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.

SG - I don't think anyone is saying they SHOULD be privatised, but that if faiths want to provide faith based education they should pay for it themselves. If they want to finance that through charging parents of some other method is up to them. Faith groups should be free to continue to support state schools, just not to be able to discriminate on the grounds of faith or promote their religons through them.

Treats - there are no votes in doing a lot of sensible things. It IS the biggest deal in education in some areas.

It might be a political no go now, that doesn't mean it always will be and certainly has no relevance to whether or not it's a good idea.

But it is suggested that they do on page one TheCoalition.

And I know how it will be spun, but the reality is that it's currently the poorest being denied their better education by middle class mummies who can't buy their ways into good schools - so it's the middle class mummies who would vote against it. Unfortunately they vote more than the poor.

As an immigrant to the UK, this country certainly seems a backwards, middle-ages kind of place when you meet all the people who were required to attend a church they did not believe in in order to get their kids into the nearest or least dysfunctional state school. Even worse, that in some areas parents have no choice but to send their children to a school where they will be indoctrinated with religion.

Stranger still, that people here sometimes have to pay good money to private schools in order to avoid bible bashing. In most other civilised nations, people pay for the opportunity to have their kids educated by priests. Not the other way round.

Our system is overdue for a change. We must remove the church/parish influence from all state schools and let people do church at the weekend.

Good point Solo - I've not been back there in a while ;)

I think TheCoalition - I broadly agree with you. But I'm advocating a less radical course of action - increase the quantity and quality of non-faith provision to reduce the demand for faith schools.

Treats - That's a terribly expensive solution.

I have to say I find all comments about being 'indoctrinated', 'brain washed' - 'taught about torture (what the hell?)' really small minded, bigoted and petty as well as frankly crap. I would be ashamed of spouting such ignorance.

The ethos of faith schools well I should say RC seeing as I have no experience of the others (hence not looking to judge them)is that it is not just the curriculum that matters but community and the child as a person.

I have only ever attended catholic schools and was never force fed religion in fact we spent an inordinate amount of time learning about other faiths to find middle ground and understanding. At my sixth form college, a teacher told me that part of the interview process for teachers was that they undertook to demonstrate that they were interested in development of children as people not just in teaching their subject and going home.

As other posters have said the mixture of the backgrounds of the kids was quite amazing - I went to school with kids from very wealthy backgrounds and some from the poorest and yes we did have non-catholics as well - you just had to demonstrate he desire to part of something and believe in social responsibility.

whether it is right to use tax payers money is an interesting one and I see both sides of the argument - but it is true, well certainly in my experience that the church most schools are connected/partnered to would take up the financial slack where the govt didnt/couldnt - eg the church congregation raised money for sports/science equipment, to fix the roof, to send kids on trips, to pay for meals/uniforms etc for kids from the more deprived homes.

I think of course all kids shoudl have access to a good education regardless of ability to pay but perhaps faith schools are so popular because central to their basis is the need for everyone involved in the school to take ownership and that element of pastoral care makes all the difference.

Am sure there are people who have had a bad experience - certainly my mum hated the nuns at her school - but generally attacking this type of school seems to be coming from not excactly a purer then pure or completely impartial vantage point and Id question the motives of people who are so scornful but would like a similar standard of education and actually basic bloomin care and interest in their kid.

perhaps the answer will lie in parents like Toby Young who start their own schools though I wonder how long it will be before they will be accused of elitism as well - the fact is a sucessful school be it faith, fee paying, started by parents or a great state school all have something in common - an ethos or basis on which the school operates and you need to buy in to get out.

Most of the suggestions seem expensive...
-Privatisation would force too many parents to stay home to home school OR mean the government had to build new schools.
-Compulsory purchase, even at rock bottom prices would be expensive to the government.
-Leasing faith school building, also costly.
-Telling faith schools they had to stop the faith element OR get their own funding from elsewhere could cause some schools to close, which again could be costly trying to find school places for those children.
-suggesting schools change their entry criteria is the only option which seems relatively cheap. But I'm not sure how the school boards would respond. They may still wish to keep their ethos!

