On your recent post:

“Which at times AC-1 has confused between [terminology and meaning].”

You did not clarify exactly where we disagree, which was probably out of politeness! Unless it is with the definition of words, which I will address.

We have a very high level of agreement despite your concerns on my post. We seem to have different terminology – but I obviously think I take precedence, since I was first to post! :)

When you say “To Teach/Be Taught”, I said verbal information. I think we agree apart from the terminology.
You discussed “To Educate/Be Educated” and its role in independent thinking and what I would consider mental “skills”. When you mention development of “latent talents”, I am thinking latent skills. Again, agreement.

I get the feeling you think these terms “to teach”, “to school” and “to educate” are separate and self evident. But the meaning of the words, in the dictionary, are about the same and are widely (but not completely) interchangeable. I don’t think they lend clarity when you separate them without solid definitions. You referenced the root of the words “educate” and “seminary” but this is heading towards argument from etymology and also don’t clarify the argument.

“Surely the response here is that potential is defined by the pupil themselves.”
I agree but I think it is hard for teenagers to know what they want. They are notoriously influenced by peer pressure, etc. I would say your suggestion is an aim point and ideal state but not fully achievable. (In fact, I don’t think most adults reach this stage either.)

“A faith school does not pressupose that all its teachers, nor all its students hold, practise, or assent to the same values.”
This is the central point of disagreement, I judge. A faith school, by definition, makes a value judgement. For example, in a certain school you might be familiar with, it states in the prospectus:

“The school seeks to do this in the context of a Catholic community, where everyone shares a vision based on the teachings and exemplary life of Jesus Christ”

Admittedly some schools are more strong in the presentation of the message than others. Usually, the senior teachers positions are reserved for followers of that faith. The other teachers are not normally allowed to contradict this value judgement – although some schools allow teachers to refrain from comment on religion. Each school varies, but the sactions would vary from getting a cold shoulder to termination of employment. For example, it would be inconcevable that a UK teacher at a faith school could announce in an assembly that there is no god (and keep their job).

“The curriculum that these schools must adhere to transcends cultural and social values expressed by ethnic and religious groupings.”
Well I have read in one school prospectus:

“The entire curriculum in [the school] is influenced by its religious identity and has at its heart the values and beliefs expressed in the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

You also have to remember that the curriculum established by government also has a certain Christian bias; this is hardly surprising considering the religion of the majority of MPs.

Since in faith schools, all teachers support or, at least, don’t oppose the faith, it is presented as “true” with no alternative. It is the very definition of indoctrination.

“Therefore …. (insert object of distrust/dislike) … is a bad thing.”
First off, I was talking about systems of values. Many of the items you listed are not value systems, but I think I understand your broader point. I don’t agree because I argued that one single value system was indoctrination. The solution: present more than one value system! You don’t necessarily need to abolish the school.

“A ’school’ is an expression of social values. It is the value that says education, the chance to flourish brightly in whatever pursuit the individual chooses is a good thing.”
This is an interesting point that I hinted at previously, but totally chickened out answering! What is the purpose of compulsory education? Isn’t the answer, as you suggest, a single value judgement? That is probably why many libertarians want to abolish state education.

“Should not the anti-realist like myself clamour for schools to ban the teaching science, on accounts of its taught methods being indoctrination of a particular world view about reality?”
I think you just straw manned by argument! (IMHO.) I argued for multiple value systems to be presented. The alternatives to science are already taught in schools. I did not say any single subject should be banned! That would be the path of nihilism.

“It is incoherent that in promoting free-thinking we should also prevent the free-choice of parents”
No, they are two separate issues. By their logic of total “free choice”, I could brainwash the parents to my point of view! How is that different from them indoctrinating their children?

“[The vast overwhelming majority of pupils h]ave little difficulty in being cohesive members of a diverse society.” “If you can specifically identify cases where this does not occur then I would suggest this to be the exception and not the rule”
You are assuming I agree that society is sane and healthy. I suggest society is maladjusted. I guess that is a specific case of sorts! lol

“Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of our industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now it’s long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails, as long as it’s possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can.” Noam Chomsky

Anti Citizen One