to believe Faith schools should be privately funded ?

[Peetle]

I should explain my interest. The nearest primary school to my house is about 250 yards away and involves crossing two not very busy roads. It is a faith school. The next nearest is about 300 yards away, across a major road and in the middle of a council estate. It's ofsted report full of phrases like "higher than average English as a second language", "higher than average free school meals", etc, etc. Other local schools are over a mile away and we're likely to be out of their catchment area.

To get into the faith school families have to attend our local place of worship regularly for two years, know the officials and prove regular financial donations to the establishment. Of course, once these families have got their first child into the school they stop attending and donating. I also know of families of different and even contradictory faiths attending purely to get their children into the school. And I frequently see people picking up their children in cars, suggesting they live considerably further from it than we do.

We have no hope of getting into this school, not being hypocrites and not wishing to give our children the idea that it's alright to be dishonest about something if you want it badly enough.

My point is that I don't mind people wanting to give their children an education in their chosen faith, but I object to my taxes funding a school I can't use and which encourages parents to profess a religious belief they don't hold purely for the purposes of entry.

dusty - faith schools don't do better because of faith. seeker and I have posted arguments and evidence for this throughout the thread. Noone has tried to refute it. Wthy? Are faith school supporters nervous of saying "it's because people of faith are better people."? (Actually miloouna has just come close to this)

mrclaypole - someone oh the threadappealed and won, but it didn't go to court.

mmeblueberry - motivated parents select faith schools because they get better results due to being selective. this is self-reinforcing. The argument from individual taxation is obviously spurious. The argument on whether it is appropriate to reserve certain state facilities for specific interest groups I think is not.

litchick - you only need to leave the faith element of schools alone if the faith element leads to better results for the pupils. it doesn't.

kistigger - why should faith be taught at all? Surely this is something that should come from the parents, not school?

I have been shocked to find that our local community school is required, by law, to give the children religious instruction and communal worship from age five!

So nobody's prepared to justify the situation outlines in my 8.55 post?

Let's be honest Seeker, it isn't justifiable.

And as much as I loath with loathy loathness Mr Big Bossy Boots State, I must admit that state schools paid for by the tax payer, have no business being selectve on grounds of religion.

My daughter now believes that .. "God made everything people and cars, it's real true life!". How can I tell her that not everything that comes from the school is true?

I agree Jen, it's an outdated and inappropriate thing to be forcing on children. I don't agree that religion shouldn't be taught about (rather than taught) though - it is a fundamental part of the why the world is the way it is. But the way it is taught really needs to be overhauled, and the empahasis should be more on morality, spirituality, philosophy, and how all the different cultures/religious groups approach all of these issues and differ on their stances.

To be fair, my experience is that my children have been taught like that, in their independent school with a strong Christian ethos, and in their previous village CofE state school. Whether it's less broad/more blinkered and dogmatic in a RC or Jewish school I really don't know, but it definitely would be in a Islamic school, I feel sure of that. It's the 'daily act of worship' thing that is still a big stumbling block for me.

It does seem to me obvious that we taxpayers should onyly fund schools that are open to inspection and fulfdill criteria common to all taxpayer funded schools! (My DS and DD are in a state comp)Apart from religious intolerance and devisiveness I am concerned that they can dump Sex Education into RE and not have it inspected - i.e. they do a limited version or none at all. the misery and distress caused by ignorance of sexual realities is surely something that no young person should experience because their parents and teachers decided for them that they should not know? The recent Sex Education Show on Channel 4 was marvellous and highlighted to me this potentially dangerous aspect of Faith Schools that came out in Prof Dawkins excellent programme. What do others think? (If your DCs are babies you should not ignore this - believe me in a twinkling of your eye they will be teenagers...)

Where I live - those who have a faith have a choice of schools - primary and secondary, those who don't - don't.

This is top of my list to sort out when I'm Prime Minister. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.

seeker - I was on the thread earlier (surprised to find it's still going) as a sort-of advocate of faith schools, but I wouldn't justify the scenario you mention. The only thing I would say is that if Janet chose St Mary's, she would be freeing up a place at Trumpton for another pupil - maybe John's child. But if St Mary's was under-subscribed, he would have a very good chance of getting in there. But of course it's unacceptable that John's decision has to be subject to Janet's.

The issue is that there isn't enough choice for parents who don't want a faith-based education. I'm uncomfortable that people want to use this as a reason to bash religion or criticise people who do choose this. The school I attended accepted that there might be reasons for parents to choose their school even if they weren't practicing Catholics, so it's not always hypocrisy.

Just wanted to scotch some myths:

• RC schools teach the national curriculum, they are not at liberty to teach what they like, and its students sit the same RE GCSEs as everyone else. They might make it compulsory to take RE, but as far as classroom teaching is concerned, that's the only difference.

