondence. Problems here include the trappings of office, corrupting tendencies of power and the self-interest of those elected to office. This OP is about the 'segregated' education system in Northern Ireland, is this a case of strategic need being lost in translation?

(IV) Strategic need as a grounds for nationalisation has utilitarian overtones. But why should we accept utilitarianism? It should also be noted that utilitarianism has been used by many radical free market political economists precisely because utility is maximised through the free agency of individuals. For instance, Ludwig Von Mises writes in Human Action 'The teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical economics have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of natural right. With them the only point that matters is social utility. They recommend popular government, private property, tolerance, and freedom not because they are natural and just but because they beneficial'.

(V) Following from this. I am not a utilitarian, this is just one of the reasons I am reluctant to claim to be a classical liberal. So 'strategic need' is not a criticism of what I have argued for, which, contra Mises, I would ground in the 'ethical ought'.

#67

Personally, I've never seen state education provision as being borne of benevolence. It's borne out of an interest the state has in ensuring that the economy runs as smoothly as possible.

(I) An interest entails neither a responsibility or an ability. Also, interests are not all of a kind. Not all interests are legitimate, the state might be a nosey neighbour. So I would question what interest does the state have that means they ought to ensure 'the economy runs as smoothly as possible'?

(II) You also need to expand on what a 'smoothly' run economy actually is. It isn't self-evident. For example, modern central banks manipulate the money supply through interest rates and the printing press to control prices. But distortion of the price mechanism is a major contributor to economic turmoil. At present interest rates are lower than inflation, to get the best out of your money you must spend as a check against it's declining purchasing power. There is some disagreement on this, but inflation is the expansion of the money supply and when the Bank of England presses print there is a transference of wealth from individuals to the government, as they receive purchasing power at present value only by reducing purchasing power in the future. This is a great arrangement for the government, the ultimate stealth tax cloaked as 'necessary for economic stability'.

(III) Next, for the sake of argument lets agree the government have this 'interest' to ensure the steady growth of the economy. Education by itself is not a sufficient condition for steady economic growth. For instance growth is unlikely where there is punitive wealth redistribution. It is also not a necessary condition, steady economic growth can occur without a highly educated citizenry.

(IV) You also haven't made it clear why state education is preferable to private education in the government ensuring this interest. Why is a state education system better than a publically funded private voucher system, for instance?

School is about teaching people how to pick up skills, how to learn effectively and think critically. What skills pupils emerge with in particular are often moot, as the economy moves at such pace these days that people face a lifetime process of learning new skills to remain competitive anyway, so that skills learned at school become obsolete very quickly.

Saying what school is doesn't say whether it should be private or public, unless the definition is tautological but you're too semantically aware for that, right?

As for free enterprise and wealth creation, I would say there is a huge strategic interest for the state in equipping children with the skills and knowledge necessary to pursue these paths and goals when they reach adulthood. As the state exerts great influence over market function, law and enforcement, I would argue that the state is perfectly equipped for the task of preparing children for participation in the marketplace, as well as its more obvious interest in developing the skill base needed to run an effective public sector.

(I) Again with the strategic interest of the state. Why does state interest equal central planning?

(II) You also need to consider that governments can be delusional. They might believe that state schools are a good way to attain high educational standards but the belief, again, does not mean they have an ability to follow through. Governments, I suspect, would be good candidates for The Apprentice.

(III) When it comes to free enterprise, wealth creation and so on, the government cannot acquire enough information to act economically as well as individuals in their place. There is a sense in which an economy is unknowable, this is a cause for humility and moderation.

#76

Andrew, I would accuse you of sticking to a pre-conceived theoretical principle without addressing the pragmatic consequences of that principle's translation into real life policy.

Sean, I would accuse you of speaking with your mouth full.

We can only speak for ourselves, Andrew, but we may question on behalf of anyone we like.

To suggest that I must condone the nationalisation of all strategic interests by the state is a willful misrepresentation of my position. I don't agree with that.

It's about degree, or relativity. It is of SUCH importance to the nation's strategic interest, that the military must be state controlled.

Likewise, with education. It's so fundamental to the survival of the nation in modern times that it would be totally irresponsible to relinquish control over to the private sector. This is because there are too many stakeholders in education that a private company will not be obliged to satisfy under a profit maximisation model.

These include the private sector as a whole itself; there's every possibility that what will make a profit for the individual education-providing companies will not necessarily produce the kind of employees the rest of the private sector needs.

The state is representative of society. Democracy's very legitimacy is based on the need for the state to act on behalf of society. They are not synonyms, but the state acts, in theory, on behalf of every citizen. I do not need the state and society to be synonyms for my argument to be valid. The state is an agent of society.

I think we can agree on neither system failing the test of absolute perfection. As in, adherents to both sides of the debate will acknowledge flaws within each system.

So the argument depends on assessing which system suffers from the most flaws.

I believe that there's a huge amount of risk associated with allowing self-interested firms to administer education (ie that the stakeholders which represent wider societies' interests will not be satisfied because of the firm's prioritisation of profit over that wider strategic interest). I believe that the cost of that risk is greater than the cost of the risk of corruption inherent in state-run businesses.

I also believe that the democratic state has a demonstrably greater interest in respecting human rights. In this case, I believe the rights of the child might not be as great a priority to firms as profit maximisation. So there's a risk there too.

It's one thing to argue against nationalisation, but that happened 200 years ago. All of your arguments against nationalisation are fundamentally obsolete; you need to argue for privatisation, because the battle against nationalisation was lost long before you were born.

Moving on, the interest the state has in education is in the survival and prosperity of the nation. Want to debate the legitimacy of those interests?

When central banks print money, the government doesn't get it for free. It owes the central bank the money at base-rate interest, and the central bank sells this debt on as government bonds. I would argue that the results of the privatisation of central banking illustrate the private sector's propensity for narrow self-interest. I think this is an example of political control being relinquished with disastrous oligarchical consequences.

It also shows a problem with corruption of government, but I don't think the best idea is to scrap governments and let private companies rule the world.

I don't have to defend the incumbent position. You have to attack it first. If you invite me to spontaneously defend the current position without showing me your attacking hand, I will simply refuse, on the basis of being unaware of what it is I am supposed to be defending against.

With the question you ask about the voucher system you propose, it is not up to me to prove that the incumbent system is better. It is up to you to prove that the voucher system would be better. And demonstrably so much better that enough skeptics will be won over to mandate the implimentation of change.

State interest does not equal state planning per se. In the case of education, it is subject to state planning. There are genuine criticisms of it, but the question is, can the alternative power structures you propose be demonstrated to serve that state interest better? That's the only way you'll change the system, so unless you can do that, it's a waste of time to debate it.

Since I am defending the incmbent idea, I believe it is up to you to demonstrate that the model you seek to replace the current one with would be worth the cost of implimentation, and that the risks involved would undercut the risks involved in the incumbent system by such a margin as to make it the obvious path to take.

Otherwise, the inertia of politics will ensure that your idea cannot be adopted, because unless it is that demonstrably obvious, you'll never be able to win over enough skeptics to build the mandate you need for implimentation.