Question

[ebia]

While a Catholic school is not strictly exclusive, the teaching of Catholic doctrine tends to result in a school of mostly Catholics. Certainly, evangelicals would not be found there.

BTW, in the US, Episcopalians are considered "Catholic lite" by most with little distinguishing characteristics other than its definition of the requirements for holy orders. So, strictly speaking, there may be Episcopalians in Catholic schools.

But is that an artifact of the very system you are defending? The Catholic school here I've worked at for the longest has a vary varied student body including Christians of many different traditions, Muslims, non-religious and atheist,..

 

[ebia]

I agree.

I think the American system of public monies for public schools is extremely helpful. This is augmented by some publicly funded charter schools, open to all. We also have large numbers attending religious education classes as well as part-time and full time parochial education.

Your and MKJ prefer the Canadian and Australian systems.

Not just prefer, but have an understanding of education in which it is objectively better.

You haven't engaged with MKJ's point that there is no such thing as world-view neutral education. So what you have is an education system that teaches a secular (or incoherent) world view, with any religious instruction as just an add-on.

 

[ebia]

CCD classes and after-school programs work fine to fill the need for religious education.

And, as a Catholic religous educator, would argue that it cannot. Out of school programs cannot substitute for holistic education. What you've get is Americans with a vaneer of Catholicism or whatever, instead of Catholics. And I think that shows up in conversations in OBOB etc.

 

[mark46]

Yes, we used to have Catholic school systems that had more students than the local public schools. This was because of discrimination against Catholics and because of the pathetic state of public schools. These schools were NOT funded by public funds. We could have such a system again tomorrow if there was demand for it and there was the will of the Church to perform the function.

Alternatively, the state could sub-contract public education to religious institutions.

We have a similar situation with regard to social welfare. In many states, more is spent by church organizations (such as Catholic Charities) than by the state. These institutions do not have public funding.

Americans have no aversion to parochial education or religious institutions running welfare agencies and hospitals. It is the public funding that is at issue.

And yes, at times the churches do accept monies to perform social services. For example, our local Protestant church in NH provided counseling services for many of the male prisoners, under contract with local authorities.

But is that an artifact of the very system you are defending? The Catholic school here I've worked at for the longest has a vary varied student body including Christians of many different traditions, Muslims, non-religious and atheist,..

 

[ebia]

Yes, we used to have Catholic school systems that had more students than the local public schools. This was because of discrimination against Catholics and because of the pathetic state of public schools. These schools were NOT funded by public funds. We could have such a system again tomorrow if there was demand for it and there was the will of the Church to perform the function.

Alternatively, the state could sub-contract public education to religious institutions.

We have a similar situation with regard to social welfare. In many states, more is spent by church organizations (such as Catholic Charities) than by the state. These institutions do not have public funding.

Americans have no aversion to parochial education or religious institutions running welfare agencies and hospitals. It is the public funding that is at issue.

And yes, at times the churches do accept monies to perform social services. For example, our local Protestant church in NH provided counseling services for many of the male prisoners, under contract with local authorities.

So what's the problem except this mental block on the possibility of funding faith schools? You don't seem to have a reason except it's "unamerican".

 

[mark46]

Public education, at all levels through university is an important way in which we integrate our culture, form our children as Americans, and allow for all the special services that many of our children need. Also, public education can be mandated not to discriminate. In church schools in the US, this is simply unenforceable.

Many of children are now attending parochial and home schools at their own personal peril. Their socialization has suffered greatly. I have a godson and nieces and nephews in such schools. The best, as has always been the case, are the Catholic schools and (for the elite) Quaker schools.

For me, the choice is whether the government should use its funds to try to develop the best possible public system for all or have greatly underfunded public schools (after most of their money went to private schools). We have chosen (over and over) not to publicly fund private schools. And yes, there are minor exceptions such as the occasional provision of buses. Now some of the religious school student want to attend public schools for sports and music education. That is controversial in those districts where it has been suggested.

So, it is not a mental block. It is conscious choice not to take limited state money and send it to private and religious institutions.

So what's the problem except this mental block on the possibility of funding faith schools? You don't seem to have a reason except it's "unamerican".

 

[mark46]

Yes, Catholic schools can provide a much more holistic Catholic education that having a child attend public schools with religious education.

