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

UQD, the point of believing in God isn't to make you a better person, but it should follow that by believing you become better and happier (than you were, not than non-Christians) by trying to follow Jesus's example. Obviously people like George W Bush & Tony Blair do nothing for my argument(!), but it's evident that power corrupts. I sometimes wonder if things would have been different with the Labour Party had John Smith not died & gone on to become prime minister as somehow he seemed a far more genuine Christian.

The church schools I've visited, which I realise are only a tiny minority, have had a genuinely caring ethos rather than just one of success being allied to league tables & exam results, & that's what's attracted me & what I want for my children - but I'm not saying that this is exclusive to faith schools. Round here we have a good choice of perfectly reasonable secular & church comprehensives & I don't know anyone who's started going to (a C of E) church to get into a particular school - although I've been surprised that parents of some children in my dd's class have declared a hitherto unmentioned allegiance to the pope in order to be considered for the local (high-performing) RC school!

23balloons:''I have read a lot of comments on threads like this from people who object to paying taxes for religious schools that their children cannot attend. Well religious people pay taxes too for schools they don't intend to use either.''
Your two sentences illustrate the problem - ''cannot attend'' because they are excluded from applying versus ''don't intend to use''.In the second case there is a choice being made whereas in the first case there is no choice.

23balloons:"Maybe people who do attent church regularly and have religious beliefs are more likely to have a strong set of moral standards which helps schools achieve better results."

With respect, you may see this has been argued below, and equally unconvincingly. What evidence is there for this? To say that the religious have higher moral standards is very dangerous ground - for one thing, it's a total debate-stopper, as :
either
a) you're saying that without God, you'd not be a good person and are therefore naturally inclined to steal, lie, cheat, harm, etc., and that, worryingly, only your belief in a deity is presenting you from doing these things
or
b) no, you're not saying that, you're a naturally good person anyway and you would be even without the surveillance of God - which rather defeats the point of believing in God.

Good schools, faith or non-faith, are in a self-perpetuating cycle - they attract motivated parents with bright, well-supported and well-resourced kids. They usually have a good ethos and strong leadership. That's why they are good schools. It has nothing to do with religious morals.

You say you've read the threads, perhaps you'd like to do it again paying closer attention ?

We object because of the discrimination. I am not black or female, that does not stop me supporting laws against discrimination. I didn't live in a time or place when Christian churches were able to force polticians to enact laws against coloureds, torture heretics, or get umarried mothers comitted to aylums. Doesn't mean I think that's OK.
It's a point of principle, don't suppose a bulk christian would get that.
The schools thing is of course far less bad than many of the things bulk christians have done. That's not the same as being good.

As for the "moral standards", is this a subtle joke I missed ? Look at countries with more religious observance than Britain, like America or Iran. Hmmm. Nice.
Not.
Both George Bush and Tony Blair are clearly committed Christians who openly speak of God in their decision making. You up for defending their higher moral standards ?
How about Cardinal Cormac O'Connor, self confessed accomplice in the rape of children ?

I have read a lot of comments on threads like this from people who object to paying taxes for religious schools that their children cannot attend. Well religious people pay taxes too for schools they don't intend to use either. Its a pointless argument IMO. If I have only boys why should my taxes fund girls schools or if I have no children at all why shouldn't I pay less tax than people with children. If I am healthy why do I have to fund the NHS etc?

The only reason people make the tax arguments is because they have poor alternatives. If the faith schools performed badly and the local schools were excellent then there would be no such complaints.

Maybe people who do attent church regularly and have religious beliefs are more likely to have a strong set of moral standards which helps schools achieve better results.

FWIW my sons attend Catholic school with a high % of English as a second language children (Korean,Spanish,Polish) and the school still achieves very good results even though they have a limited pool or Teachers to recruit from. There are also plenty of children there who never attend mass and a number of single parents too.

I see no reason to blame religious schools for the stupidly poor state of British education, though if apologists for their discrimnation want to take credit for their role in creating our system, I rather think they should share the blame.
Comps as UQD says are source of inequality not in their concept, but because they are badly run, as well as having inadequate resources.

Hence parents willingness to lie and cheat to escape the worst of them. If we had schools that discriminated on the basis of race or choice of football team we would see the same effect.