"it is not just the curriculum that matters but community and the child as a person. "

This is true of all schools.

kistigger - just seize them then.

and school boards have to apply legislation. The board could resign. That would just mean a new board.

Do we almost have a consensus that faith schools should be brought into line with community schools in their admissions policies, ie not be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds?

Is it time to start lobbying?

No. Those opposed have just been otherwise engaged and not able to contribute.

That's also why they haven't explained to me why the scenario I outlined ar 8.55 is completely fair!

thecoalitionneedsyou - siezing them would have the desired effect BUT that may be against the law and rights etc. There would be a huge backlash against such a move. Forcing things might get the faster change but it would cause massive agro! PLus the board resigning wouldn't help when the church still owns the building etc, because they would still have to find a board to run the school etc, so you would be back to square one!

zephirinedrouhin - you have the consensus from me at least but I think it would have to be on grounds of not trying to force the school to change their underlying ethos but only their admission criteria!

kistigger - these are goverment schools we're talking about: there's no need to purchase them, we own them and run thenm already.

all that is needed is to

• remove the vicar from the school governors
• change the mission statement and admissions policy
• and remove the religious indoctrination from the syllabus (keeping the RE)

and ... hey presto . . a secualr school.

seeker - "There are two schools at opposite ends of a small town. St Mary's, a church school and Trumpton Primary School. Janet lives next door to TPS and her family are practicing Christians. John lives next door to St Marys, and his family aren't.
Janet has priority over John at St Marys because she is a church goer AND at TPS because she lives next door."

It's not fair but when a school is over subscribed is any method fair?
Choices:
-distance to school as crow flies
-distance to school walking
-children with least distance to the next nearest school
-names out of a hat
-those who have a faith preference
-catchment areas which don't fall equally around a school
-catchment areas which don't encompass new housing estates
-catchment areas that allow one side of a road to go but not the other

Frankly none of them are satisfactory, all children should be able to go to the school of their choice. However, that simply won't happen!

Kistiggger - Only one of those is discriminatory based on religion.

Well, at least distance to the school is fairer than a belief system. it is possible to move house - it's not possible - or at least it shouldn't be - to start believing in something that you didn't believe in before. Mind you, I have heard of several Damascene conversions of a violent but short term nature.....

And while you're answering questions, kistigger, could you explain why the desire for a fait based education should carry more weight than a desire for a secular one?

My council website states: "Parents have a legal right to express a preference for which school they want their child to attend.
This is not the same as being able to choose, but means that if a parent expresses a preference for a particular school and there are places available at the school then a place should be offered at that school."

many faith schools are voluntary controlled which means they have the same entry criteria as non-faith schools.

as for the others the voluntary aided schools, they are exactly that 'aided' by the people that owns the building and grounds... which is why they retain the rights to chose 'faith' families over other ones because they are only partially paid for by the government!

thecoalitionneedsyou - only one is discriminatory on grounds of faith but most of the others are discriminatory on grounds of wealth. if you can live in exactly the right spot, which will cost you more, then you can get in!!!

Snobear - you've caricatured the system in your post about education in the UK. If you read more posts on this thread you'll see that it's not exactly as you've interpreted it.

Coalition - your list of ways the govt could take back the faith schools...I'm guessing that was tongue-in-cheek, as it's not really a practical list!

kstigger - even the 'distance to school walking' method of selection can be unfairly biased if you live next door to a Park, car park (with through route to the school), etc. If the authorities choose, they can overlook parks and car parks and find a longer route to school, thus cutting you out of the picture.

I think the realistic solutions are:

• We need more schools (okay, this needs more money, but then we don't need Trident, do we )
• We need better schools
• We need an open admissions policy which is identical across all schools.

My work here is done.