Should it be the state goal to help provide Catholics with a Catholic education? Your answer is yes. Mine is no.

And, as a Catholic religous educator, would argue that it cannot. Out of school programs cannot substitute for holistic education. What you've get is Americans with a vaneer of Catholicism or whatever, instead of Catholics. And I think that shows up in conversations in OBOB etc.

 

[ebia]

Public education, at all levels through university is an important way in which we integrate our culture, form our children as Americans, and allow for all the special services that many of our children need. Also, public education can be mandated not to discriminate. In church schools in the US, this is simply unenforceable.

Many of children are now attending parochial and home schools at their own personal peril. Their socialization has suffered greatly. I have a godson and nieces and nephews in such schools. The best, as has always been the case, are the Catholic schools and (for the elite) Quaker schools.

For me, the choice is whether the government should use its funds to try to develop the best possible public system for all or have greatly underfunded public schools (after most of their money went to private schools). We have chosen (over and over) not to publicly fund private schools. And yes, there are minor exceptions such as the occasional provision of buses. Now some of the religious school student want to attend public schools for sports and music education. That is controversial in those districts where it has been suggested.

So, it is not a mental block. It is conscious choice not to take limited state money and send it to private and religious institutions.

You choice of funding is a false one -the cash is attached to the students. That way all schools get the funding they need for the students that go there. (In England faith schools generally get slightly less per student, in Australia significantly less). The diversity of most faith schools is very good; the one I refered to earlier is the most diverse school in its region. Homeschooling basically doesn't exist because there is no demand for it.

Discrimination is hard to comment on without specifics.

 

[mark46]

You are correct. I have not addressed the issue of world view.

This is actually a much different discussion that of funding of religious education. As I have said, in most of the US, that would mean diverting precious public funds to an ever growing number of evangelical schools that would teach (and do teach) anti-intellectualism as an essential part of their world view, precisely what the state would choose to avoid.
===========================================

Most scientists do not have a difficulty with separating the teaching of science and of faith. Many are believers; many are not. However, what is appropriate in a science class is clear. A science class uses and teaching the methods of science and passes them down to our children.

The same is true of mathematics, logic, grammar, and language.

Where some struggle is in the teaching of civics, history and literature. I would favor teaching a course on the Bible in public school. Such knowledge is necessary for the understanding of English and American literature.

Yes, I was taught history in high school from essentially an economic perspective. Others learned though dates, great men and women.

But yes, the scientific method and materialism does permeate the teaching of the sciences, both the hard and the soft sciences.

My sociology teacher taught us that it was our duty to have many children, since we the bright kids. He was Catholic with 12 children.

Yes, we were taught about sex and birth control. You won't find that in US religious schools.
==========

The public schools mirror the local area where they serve. There are problems. Many schools have tried the failed theory of "value free" education. They ahve learned from their errors.

Are there problems when children (at the behest of their parents) refuse to understand evolution? Are there problems when kids don't believe in protecting minorities? Are there problems when children insist that an event happened because God chose it to happen and refuse to look at economic, psychological and sociological causes. Sure, there are such problems.

But religious schools in the US do no better. Is it really better to be a Boston College and Boston College High School where crucifixes have been take down because they might offend (with the outline still there)?

Do we do poorly by teaching about the peace movement and the civil rights movement without considering the centrality of religion. Sure, we do.

So, for me, we could do better. We could and should teach comparative religion in high school. We should teach about the Bible. And we should have a segment of our American history texts devoted to religion in America.
============

You and MKJ not accept the scientific world view used to teach the physical and social sciences. Apparently, you would have our public schools choose among the religious world views. Or are you saying that there is no place for public education, the very center of the melting pot that is America?

I understand what it means to teach from an evangelical world view. I would never want my local public schools teach in that manner. So, not only don't I want us to fund religious schools, but I also do not want religion to be part of the world view of the public schools (other than for the needed courses on Comparative Religion and on the Bible).

You haven't engaged with MKJ's point that there is no such thing as world-view neutral education. So what you have is an education system that teaches a secular (or incoherent) world view, with any religious instruction as just an add-on.

 

[ebia]

You are correct. I have not addressed the issue of world view.