• The Vatican accepted that evolution was the most likely explanation for the origins of human species in the 1960s. Evolution is taught in RC schools, and nobody is taught that God literally create the world,

• Not all faith schools discriminate in their recruitment. Most would broadly require that a teacher didn't undermine the ethos of the school, not that they had to be committed worshipper. Obv, this doesn't apply to all schools.

Yes, agree with you FellatioNelson.

Things must have changed in recent years as my sons (now adults) went to a CofE village school and, in the early years, the sum of the children's religious eduction was the local vicar telling a Thomas the Tank Engine story once a week.

I don't know how five/six year olds are supposed to get their heads around the concept of God/religion.

Firstly, apols if I'm not staying on top of the whole thread, am dipping in and out as a typical overstretched mother! I can now add being unwell and unable to sleep to my current complaints!

In answer to an earlier post - think it was from Coalition - what IS a 'neutral' school? In a pluralist society, IMO 'neutral' has to mean broad and varied. People who are not offended by or afraid of religion or atheism should have no problem with their children attending either an 'easy-going' faith or secular school, as long as the students represent the broad spectrum of beliefs about religion. This can only be achieved when all schools open their doors to all local children. Not a perfect solution, of course, since parents with money will flock to certain areas, but then perfection is just a dream.

But - just to repeat what I said up-thread - even though I'm a supporter of faith schools, the current situation has only come about because the church-founded schools were co-opted into universal provision of primary education and now nobody has the funds or the political will to extricate themselves. I entirely agree that there shouldn't be any religious discrimination in school admissions.

and the report that TheCoalition linked to stated that the better results of faith schools were linked to their selection of pupils. But it DOESN'T say that this selection is based on class or ability. Most RC schools have a broad range of backgrounds, nationalities and social class. Selection is based on commitment to faith - maybe people who are committed to their faith are more likely to be committed to their child's education (not implying that you don't care about your child's education if you're not a churchgoer, of course)

And - finally - selection only occurs when a school is over-subscribed. As mentioned in the post about the local RC school having lots of Asian children, all children are welcome to attend - it's only if there are more applications than places that they prioritise those who share the same faith.

I've finished now.......

treats the more senior you get as a teacher the more avenues are closed down.

faith schools may tolerate non-religious class teachers who don't rock the boat, but they expect their senior management team to be actively religious.

so if you are a non-christian teacher aspiring to be a deputy head, SENCO, inclusion manager or head teacher then many of the positions at your local education authority will be closed to you.

teaching is the the ONLY (I think) occupation where discrimination on grounds of religion is not only allowed, but actually encouraged by the government (and many mumsnetters, judging by this thread)

But Treats why do you think it is actually necessary (as opposed to merely desirable) for you to have your children educated in a school which pro-actively supports your faith? do you not think there is is enough scope for your children to be exposed to the faith of your choice through the home environment and your chosen place of worship?

Why is it not sufficient for your children to be taught in the most general terms about all religions, and their impact on society/history/morality, as mine are taught? Why is it so important that your children are herded together with other children whose parents share your faith, and why is it important that that faith is then hammered home a bit more by the school?

I appreciate there is a historic link with church funding in many state faith schools, but it is pretty inappropriate or entirely irrelevant to most pupils these days.)

This is nothing to do with being anti-religion or attacking people with religion. Why can I not insist that the state pays for my child to attend a school purely for the offspring of Tory voters? What's the difference?

I fail to see how the state can justify the continuation of funding for schools that select their pupils on the basis of religion. I just cannot see any valid argument for it whatsoever.

Faith does not necessarily have to be taught, you're right. In many ways I think faith is caught anyway!!

We are still, I believe, a Christian nation, even if church attendance no longer reflects this, so there will still be a strong expectation for all schools (faith and non-faith) to reflect this!

Should school be forced to give up their status as faith schools? No, that's not any better!

Should faith schools be as severely selective as they are, especially when it is all there is in some areas? No probably not.

Should children be forced to worship or pray? No, never, in any variety of school.

Should faith schools be privatized instead then? What about in areas where is no or little other provision?? The government seems to have suspended all school rebuilding, upgrading etc plans because of a lack of money, therefore they are hardly going to have the money to build entirely new schools.

The school system is what it is. Arguments over which elements are good, bad or indifferent will not get any of our children a better education. Personally I would look for the government to stop having pencil pushers write the curriculum and instead allow teachers to. Reduce the sheer size of the curriculum to allow teachers more 'free' choice over what they teach that will appeal to their individual class. Encourage all schools to fundraise themselves more, allowing them to pay for additional resources, update buildings etc. I would look for less of the forced element in practicing a faith that you do not believe in. And I think greater parental interest in helping their children learn (which I'm sure you all do) and showing an interest in the learning their children are receiving.

