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.

seeker - "could you explain why the desire for a faith based education should carry more weight than a desire for a secular one?"

From a personal point of view (which is one where both children go so secular schools, due to the unavailability of any alternative), when you go to look round schools you get an idea of what they are like even if you are unable to experience the teaching etc. Some schools have a particular vibe. For me I loved the school nursery my DS went to before we moved, it was a faith school but had a wonderfully diverse mix of children in it, most spoke at least 2 languages. It felt like family, I'm not saying that secular schools could not have that, only that I have simply never experienced it anywhere else! I would have loved to keep him him there but it simply wasn't practical. Where we live now we are out of catchment for all the local faith schools, the one we applied for could not offer both kids a place so that was that!

For some it is much more than that, they want every area of their childrens lives to have the same faith ethos as they have at home!

I think generally on both sides of the argument there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what the other believes and how different schools would be with/without faith/secular elements. It is very easy to get pissed at not getting the school you want and blame it on X, Y and Z! We all want the best for our children.

I suppose the big question is why so many schools are struggling and underachieving? Are they being pushed to achieve the unobtainable with too little resources? Or are we simply trying to make children do things that they simply are not ready for?

Just to clarify kistigger's "only partially paid for by the government" remark: the government pays 100% of the running costs, and 90% of the capital costs of VA schools. So the church's contribution really cannot be said to justify the discriminatory nature of the admission policies.

I heart SpanishLady's post

I'm finding it a bit frustrating that people are still talking about faith schools being discriminatory as though children of other faiths aren't welcome. Of course they are! The schools do welcome all children. The 'discrimination' issue only arises if the school is oversubscribed and the school governors have to choose. But all criteria, whether based on faith, distance to school, ability, will disadvantage somebody.

It becomes an issue only if there are no alternatives or the alternatives aren't palatable. THAT'S when it's a problem.

zephirinedrouhin - where do you find your information cos I can't find anything that says that! (that's not a bite, I would like to check for myself!!)

Children of other faiths or none, I should have said......

from teachernet website says: 'In simple terms, the local authority has responsibility for the playing fields and the governing body are liable for all other capital expenditure.' for VA schools

kistigger, see here under Characteristics. Plenty of other sources - just google Voluntary Aided School

zephirinedrouhin - I did google search and I'm always a bit dubious about wiki's sources so i like to look elsewhere!!

teachernet also says: 'the governing body must usually pay at least 10% of the costs of capital work.' when they apply for a grant

citizens advice bureau website says VA schools: 'the school is funded partly by the local education authority (Education and Library Board in Northern Ireland), partly by the governing body and partly by the charity'

Treats, of course faith schools welcome all comers when they are undersubscribed. They have no other option. The fact that they only start discriminating when they have as many pupils as they need doesn't somehow stop it being discrimination. Far from it.

OK kistigger, so which part of your research contradicts the figures that I quoted?

From the C of E's own website:

"the cost of repairs and capital projects is raised by the governing body with 90% grant from the DfES"

That was a good post Treats and it is helping me see it from a different perspective, but I still have a fundamental problem with state schools being labelled as being for a particular faith at all. I don't see how/why faith should have a place in state education at all other than in the most general terms, i.e. the teaching the RE curriculum.

And I get a bit at the assumption that there is a moral high ground to be found in faith schools. Plenty of us manage to teach our children about morality and compassion without needing to align it to a faith.

kistigger

discrimination in favour of churchgoers
is discrimination in favour of wealth,

churchgoers are, on average, wealthier.

edgarallinpink - I think that depends on the church you go to, there are plenty of people in our church who financially are fighting to make ends meet, as in watching every last penny when in the supermarket cos if they go over their card won't work! I would love to be able to send my kids to a private school but right now our budget barely covered the cost of a uniform from asda!

Besides as other people have pointed out, faith schools do not stop poor people from attending!

But that is a by-product Edgar. They can't t be blamed for that!

The bottom line is that people with very high standards and aspirations weill work harder to do whatever is required to get the end result they want. Many middle class people will be going through the motions of attenting church because it's a means to and end. The working classes could do the same if the could be bothered and I'm sure they'd be very welcome.

In fact I'm sure if you really studied the demographic you'd find that most people in Britain who profess to have a firm faith are either well fairly well educated middle class white people, or working class ethnic minorities. It's the people in the middle who tend to opt out.

kistigger

see the research

most faith schools are RC or CofE - the congregations of these churches are wealthier than average. going to a revivalist baptist ch is unlikely to get you into an oversubscribed school...