This is actually a much different discussion that of funding of religious education. As I have said, in most of the US, that would mean diverting precious public funds to an ever growing number of evangelical schools that would teach (and do teach) anti-intellectualism as an essential part of their world view, precisely what the state would choose to avoid.

It seems to me that its precisely your system that has created that problem in the first place.

===========================================

Most scientists do not have a difficulty with separating the teaching of science and of faith. Many are believers; many are not. However, what is appropriate in a science class is clear. A science class uses and teaching the methods of science and passes them down to our children.

The same is true of mathematics, logic, grammar, and language.[/quote{
That's exactly the secular worldview contention.

A worldview isn't something an individual picks the appropriate one of for each area.
A worldview is the underlying base through which everything is seen.

You won't find that in US religious schools.[/quote{
Again, that's a symptom of the problem.

You and MKJ not accept the scientific world view used to teach the physical and social sciences. Apparently, you would have our public schools choose among the religious world views. Or are you saying that there is no place for public education, the very center of the melting pot that is America?

At this point in the conversation I think we need to stop talking about public education and start talking about secular education.

Secular education remains one of the options in both England and Australia. But lets stop pretending that its religiously-neutral; it can't be.

 

[PaladinValer]

I realize I'm sort of jumping into this midstream, but...

The thing with US public education is that our country's Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that official religion has no place in the classroom. The Bible may be studied in English or literature classes for its literary qualities and religion can be taught of in both language, history, and philosophy classes...and even in a world's religion course, but never to the benefit or detraction of any religious belief.

Quite honestly, there are several reasons why the public education system in my country outright sucks in many areas. Part of it is funding but a good portion of it is uninvolved parents, the media (I find Family Guy humorous like many others, but most youths, though many say it doesn't affect them, are truly affected, just to give one good example), fundamentalism, and even the schools themselves, especially in places here in the South (I was fortunate to have graduated from a top-100 high school back in NY, but I wonder how fortunate my fellows really felt who complained we didn't have stadium lights to brighten our sports fields unlike schools in the South [which are normally inferior].)

As for teaching different world views, I again count myself lucky that I was. I fully admit that not all public education schools are, but there is admittedly some red tape that does need to be addressed. Of course, I'm not insinuating that you all think we should drop the neutrality to religion, but at the same time, I'll be the first to admit that some red tape needs to be snipped in order for public education to improve...like national-standardized testing. Good Lord...what a major mistake that was...teaching tests...

 

[ebia]

I realize I'm sort of jumping into this midstream, but...

The thing with US public education is that our country's Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that official religion has no place in the classroom.

I think we all realise that and nobody is suggesting it would be easy for the US to get to where we are if it wanted to.
The question is whether its been a good idea or not.

 

[PaladinValer]

I think we all realise that and nobody is suggesting it would be easy for the US to get to where we are if it wanted to.
The question is whether its been a good idea or not.

In this instance, I would argue yes. As I said before, it is still fully within the law to teach a sort of "Survey of World Religions" course that doesn't attempt to promote one religion over the other or say that "'x' belief is true/'y' belief is false", etc.

 

[MKJ]

In this instance, I would argue yes. As I said before, it is still fully within the law to teach a sort of "Survey of World Religions" course that doesn't attempt to promote one religion over the other or say that "'x' belief is true/'y' belief is false", etc.

That is not what ebia and I are talking about though. It is not about comparative religious education or teaching a history of philosophy class, it is much more basic than that.

Every education program is developed with a worldview underlying it. I tend to teach from a teaching philosophy which was developed by an Anglican educator with an Anglican worldview, and that informed he view on what it means to be educated, what it means to be a human being, how children learn, the role of the teacher, what the appropriate subjects for teaching are, and what sort of outcome we are looking for at the end of formal education.

If you look at Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or humanist philosophies of education, you will see the same thing - their basic beliefs about human nature and the nature of reality, the answers they give to the questions I have mentioned, determines the way they set up education.

Well, so-called secular schools have to determine all of these things as well. The question then, is what underlying philosophy or worldview are they using to come up with the answers. In many cases with secular public education, it seems to be a whole bunch of them, but not ones anyone has really thought much about.

And thinking about the underlying assumptions we have, examining them and understanding them, is one of the most important aspects of being really educated. So if the education itself is making these things, it ends up preventing what it is supposed to encourage. It is probably even worse than giving students an explicit and well thought out education from a worldview that does not really match that of the parents.