I don't know - I'm not in the business of making silk purses out of sows' ears, and if I were I'd be earning a lot more money! What I do wish is that the comprehensive system were not trumpeted as some ideal of fairness, when it is riddled with people pulling a fast one, jostling and hustling and lying and cheating because they feel they need to. If we had a properly fair system, none of this would need to happen. I don't know what a properly fair system would be, though...

At the risk of sounding like an old fart, "it was never like this in my day." (Well, it wasn't, was it? I don't remember my parents stressing about school catchments and appeals and faith schools and all of that. I went to a grammar school so there was a bit of tension over whether I'd be selected, but I never had to do the 11-plus - it was selection at 13 by aptitude - but apart from that it all seemed plain sailing.)

I agree UnquietDad - that is the problem with catchments in some areas at the moment. Where I live it could work for us if all the local people had to go to our local school and couldn't play the sysyem by suddenly starting to go to church. But I know then it could become a problem if the local school improves - the area would become one in which people pretend to live etc. As I said in my earlier post, I don't have the answer but I did wonder whether the catchment idea could be used if the catchments were fairly drawn. I have to admit that I could be persuaded that properly managed and flexible selection by aptitude could work too but only if enough money and resources were ploughed in to all the schools and not just the 'grammar' equivalents.But I am sure that the ongoing practice of allowing faith schools to select by the back door is ridiculous.Education should be about opportunity for all children and no child should be refused entry on the basis of whether the parents attend church.
Out of interest UnquietDad - what do you think would work best ?

..which in areas with grammar schools and not many church schools is the case already...

Then the same parents woud start to fuss about how the schools are better in the wealthier areas than they are in their areas. You would end up with the same problem really.

Perhaps they resent paying for a school which their child is barred from attending?

Regarding the choice issue, what people fail to consider is that for a parent of a particular 'faith' who wants to educate their children according to that teaching, there is arguably less choice available than for those non-believers. My parish does not have a church school attached and therefore it has been difficult for me to secure places for my children in the nearest available catholic school.

Ultimately my choice of a catholic school is borne out of the fact that this is the education that I undersatnd and have expereinced myself and want for my children. I am a practising catholic who lives by the teachings of my church and to be honest, I resent the fact that individuals who have no interest in this religion should expect to educate their children at a catholic school, at the expense of a place for my child.

idelmum, when you say no opt-out, you mean everyone has to go to their catchment school, no arguments? (And no faith schools.) I think that's good in theory but it would only work if everyone played fair - believe me, some people would still find a way round it. (Using grandma's address, renting etc - as they do now.)

Thanks twinset for the concession re choice. It sounds as if you are lucky in your area.I think one of the reasons so many people have got hot under the collar on this thread is the lack of choice issue; once we have that problem then it is quite natural to point out any unfairness in the system. I don't know what the overall answer is. Is it properly drawn up catchments with no opt out? This would probably work in our area but might not work everywhere.

I suppose we do have more choice and I can't defend that, although lots of parents who send their kids to church schools would only use the church school so they have limitations although they are self imposed.

I must be very lucky because here I can genuinely say that our church schools do not cream off kids and I can say that with some insider knowledge as a parent using one school, a teacher in another, a governer of a further school and a supportworker in two other local schools. THere is a difference between our schools but that is to do with geography not if the school is a church one.

But 'twinset' the situation is that the churchgoers have more choice and an exclusive choice not open to non-churchgoers but we all pay taxes. It is disingenuous to say that the other schools need to get better when they can't improve when all the able/motivated/better behaved pupils are being creamed off by the selective (by the back door) faith school. That is the reality faced by so many of us.I accept that when church schools were established they wouldn't have anticipated the current situation but we have to face the fact that there is such a blatantly un-level playing field.

Caroline1852, I agree that the school that excludes your children is a travesty of what true Christianity stands for, & I wouldn't want any child of mine going there. As I've said a few times, the faith schools in my area have a proportion of places for practising Christians/Muslims/Jews etc & the rest community places for all-comers, & I don't think I'd personally be happy with a school purely for kids who went to church as that could be very exclusive. My church is actually full of people with doubts, with complicated pasts & with messy lives, including various 'odd bods' (& I'm pretty odd myself!) who don't really fit into society, & the philosophy of true Christianity is that anyone should feel welcome: that's why Jesus spent most of his time with poor people & outcasts.