"The research confirms the belief that churchgoing is associated with those of higher social
grade. Adults in social grades AB (professionals, senior and middle management) have
above average prevalence of regular churchgoers (22% and 21% respectively), as well above
average proportions of fringe or occasional churchgoers.
Adults of social grade C2, D (skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual) have the lowest
proportion of regular churchgoers (12%) and the highest proportion who are closed nonchurch
(37% and 40% respectively)."

so, really it is wealthier people that benefit. and although cachement rea isn't a great solution, it at least makes nmore sense than 'who is your parents imaginary friend? How often do they go to his house?'

Fellatio: "That was a good post Treats and it is helping me see it from a different perspective, but I still have a fundamental problem with state schools being labelled as being for a particular faith at all. I don't see how/why faith should have a place in state education at all other than in the most general terms, i.e. the teaching the RE curriculum." That's because you appear to be classifying secularism in a different category from faith.

I look at it this way:

Viewpoints On Religion:

• Christian
• Muslim
• Jewish
• Atheist
• Hindu
• Agnostic
• Sikh

, etc. Some of those categories have chosen to support a particular religion, one category has rejected all of them, one of them is unsure about any of the other categories. But they are all a viewpoint on religion. It is not a matter of Us vs Them, i.e. believers vs non-believers; it is about the stance we all take on religion. So a faith school, from this perspective, and a non-faith school, are of equal value. So if a non-faith school has a place in our society, so does a faith school - provided that they fulfill the egalitarian admissions criteria which we all seem to agree are necessary.

Edgar, I wonder whether those particular churches are wealthier because of the wealthy parents flocking to get their kids into the church schools?

SG - Well, some options for handling the land issue are more practical than others ;)

(Autocorrect's first suggestion there was 'piratical' which would have been fun....)

Actually I do think Secularism is in a differet class to faith - so Athesim/agnosticsm is not one of many faiths it is one side of naturalism/supernaturalism. But I'm prepared to be liberal on this point. Not least because I don't think it makes a difference to an the argument.

If you want to have faith and non-faith schools you have a huge problem balancing the needs of different faiths, distortions to communities by faith groups clustering round schools etc. Much easier to have all schools just NOT HAVE AN OPINION ON FAITH. They can put Secularism on the same footing as Catholocism if you must, but if they don't take a position on the truth of any of them then that is fair to everyone.

Heathen - not at all. No, I didn't but I've taught in one and have taught in a LOT more non-faith schools, so my opinions are based on my own observations.

Edgarallinpink - I wasn't aware that CofE, RC and revivalist Baptist were the only options, but never mind! That may have been true 100years ago, today I would say a number of churches are more inclined to not standing under any of those banners!

Kisstigner - the order of priority at my local CofE is Local church, other Anglican, Churches included in churches together.

Which is this lot:-

Baptist Union of Great Britain
British Antiochian Orthodox Church
Cherubim and Seraphim Council of Churches
Church of England
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of Scotland (in England)
Congregational Federation
Coptic Orthodox Church
Council of African and Caribbean Churches
Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches
Elim Pentecostal Church
Evangelische Synode Deutscher Sprache in Großbritannien
Ichthus Christian Fellowship
Independent Methodist Churches
International Ministerial Council of Great Britain
Joint Council for Anglo-Caribbean Churches
Lutheran Council of Great Britain
Mar Thoma Church
Methodist Church in Great Britain
Moravian Church
New Testament Assembly
New Testament Church of God
Oecumenical Patriarchate (Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain)
Orthodox Churches of the Russian Tradition (Oecumenical Patriarchate)
Redeemed Christian Church of God
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Roman Catholic Church
Russian Orthodox Church
Salvation Army
Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Alliance of Churches
United Reformed Church
Wesleyan Holiness Church
Seventh-day Adventist Church (observer)

TBH I don't know if that's most churchs or a small %.

Seeker - you have no idea if you think that...(shakes head in disbelief). From where I am, there seems so much support for Muslims in the media, whereas Christians are seens as a joke. It's a matter of perspective. You feel the prejudice as a Muslim and I feel it as a Christian. You can't say there isn't a wave of anti-faith prejudice rolling through the country.