Students are going to be educated in that worldview far more thoroughly than and individual bit of the curricula, even though it is not taught explicitly. Because it informs and organizes their whole system of education and the values it seems to support.

There is a famous story about a writer (whose name I cannot remember) who attended a meeting for parents at his local elementary school. At the meeting, the principle or superintendent was telling parents about all the new wonderful programs and curricula that the school was going to begin using.

The writer listened, and found himself raising his hand to ask a question - he asked the man what it was they were hoping to accomplish with the children using all of these new techniques and programs. The question stumped the superintendent.

So if the public system needs to offer a really neutral option that treats all worldviews equally, what worldview should they use to decide how and why and what to teach. Because clearly it is impossible to use them all equally.

 

[ebia]

That is not what ebia and I are talking about though. It is not about comparative religious education or teaching a history of philosophy class, it is much more basic than that.

Every education program is developed with a worldview underlying it. I tend to teach from a teaching philosophy which was developed by an Anglican educator with an Anglican worldview, and that informed he view on what it means to be educated, what it means to be a human being, how children learn, the role of the teacher, what the appropriate subjects for teaching are, and what sort of outcome we are looking for at the end of formal education.

If you look at Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or humanist philosophies of education, you will see the same thing - their basic beliefs about human nature and the nature of reality, the answers they give to the questions I have mentioned, determines the way they set up education.

Well, so-called secular schools have to determine all of these things as well. The question then, is what underlying philosophy or worldview are they using to come up with the answers. In many cases with secular public education, it seems to be a whole bunch of them, but not ones anyone has really thought much about.

And thinking about the underlying assumptions we have, examining them and understanding them, is one of the most important aspects of being really educated. So if the education itself is making these things, it ends up preventing what it is supposed to encourage. It is probably even worse than giving students an explicit and well thought out education from a worldview that does not really match that of the parents.

Students are going to be educated in that worldview far more thoroughly than and individual bit of the curricula, even though it is not taught explicitly. Because it informs and organizes their whole system of education and the values it seems to support.

There is a famous story about a writer (whose name I cannot remember) who attended a meeting for parents at his local elementary school. At the meeting, the principle or superintendent was telling parents about all the new wonderful programs and curricula that the school was going to begin using.

The writer listened, and found himself raising his hand to ask a question - he asked the man what it was they were hoping to accomplish with the children using all of these new techniques and programs. The question stumped the superintendent.

So if the public system needs to offer a really neutral option that treats all worldviews equally, what worldview should they use to decide how and why and what to teach. Because clearly it is impossible to use them all equally.

And, in the end, if we don't decide very carefully what we are trying to accomplish - that is what success is - we find ourselves up defining success in terms of whatever it is we measure. And hence the US obsession with standardised tests.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What's irritating is that the method of a lot of basic education was families and churches for years in America. Students had a high degree of literacy, math skills, memory skills, foreign languages and other things. The effectiveness of this approach really can't be argued.

As others have said, the presumption in public school has typically been that "secular" means "neutral". No, secularism is still fundamentally religious. The absence of religion (as secularism purports to be) doesn't make for a non-religious proposition. Rather than being taught the common morality as informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, children have been taught neurotic lessons about recycling and how to use a condom. That may result in what the government considers to be a Good Citizen but it doesn't necessarily lead to a functionally literate adult.

A lot of this is ostensibly couched in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Somehow, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has come to be interpreted as barring all religion from the public square. This is why liberals should never be trusted with Constitutional interpretation; invariably they make these types of idiotic decisions.

Public education is a failure, period. Time for something else.

 

[ebia]

Public education is a failure, period.

Correction: universally secular education is a failure.

 

[mark46]

How do you measure the failure of US secular education compared to Western European education and Australian education with regard to the effect on the Church and Christianity? You don't think that it is important to want to have folks coming to church. Our pastors disagree. Gathering in prayer is critical to the faith. How many go to church in the UK? in Australia? in Canada? Why hasn't your system of public finding of religious education prevented the catastrophe that is Christianity in much of the developed world? Our system has resulted in thousands of churches and places of worship for literally hundreds of manner of faith walks. And most of these folks that seek God did not receive a religious-based education. Of course, we have millions of rich and poor in religious schools. We just don't make everyone else pay.