UQD, I'm glad to feel a bit of a thaw from your direction & I hope it's not my imagination. Re. proving the existence of God: I know it sounds like a cop out, but I don't think it's something that can be proven in a material sense; just that Christians believe that God is at work in the good in the world, be it perpetrated by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, tree-worshippers, pink unicorns or whoever, & that evil exists because God created freewill. Why don't we just agree to differ on that on the grounds that a tolerant & open society is best all round? Off to eat my tea now (prepared by my heathen husband...)

DC, answering a quetsion of yours from several days ago: No I'm not thinking of Mary Whitehouse and Gay News, I've already said Oz Magazine (in fact it was the Skoolkids issue) where the owners/publishers Richard Neville and Felix thingamajig were taken to court.

twinset - that is a good question and I'm sure he has addressed it somewhere. He must have been asked it at some point. I don't know if it is in "The God Delusion" but I expect it is on his website somewhere.

For myself, I find this extract from the BBC's Religion & Ethics site pretty much states my position.

'We should adopt the same policy that we do with people who insist the Loch Ness Monster exists:

Start by assuming that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. Form an idea of what would constitute the Loch Ness Monster. Then see if there's anything that "proves" that particular thing exists.

The philosopher Anthony Flew who wrote an article on this said:

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.
So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition.
It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.'

I was chuckling about this thread with dp last night ( who is an atheist with agnostic tendencies!) and we were laughing at the fact someone called christians mentally ill. Dp then pointed out that I am menetally ill so perhaps I should leave this thread as I am giving the enemy ammuniton!

Caroline1852 thatis Christianity at its worst and I would not stand for that. I myself have not gone to church for long periods due to ill health and I know that would not harm my daughters chance of getting in to school.

UQD ( I think it was you) I to am willing to have my mind changed by evidence and at times I have not believed in God and to be honest as a thinking Christian I am never 100% sure.

I will admit to not having read all the God delusion but does Dawkins say what evidence he would need. I just suspect that he is waiting for evidence that he knows will not come.

because I am a tax payer as well and therefore have the right to educate my child, it costs the state no more to educate my child as a catholic than in a non denominational school. AS we are so supportive of our school the parents also pay a lot into the education, for example we wanted a new playground so we paid for it, we wanted a vegetable garden we are paying for the equipment and doing work for ourselves. We also get money from the church.

We laos do welcome none church going families, although to be honest we donlt get that many as the schools are so good that families who are aginst church schools just wouldn;t want to come here. We do take children in from different faiths. I just want to see children educating in an environment where they succeed and that isn't closed to people because of their income and as I have said earlier our school represents and welcomes children from all types of financial backgrounds.

If other schools in the area were better there parents would not be getting frustrated and annoyed at the the lack of choice. This is not pie in the sky and as in my area every primary is good and most are excellent so the presence of two church schools out of what I think is six is not affecting the standards of education.

As for the picking and choosing I am just being honest, I think we all agree on the major things but there are some matters of morality where even the Bible is unclear. Sometimes I do agree with the church teaching, for example about sex before marriage but due to my own human flaws I do not feel able to live up to that teaching but I can see how my life would have benefitted if I had managed to save myself for marriage.

Once upon a time I would have qualified for our local Christian Ethos selective school who select based on the parents' religious attendance. My faith fell on hard times after giving birth to a premature baby who did not survive and it seems that my misfortune and crisis informs my older children's chances of getting into a certain school. What sort of Christianity is that?

I keep revisiting this thread as I am waiting for someone to justify why faith schools should be able to select churchgoers only (and some churchgoers are more equal than others) and yet the taxpayer is meeting the bulk of the school's running costs. I accept that not all faith schools are oversubscribed and that some serve disadvantaged communities. BUT the problem is that in some areas the best performing school is the faith school. It is disingenuous to say that this is entirely down to the faith of the parents; it might have been originally but what we have now is a vicious circle of self selection. Because the school performs well then motivated/concerned/aspirational/mc (pick whichever term applies) want their kids to have a chance to get in and will do whatever it takes. They are the parents most likely to be committed to their children's education and will therefore be highly supportive to the school and this will then contribute to further success and so it goes on...These families are then creamed off from the other 'standard comprehensives' and their performance is affected.So then, please tell me why this is fair and why the taxpayer should put up with this situation.