Incidentally... all the faith schools in my area teach about all religions, not just their own!

Agree with Speedy

People who complain about faith schools are usually the ones who can't get in. My children attend our local RC school and do get a good grounding in their faith but there are also a couple of Muslim children and non Catholics too. We pay our taxes like everyone else and pay extra for our school. The schools are not encouraging segregation at all, we just want a school for our children where the existence of God is not denied! They are taught about all other faiths and are taught to be tolerant and to help other people more disadvantaged than themselves. What is so wrong with that? It sounds like Catholics are the new minority to be discriminated against??

keb - I have no interest in sending my children to faith schools.
They attend independent schools of my choosing. So no jealousy or bitterness here, I'm afriad.

I'm just uncomfortable with religious selection.

I wouldn't mind a school that said, look, this is our ethos. We are of bla blah religion. We will do x, y and Z. If you come you have to respect that.
But t go one step further and say you have to be a memeber to join...fine, but don't expect the tax payer to pay.
I have chosen a school that has a particulat way of doing things. I wouldn't expect you to pay for it.

stubbornhubby - that's bad. I'm not defending that and I do think it's ridiculous that we have religious discrimination in schools.

Fellatio - I don't think it's necessary. If it's an option for me, then I will choose it, mostly because it was what I experienced and I enjoyed my time at school. But I would be equally happy to send DD to a secular/neutral/non-faith school, if there isn't the choice of a faith school.

There were some people earlier in the thread who were venting about religion generally, but it seems to have calmed down a little.

I agree that the link is irrelevant now, but the point is that it HASN'T been broken. Which leads to the situation that faith schools make up a third of provision. I don't think that's right but it's up to the LEAs to change that - the churches aren't going to voluntarily hand them over.

But there isn't the funding or the political will to change the situation - partly because there's still such a demand from parents. The point I was making is that it's not the churches fault that this situation continues.

Just to be clear - I agree with everyone who says that there should be no religious discrimination in schools selection or recruitment. I DON'T think the current system can be justified, but nor do I think that it needs to be addressed by abolishing faith schools. We need to expand and improve non-faith education, to the extent that the only demand for faith schools is for those for whom it's a real priority.

Litchick - "look, this is our ethos. We are of bla blah religion. We will do x, y and Z. If you come you have to respect that."

I think this is the first suggestion which would be doable! At least then people the school would not have to change significantly! It would only be the selection criteria which would change!

On a slightly different note, all selection at schools can be bizzarly selective! Our local secondary (a non-faith comprehensive) is about a 5 minute walk away but due to some random agreement with a neighbouring council/LEA those children get first dibs on places at the school. So children even living next door to the school run the risk of not being offered a place if the school is oversubscribed by children from the next door LEA. If that happens, the children near the school getted fobbed onto the next nearest secondary which is frankly pants! Most people who moved into the area for the school won't be too impressed if none of their children get a place bar the ones who have lied about where they live or whose parents have gone to a lot of trouble to move somewhere to get a place and then move as soon as that place is secured!!! What can you do in that situation? Nothing, lump it or move!!!

You see this is exactly what I mean! The existence of God is not 'denied' in any school. There is a big difference in 'denying' God and confirming his absolute cast iron existence. Why does it have to be either? and as people have pointed out, science must be taught according to the national curriculum anyway, so if that in any way 'denies' God then all schools must put up with that in equal measure.

Your children could learn about their own religion, and everyone elses, in RE, the same as in every non-faith school. It is not up to the state to ensure that your children get a bit of extra input on your religion of choice.

To NOT have a lengthy religious assembly each day, and to NOT link a school to a Church for extra religious activity/instruction is not to DENY anything, for crying out loud! How can you not see that? If you want to have a school go that bit further to uphold your views and beliefs that's fine, but do it in the private system. Why should my taxes pay for pandering to your extra-special set of criteria?

If faith schools were privatised my children would have to be home schooled. There is already a serious shortage of school places where I live, and as I said earlier, my 3 local schools are all faith schools. We'd never get a look in at any other school, the situation is already bad enough. And there's no way we can afford to pay for private schooling.

So I would have to give up my career, our income would have to drop, we'd never have the chance to buy our own home and my children would be educated by a loving but stressed-out mother who doesn't really want to be schooling them. Even just from my perspective, the idea of privatising faith schools looks naively idealistic and ridiculously impractical.

Treats - the research actually says a little more than that. Not just that the reason that Faith schools do better because they select by faith, but also that Faith schools do not get significantly better results for their pupils. The pupils would get as good results in a non-faith school.

The faith element does not add any academic value.