=========================================
You prefer the results of the system in Western Europe and Australis. I prefer the results of the system in the US.

Do you really believe that Christianity is in better shape in Western Europe and Australia? Surely, the attitudes of schools and government are critical causes of the situations in all three areas of the world.

You suppose that an Australian system of education would benefit Christianity in the US. I simply don't think so. I don't think we'd better off if devout Christians all took their children out of public school and put them in private schools paid for by the government. I don't think that it would be good for them or for those left in the public schools.

And yes, I understand that many long for the 1800's or the 1950's when the world was a better place. Personally, I think that is all rubbish. NEVER, NEVER have so many people sought after God as currently seek him now in the US. The people are not secular. This is not a secular country. Listen to Bishop Wright on this subject. The very idea is a fabrication of right wing ideologues. Our challenge is not for evangelicals to be put their version of God into the schools. Our challenge is for Christians to witness to the masses by their example, that they might be asked the reason for their hope. We need to have more after school prayer groups, now allowed by the Supreme Court. We need more student to student witnessing, as has been the case in the past.

The majority of those in the US will not hand over the education of their children to religious leaders. They aren't trusted. It won't happen.

You can demean secular education as much s you wish. It is our system. It works for us. The thousands of church, mosques, synagogues, temples and meeting houses may not work for others. It works for us. We do not choose which religions to favor and support. We protect them all. We support none. And yes, the courts and schools went overboard for awhile. The Catholic Church has won many, many legal cases over the last 30 years restoring some of the basic freedoms of students.

In the US, we actually WANT science to be taught by those who do not a religious agenda/bias. This is also true of the social sciences.
=====================

BTW, the system of the money following the students has been suggested many times in the US, in many states. It continues to be rejected.

When I went to school so many years ago, we had two large high schools in town, one Catholic and one public. I attended the public school. I learned about the faiths of others. I learned from the diversity. We had an excellent school. The Catholic school was also a good one. Of course, many, many of their students only wished that their parents would allow them to attend the public school. Of course, there were city areas where the public schools were so bad that the Catholic schools were the schools of choice for those of all religions. Of course, that worked because the Catholic schools essentially had free labor.

Correction: universally secular education is a failure.

 

[MKJ]

How do you measure the failure of US secular education compared to Western European Education and Australian education with regard to the effect on the Church and Christianity? You don't think that it is important to want to have folks coming to church. Our pastors disagree. Gathering in prayer is critical to the faith. How many go to church in the UK? in Australia? in Canada? Why hasn't your system of public finding of religious education prevented the catastrophe that is Christianity in much of the developed world? Our system has resulted in thousands of churches and places of worship for literally hundreds of manner of faith walks. And most of these folks that seek God did not receive a religious-based education.

=========================================
You prefer the results of the system in Western Europe and Australis. I prefer the results of the system in the US.

Do you really believe that Christianity is in better shape in Western Europe and Australia? Surely, the attitudes of schools and government are critical causes of the situations in all three areas of the world.

You suppose that an Australian system of education would benefit Christianity in the US. I simply don't think so. I don't think we'd better off if devout Christians all took their children out of public school and put them in private schools paid for by the government.

And yes, I understand that many long for the 1800's or the 1950's when the world was a better place. Personally, I think that is all rubbish. NEVER, NEVER have so many people sought after God as currently seek him now in the US. The people are not secular. This is not a secular country. Listen to Bishop Wright on this subject. The very idea is a fabrication of right wing ideologues. Our challenge is not for evangelicals to be put their version of God into the schools. Our challenge is for Christians to witness to the masses by their example, that they might be asked the reason for their hope. We need to have more after school prayer groups, now allowed by the SUpreme Court.

The majority of those in the US will not hand over the education of their children to religious leaders. They aren't trusted. It won't happen.

You can demean secular education as much s you wish. It is our system. It works for us. The thousands of church, mosques, synagogues, temples and meeting houses may not work for others. It works for us. We do not choose which religions to favor and support. We protect them all. We support none. And yes, the courts and schools went overboard for awhile. The Catholic Church has won many, many legal cases over the last 30 years restoring some of the basic freedoms of students.

