Would you/have you started going to church to get child into a good church school?!

I still wouldn't send my DD to a faith school as the only one that I would find acceptable in terms of school standards is a Catholic selective (and we're not Catholics so she could find that aspect of school life difficult to maintain). I also couldn't put in sufficient effort to 'be seen' at Church events as I'm not a Church-goer (although I do believe in God - so shoot me). On Sundays I prefer to take my DD out to create fun times with her family rather than jump through hoops to secure a potential secondary education. Sufficent unto the day etc...... By the time DD is 11, I may be able to blag her a place at Roedean or Marlborough if the latest proposals from the Govt go through [tongue in cheek smiley].

Well that is wrong as I had said I woudl like to see faith schools as being the minority as we are a minority in the population. I actually think we woudl end up with more catholic than c of e schools as the catholic poulation is rising dramatically here with the influx of eastern european immigration. Our cathlic churches are packed at the moment.

Unquietdad - would I lie? Well, going to church with my daughter when I don't believe is a tacit lie.

If the vicar asked me outright if I was a believer I would have to say no but I would say I wanted to give my daughter a religious grounding. Given my views on religion, this is pretty much untrue too but I feel so strongly about the faith school issue that I would do it.

BTW someone suggested faith schools are in the minority. Not in my borough they are not. I live in Westminster (central) and ALL my local schools are faith schools. I actually used to be a governor of one and they definitely used faith selection as a back door to other forms of selection.

Can just imagine if "out of a hat", you could end up with a school miles away.

Although not ideal selecting on distance, children should have opportunity of attending a local school.

agree with SmileysPeople it is the shared value and belief systems thatmake a good school.I would be quite happy to see atheist/ humanist schools.

I atill think the answer is to reduce the number of church schools which flies in the face of government policy so only the religious are choosing religious schools that angst ridden m/c parents will have to use the local comprehensives ( if I was in power I would get rid of private education which is much more harmful to education than the church schools) which will force them to improve.

so as well as making sweeping judgements about the religious DC you make similar judgements about comprehensive schools.

I teach in a school where as you put it "poor parents send their kids" and I am highly qualified as are my colegaues and we are all very very good atour jobs. In factdare I suggest that the teachers at my comprehensive school are better qualiied and certainly better practioners than at the previous leafy M/C church school I taught at.

I agree with frogs post.

And following her reasons for many church schools doing well, I think that hypothetical vegetarian school would probably also turn out to be high acheiving.

Not as vegetarians or Christians are intrinisically any better, but because when people actively opt into something they invest in it, they have shared and understood values, and work together more effectively for the common good and the success of the ethos they've subscribed to and beleive in.

Which is suely a 'good thing'??

Actually for once ever I agree with DC.

This is actually a debate about selcetion.
Whether it's selection on the basis of religion, catchment(which in reality is economic), aptitude or academic acheivement.

All 'good' and therefore over subscribed schools, (whether religious or not) have to select somehow, and as DC says usually in preference of middle class parents who have economic power.

I guess the only totallay 'fair' way would be, out of a hat selection.

Hasn't an LEA suggested this this week??

OOOh see those Middle Class parents who object to religious selection react to that suggestion!!

Haha -- in most cases church schools do not deny non-believers places. Many catholic schools, both state and private, have large numbers, sometimes even a majority of non-catholic children. But when the schools are over-subscribed, Catholic children have priority, on the basis that the schools were founded by the Catholic church to provide a Catholic education for children from catholic families.

And in answer to the question about why church schools perform better:

Firstly, not all church schools do perform better, in terms of SATs results. Where schools are under-subscribed they can end up in the same downward spiral as any other undersubscribed school.

But I do think the faith plays a part in their overall success -- IME it has a unifying influence on what might be a very disparate community. People have chosen that school specifically for its religious ethos, and IME the fact that even the more challenging families support that ethos (although often only nominally) affects the whole atmosphere. Which doesn't necessarily make it a more academically successful school, but probably does make it a more desirable school, which in turn means they will be more likely to attract families who value what the school provides, which presumably at some stage does translate into academic results.

But of course those of you that think we're all mad idol-worshippers hellbent on indoctrinating our children aren't going to be willing or able to understand that.

So not much point me posting, really.

"Since they are often working class and coloured"

"they" being the diffcult children according to DC

HaHabizarre, to answer your question:

If there was a high acheiving vegetarian school, I think I would accept that priority had to be given to those who were vergetarian for whom the school was set up. I would be seriously questioning why a vegetarian school should be out performing the local school, and in all honesty would probably become a vegetarain if I felt it important enough to get a place at the school.

In reality all oversubscribed schools are selective, and what we are really talking about is oversubscribtion to good schools. No one minds failing Catholic schools selcting.

Most oversubscruibed schools select on distance, which we all know in reality is selectiing on economic grouds and ability to pay the premium to live in that area. This may not be the explicit intention of the policy, but let's not pretend that we don't all know this to be the case in reality, which is what counts.

A parent who cannot afford to live in a certain catchment has as much right to moral indignation about selction as you, as in reality they have no choice, and pay tax.

In fact more grounds for moral indigantion, as selcting on financial capability...now that is elitist.

