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.

keb1 - read the thread.

I'm starting to see what the SEN mums mean about having to repeat themselves over and over again.

Tlaking about crazy catchments, I know of one secondary school in Glasgow where none of the children who live closest to the school are in its catchment. Even the janitor's children, who live on the school grounds, are not in its catchment.

That is becasue the "catchment" of the seocndary schools is based on the pirmary school you went to and you have an autotomatic right to go on to the "attached" secondary school. And because of a rejigging of the primary schools' catchment areas, none of the local primary schools go to that secondary school

Jen333, in answer to your question about children getting their heads around the concepts of God and religion, it's quite simple. It's the same as getting their heads around particle physics. You teach them at their level, and expect that in time they will understand a lot more, but that they will never understand everything. Isn't that how we teach all subjects?

Prettybird, that is preposterous.

Speedy - the answer is not to privatise faith schools but to make them non-selective.

Those schools that wish to actively exclude children at admission stage need to be independent of the state.

SG - I don't think that privatising all faith schools would be a likely outcome of abolishing faith schools. I would expect legisaltion to say that all state schools need to be neutral religously. Faith schools could then choose the degree to which they still wanted to be involved.

I would expect that most faith schools would be come ordinary state schools - most would not be financially viable to run privately.

"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??"

No state school in this country denies the existence of God.

No state school in this country teaches children to be intolerant.

And in what way are Catholics being discriminated against?

Fellatio - who is your last post replying to? What is exactly what you mean?

Don't think it was me, but just to reiterate that in RC schools, children are taught the same RE curriculum as everywhere else. And the same science curriculum. they are not taught anything different, special, or 'extra' in the classroom. Outside the classroom, there might be a Mass once a term, and there will probably be some mild religious instruction in a non-lengthy, twice-weekly assembly, but that's it.

prettybird, I know a woman who bought a house almost ext door to a secondary school ( the balls fly into her garden) and her DD didn't get a place.

I'm not suggesting that all existing faith school should be privatised - that would be unworkable, obviously. But that the state should start a programme of 'buying the church out' so they are no longer beholden to them. But as Treats quite rightly pointed out that would be expensvie and complicated and is unlikely to happen any time soon.

So what would happen to all these schools if the government suddenly decided to ban selection on the grounds of religion? Would they all pull the shutters and close down? Would they take the view that as their ethos/puprose will be unacceptably diluted there is no point in continuing at all? I doubt it somehow, and besdies, that's not very Godly, is it?

But perhaps a few could continue to exist funded entirely by the church/mosque whatever, with full charitable status, with extremely strict religious criteria, and a sliding scale of contribution towards running costs for those who can afford it. Then some hard-up people for whom the faith element is genuinely very important could apply for a percentage of free bursary places, and the more religiously observant you are the better chance you'd have.

Stubbornhubby I am quite shocked by that. Certainly at my CE school, 2 decades ago, that wasn't the case. The head was always a Christian, though.

treats it was in reply to Keb1s post of 11.01

I think the crux of the argument is three strands:
-should schools be allowed to make selections based on religious beliefs, excluding those who do not follow them?
-should faith be taught in schools?
-should taxpayers money pay for all publicly available schools?

I think the biggest question here is: should the three strands be connected at all or are they three completely separate issues?!

But ultimately if you do not believe in faith schools, should you be bothered when you are not offered a place?
(I was bothered because we are practicing Christians but we knew there was a good chance they wouldn't offer places because we are out of catchment and their policy was that catchment children were offered places over practicing out of catchment children!

Yes I see that now! Sorry - the thread is moving too fast for me.

Unfortunately, and I regret to say this, given the behaviour of the RC church over adoption agencies, it's quite likely that they WOULD pull out of providing education if there were restrictions they found unacceptable .

They ran some very successful adoption agencies, but were required by the Equalities Act to consider homosexual couples. Not only did they decide that this was incompatible with the teachings of the Church (still some debate about that), they also decided that they couldn't even refer homosexual couples to other agencies. I'm very sad that they couldn't be pragmatic and put the needs of those children that need to be adopted above a minor theological principle.

so the signs are not encouraging. not in the modern church under the current Pope anyway.

Actually Treats I agree with you about that, but I thought it might seem inflammatory to specifically say that about RC schools, whilst I believe that the largely CofE schools would continue, with acceptance of a more inclusive catchment. People already think they are being attacked as Catholics on this thread as it is!

Treats - If they did decide to take their ball home the state just takes over the facilities and continues to run them as a state school.

Well, I'm happy to say it, as a Roman Catholic, and I'm happy to take the flaming, if anyone wants to dish it out.

TheCoalition - not if the school is owned by the church. They would have to buy the buildings and the land.

Treats - Yes, there are all kinds of ways around that.

1. Just seize them for the nation.
2. Compulsory purchase of them.
3. Put planning conditions on them to ensure the land can only be used for schools, so the market value plummets, then compulsorily purchase them.
4. Buy them at market rates.
5. Lease them back from the church.
6. Convince the church to donate them in exchange for planning consideration quid pro quos (Do you want to build/move any more churchs ever?)

I'm sure cleverer people that me can find more.

keb 1 - where is this school "where the existance of God is denied?"

Sorry, this thread is 20 pages and I've only read page one.

I don't think that children that aren't Catholic take confession or communion. They don't where my Ds attended anyway.

SpeedyGonzalez - God and religion are concepts - some believe - some don't. Still, my daughter now believes in God, fairies, Father Christmas and Dr Who. She'll grow out of it all I guess.

solo - I'd hope not. I's expect the RC Church would take a dim view of that.

Litchick - that's what I have been saying all along. Some posters seems to still be saying the schools should be privatised, which is why I decided to give one illustration of why that is an unworkable solution.

TheCoalition. There are ways round it of course. The issue is more likely to be one of political will. Why would the politicians do that when there is such high demand for faith schools? While the skewed provision towards faith schools is an anomaly, it's not the biggest deal in education. And where those schools are providing a good education to people from under-privileged backgrounds, it would be politically suicidal to allow them to be closed. It would be spun by the opposition as denying good education to the poorest to appease a few pissed-off middle class mummies who can't buy their ways into good schools. Not true, of course, but there still aren't any votes in the course of action you're describing.