In the US, we actually WANT science to be taught by those who do not a religious agenda/bias. This is also true of the social sciences.

You keep avoiding engaging with the actual discussion. And you keep claiming that I and I think ebia hold positions we do not, which is pretty annoying. Who said anything about wanting to go back to the 1900s or any other time - yet you keep bringing it up. Please, stick to what is being said.


You dont have secular education, that is the point. What neutral worldview is this so called secular education based on. Answer that and maybe you will have a chance of convincing someone you have real secular education.

Education is based on a worldview, or no education at all. Humanism and materialism are as much a worldview as Christianity or Buddhism.

Your system does not produce educated adults, so why you think this has been successful I do not know. This is the reason private schools for those who are able to afford them, and homeschooling for others, have exploded in numbers in recent years (and contrary to popular belief, the homeschoolers are just as likely to be secular types as fundamentalists - the biggest increases are among more mainstream folks who simply cannot find good public options) And this is despite a lot of money being poured into these schools.

As for the success of your public education among Christians - do you really feel, over in OBOB, that people have had a public education that makes them better Catholics - many of those who think they are the most devout are really adherents of a sort of conservative Americanism before they are Catholics. Do you really think the plethora of non-denominational sects and break-away groups speaks to the health of evangelical Christianity there. Why is it that new heresies seem to spring up there so fruitfully - Mormonism, Pentecostalism, the JWs, dispensationalism, the prosperity gospel, Christian Zionism.... what kind of education have people had in the so-called secular system that they can fall prey to these things - a lot of them are historically completely untenable. If secular science education is so good, how do people fall prey to the largely intellectually bankrupt arguments for young earth creationism.

Christianity in Canada, and I think Australia, is more low-key in many ways. People in general are not threatened by religious expression though in Canada (excluding Quebec) - you can be a Sikh in the army, or practice Native American spirituality, and not have to worry that you will have to cut hair or beard short. In our law, religious diversity of individuals is seen as part of culture and valuable, and that includes its visible expression.

Europe is a slightly different kettle of fish, and not a block on this issue.

But I think it would be much more interested in the number of orthodox Christian followers in the US if we must resort to the bums in seat way of measuring. The fact that there are significant numbers of people who are dispensationalists counts against the health of American Christianity, not for it.

As far as i know. Bishop Wright has not commented on whether the American idea of neutral secular education is possible.

The argument which ebia and I are making is simple, and you keep running around it. It is that the approach the US has taken is not logically possible. In the name equality of religion they have tried to produce a really neutral school system. But because all education systems are rooted in a worldview, they have failed. They have either had to resort to a non-religious worldview (which is not neutral, it is just as much a philosophical position as any religion); or they have tried to create a system with no worldview, which is impossible.

Humanism, existentialism, whatever, are not neutral. From the perspective of how we think about reality, they are each a kind of religion, so if you want to treat all religion equally in the public sphere, you cannot do so by elevating one of these instead of a theistic religious position.

 

[MKJ]

What's irritating is that the method of a lot of basic education was families and churches for years in America. Students had a high degree of literacy, math skills, memory skills, foreign languages and other things. The effectiveness of this approach really can't be argued.

As others have said, the presumption in public school has typically been that "secular" means "neutral". No, secularism is still fundamentally religious. The absence of religion (as secularism purports to be) doesn't make for a non-religious proposition. Rather than being taught the common morality as informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, children have been taught neurotic lessons about recycling and how to use a condom. That may result in what the government considers to be a Good Citizen but it doesn't necessarily lead to a functionally literate adult.

A lot of this is ostensibly couched in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Somehow, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has come to be interpreted as barring all religion from the public square. This is why liberals should never be trusted with Constitutional interpretation; invariably they make these types of idiotic decisions.

Public education is a failure, period. Time for something else.

I dont really see this as a liberal thing, the interpretation you are talking about is used just as often by what you guys think of as conservatives.

Public education in some countries actually works quite well, and i do not think its failures in North America are all about it being public - they have as much to do with the models that were selected early on by governments. I suppose they seemed a good idea at the time, but they have come to dominate without really being examined much. And the lack of a really coherent philosophy of education is a problem here to - that relates to this issue of trying to create a neutral system, which seems to be enshrined by the courts in the US, and is also the way many provinces here operate on a day to day basis.