As for section in general, it begs a question that has been notably absent from most of this topic.
What is best for the kids ?
Selection seems to suit teachers at over-subscribed schools, but the number of more difficult children is not altered, so they must end up somewhere.
Selection is good for middle class people like me who have bright kids with no real problems.
Governments of both kinds pander to people like me. If you allow any substantial amount of slection, it does rather follow that difficult kids will be more concentrated. Since they are often working class and coloured, that suits the Daily Mail and Labour party, and who really cares ?
To me it follows the a higher concentration of difficult kids who may often hyave parents who don't hlelp the situaiotn means thatthe kids who need the most help are put into actively hostile environments.
My nice middle class friends hear my accent and know my academics, so flatly refuse to believe my tales of knife fights at school, or being taught by teachers with no qualification in any subject relevent to the one in hand.
That's comprehensives, where we send kids with poor parents. The religious schools have been successful in keeping down the number of such kids, which helps their statistics enormously.

JUst to clarify my question to mainlymayday - I don't want to judge, I'm just curious! (And interested as to how such a deception would be maintained on a day-by-day/week-by-week basis. It strikes me that it could get difficult if there was pressure to become more closely involved.)

Also, if faith schools are so good because of the faith element (which I do not believe) then the religious parents ought not to feel threatened by non-Christians attending those schools too. Why deny children a good education on the basis of what their parents' believe?

"There have been tons of posts since I was on this thread last night, it's taken ages to read. And nothing anybody has said has made my change my opinion that if you're a non-believer it makes no sense to fight for a religious school place then slag off the 'gift' you've been given."

And nothing I have read on this thread has convinced me why people of faith should be given preferential treatment at the expense of taxpayers.

Nothing has convinced me that it is right that many children don't get a choice of school in yet people of faith get a choice of school that suits their ethos - funded by the taxpayer.

Nothing has convinced me WHY parents and churches can't take care of indoctrinating their children into their religion (not that I agree with the indoctrination of children anyway)

Nothing has convinced me away from my belief that if religious folk want their children to go to a religious school THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!

Natric I'm so sorry that happened to you.

Should just add that DD1 starts school in September and our catchment school is C of E. But I have chosen and been accepted for her to go to a non Christian school a mile down the road as I prefer the way they teach and interact with children and I don't want my DD's to suffer at school like I did always the odd one out treated differently because I was not the same as them (non-Christians).

I understand that school is important but as a born again Christian I would have to say that church is were Christians go to worship and praise. It can be uncomfortable for non Christians and if the non Christian is attending to ensure school places this must be a living hell. Everyone in church should be there because they want to be. If you want to be a Christian then go for it and go regularly but as a child I has bullied because my parents were Christians. The bullies called me a bible basher etc etc it was very nasty and made me question my own faith for years. Still not recovered fully but am starting to. My 2 DS's go every Sunday with my parents I go every now and then but carry on with God at home. My DH wants nothing to do with it he believes in God but hates churches. I now Christian school are good but if the children are not really Christians will they get bullied like I did for going to a public school and being a born again Christian. Was worse when we my parents put use in Army school in Cyprus were they followed Gods path and I was known as the God girl.

It doesn't acatually seem totally ,wildly unreasonable to me for schools to select a bit - on the grounds of academic aptitute, or sporting talent, or musical skill. There comes a point where it's a bit pointless trying to force someone to learn about a subject that is of no interest to them, when they'd be much better off devoting more of their time to developing their own skills, talents and areas of expertise. If your inclinations and abilities are all indicating that archaology is the ideal area for you to work in, why spend half your day being frogmarched round the hockey field? And if your aptitude is for ballet, do you really need to be repeatedly shouted at and reduced to tears of inadequacy by a maths teacher?
I appreciate that a certain amount of general education is necessary in order to give people a chance to find out in which area their interests lie, but I fail to see why paying lip service to any one brand of mythology over another gives any indication of what skills, talents, intelligence or moral values any individual might possess.

mayday, would you lie outright?

Just popped back to answer as some people have addressed me specifically.

Blu's question was "What are the convincing reasons that Catholic schools do better than secular maintained schools?" There was more, but that was the gist.

I don't think there are any, specifically...? There are all sorts of reasons why "good" schools do well - parental involvement, motivated kids, good leadership. You find these in some faith schools and some ordinary state schools. The only convincing thing seems to be that good schools attract parents who want to do the best for their kids and will jump through hoops to do so. I've yet to see evidence that it's the "faith" dimension - as opposed to the fact that these other elemetns are in place - which makes the school a good one.

becky/smiley - apologies if the football analogy seems to trivialise the issue. That wasn't my intention. I just wanted to choose a criterion which seemed silly - something which seems, in fact, like a faith school's criteria do to an outsider. I don't feel I suffer from lack of empathy - I've been round here long enough now, and I don't think people can accuse me of that on other threads. I just wanted to demonstrate how bizarre and arbitrary a faith CAN seem to someone who just doesn't live their life like that.

custardo - I like the joke.

Hoorah for Blu's excellent posts on this thread. And Frogs'.

And how many DominiConnors can dance on the head of a pin??

I do think that there are faith schools that are selactive on grounds other than faith but thatis beacause they are oversubscribed not becuase they are faith schools.