I wrote this article 'Why Don't Our Schools Teach Philosophy?' for The Independent in 2001. It has dated very quickly. Six years later many schools offer Philosophy A/S and A Level, and even more offer offer Religious Studies A/S and A Level. Things are looking up.
Hubert Dreyfus is in the strange position of being a critic of distance learning and one of its best exponents. I've already posted several pieces about his book On the Internet (e.g. this one), where he argues that face-to-face tuition is essential, particularly for Philosophy. I've also linked to his excellent (though unedited) lectures podcast on iTunesU (see this post).
There is an interesting article about his impact in The Los Angeles Times 'The iPod Lecture Circuit'. There is also a weblog linking together his virtual community of distant fans here. In his Heidegger lectures he talks about how his views about Heidegger have changed since he wrote his commentary on Being and Time; I wonder whether he will be changing his views about distance learning too...
A professor at London's Institute of Education, Michael Reiss, wants science teachers to handle questions about Creationism sensitively. This seems harmless. But may not be. It depends how this is interpreted. If a pupil from a religious background who believes in Creationism questions Darwinism when it is taught, then of course that pupil needs answers. Science teachers need to answer the student's questions - and no doubt would answer without having read Reiss's book. But there is surely not an obligation to give much time to discussing the ideas or treat them as scientifically respectable in any way. These are science lessons. If we go down this route, then we may end up needing to include some alchemy in Chemistry lessons as a serious alternative to empirical science. The real danger here is that this will be seen as an admission that Creationism (or alchemy) is a theory that merits discussion in a scientific context...something that has proved disastrous in the US educational context.
This is a bit like the issue of including papers by Holocaust deniers in an academic History conference. Only some false ideas are sufficiently coherent and evidence-based to justify their entry into the debate. Just by discussing some of the wilder ideas alongside evidence-based ones they are inadvertently given far greater respectability than they deserve. Creationism as an idea-virus is a good subject for sociological study; but given the US experience, educationalists should be wary about lending it as a 'theory' a seriousness that it does not in the least deserve...we might end up taking seriously the idea that thunder is caused by Zeus's anger too. Something like ten percent of students in the UK seem to believe in Creationism in some form according to Professor Reiss; but probably more than that believe in astrological predictions too...but that doesn't mean science lessons should get sidetracked into discussions of the evidence base for astrology (I'm an Airies by the way so of course I would be aggressive about this).
I like Dr Hilary Leevers's response that science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief". This raises interesting questions about what the role of a science teacher is. Surely it is at the most basic level to teach students about science, its methods and value. It is also to model good scientific practice which is certainly not to take all beliefs equally seriously.
If a Holocaust denier asks a question in a History lesson we wouldn't expect a History teacher to treat the student's position as just another belief: the point would be to show why this is not a position that a historian could hold without denying overwhelming evidence, and then move on swiftly. Presumably we wouldn't want a History teacher to engage in an extended debate about the actual evidence at this point as that would give deniers a credibility as part of the evidence-based debate that they don't merit (I support Deborah Lipstadt's action here - she declines to appear on the same platform as deniers such as David Irving, despite having refuted Holocaust denial in great detail in an English court following a libel action from Irving. For more on that, see her excellent book History on Trial
According to an article in The Observer a headteacher from a Tyneside state school, Dr Paul Kelley, has tried to challenge the idea that pupils should perform a Christian act of worship every day. As a result his school loses points on educational inspections.
Bizarrely, in the UK state schools have a legal requirement for pupils to take part in a daily collective act of worship of a broadly Christian nature (apparently there are exceptions for non-Christian faith schools where the relevant religious act can be substituted). Parents are allowed to request that their children be withdrawn from this (I don't believe that children can themselves opt out).
This is very different from the quite reasonable requirement that pupils should learn about other religions (and, we hope, about those who have no religion at all) as part of the curriculum.
Given that large numbers of children don't have religious beliefs, and certainly don't have Christian beliefs, what this means in practice is that all over the UK thousands of children are encouraged to engage in insincere religious utterances on a daily basis. This has very dubious educational and moral value.
Back in the Seventeenth Century John Locke in his A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) had already spotted that religious coercion is counterproductive:
"It is in vain for an unbeliever to take up the outward show of another man's profession. Faith only, and inward sincerity, are the things that procure acceptance with God...In vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects to come into their church communion, under pretence of saving their souls. If they believe, they will come of their own accord; if they believe not, their coming will not avail them."
And again:
"A sweet religion, indeed, that obliges men to dissemble, and tell lies to both God and man, for the salvation of their souls!"
That argument should still hold some force with the sincerely religious. But for many of us who are firmly secular in outlook it is disturbing that in the UK this sort of superstitious practice carried out in a state educational context is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Recent Comments