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.

"Parents with chaotic lifestyles due to mental health or substance abuse issues generally don't make it to church on Sundays"

"Substance abuse issues"??? Call a spade a spade, FFS. You mean drug addiction?

Anyway, you're right - such parents probably are rubbish. But that's no reason to hold back or penalise others because of their failings.

It was my understanding that faith schools who do not accept other faiths or no faith at all are privately funded.

If they want Government funding they have to accept a percentage of other faiths or no faith.

The thread might have moved on since then, i havent read all 700+ posts.

Barmy - you seemed to understand perfectly, so I don't know what difference using different language would have made?

No it's not a reason to hold anyone back, it's just pointing out that the point that faith schools serve the most deprived isn't the full story.

Barmy - you seemed to understand perfectly, so I don't know what difference using different language would have made?

No it's not a reason to hold anyone back, it's just pointing out that the point that faith schools serve the most deprived isn't the full story.

"It was my understanding that faith schools who do not accept other faiths or no faith at all are privately funded."

I think on paper all faith schools will accept anybody. It's just that if it is 2 form entry and 60 applicants are attenders at the relevant church, then no places are left for anybody else. It doesn't matter if your 4 year old has a 45 minute bus journey to the next alternative school. There isn't a place.

Equally, at my daughter's nursery, nobody got a place this year on the basis of proximity because once all the people who had siblings were allocated placesit was full. (On the other hand, the government has no statutory duty to provide places for nursery children)

I think that if you are in local authority care or have a place on the basis of special needs you may be able to go to the top of the queue, but apart from that everybody else has to go to the back.

Coalition: "Oversubscribed faith schools do not get children from the very worst off sections of society. Parents with chaotic lifestyles due to mental health or substance abuse issues generally don't make it to church on Sundays even if they are part of a faith community, let alone in order to get their kids into a better school."

In my experience the Parish priests and church community spend alot of time helping parents such as you describe. There is alot of unseen work that our priests are involved with to provide these families with more stability. They are given help with parenting and in organising school admissions. Yes, believe it or not most catholic priests are decent caring people.

Maybe the reason most children at catholic and other faith schools do well is because of the faith they are surrounded by. I'm so fed up of listening to people go on about how harmful religion is to our children. We are still a Christian country and as such our schools quite rightly are centred around Christian principles. For those who think the US or the French system is so great as they offer only secular state eduction tell me which country is the most tolerant? I would say ours is way more so. Surely a great deal of our tolerence comes from our education system from both faith and community schools. What is so evil about 'collective worship' in our schools? It seems on MN that is fashionable to abhour religion of any kind - v sad.

Merrymouse, my ds went to a Catholic secondary school (we are of no faith), it was 2 form entry. Because they were receiving some Government funding they had to 'reserve' 40 places for children of a different/no faith in order to receive the funding. These places were given on how close you lived to the school.

The Government will not fund schools which are exclusively faith. Not sure how it works for nursery.

Must be different at different schools then - maybe it depends when they were set up?

We have a huge amount of C of E primaries in our area - about 50% in this borough and the next. They were mainly set up around the beginning of the twentieth century - they were the original school system in England. I suppose Catholic schools might fall outside that, as they don't have the same kind of links with the state? (discrimination?) At the local popular catholic school they are definitely all church attenders. The other local catholic school (which actually, I think does set out to help more deprived children) isn't so strict.

Anyway, all the local C of E schools can definitely prioritise churchgoers.

should read 'abhor' apologies

Merrymouse, my knowledge is a bit rusty!

I thought exclusive faith school had to be privately funded ie by the Church etc if they wanted to remain exclusive.

If they wanted funding from Government they have to make something like one fifth of their places available to non faith and they then part fund themselves and get a grant from the Government.

For the reasons you state ie discrimination, the Government would not give money to an exclusive school.

But faith schools whether they are exclusive or part maintained by the LA, have their own governing body and do not have to answer to the Government, so they can do what the hell they like anyhow.

Wildmut - I believe many priests are well meaning and provide excellent pastoral care. Never the less, those children would not get into an oversubscribed faith school as they don't meet the criteria.

Faith schools don't provide better education, they get better pupils.

"So long as one can exclude one's children from aspects of the curriculum with which does not agree (acts of worship, sex education etc), I don't have a problem with faith schools within the state system."

But why on earth would you send your child to a faith school if you wanted to withdraw them from the parts you don't agree with.

At my Dc's school that would be around 50% of the time. What would you expect them to do during this time? Although maths/english science are taught to a high standard due to the SATs its the other stuff like history, geography,art,drama that tends to be compromised due to time restrictions.

The criteria are based on a lottery system based on those living 3 miles from the school to avoid the needing to have expensive house outside the school, but its very oversubcribed so all the children are of the faith even though technically on paper it would accept other children.

"We are still a Christian country" - Wildmutt this is only true on paper. Most of the population does not worship.

OP - YANBU. And to those who are saying that faith schools don't exclude non-faith children in the catchment, check out the admissions policy for our local primary (C of E)...

Our admission policy gives priority as follows:

1. Looked After Children.

1. Children of families who are on the electoral roll and worship regularly (at least twice a month for the last six months) at St. Leonard's church. (Signature of priest required).

1. Children of families who are on the electoral roll and worship regularly (at least twice a month for the last six months) at St. Alban?s, St James? or St Peter?s church. (Signature of priest required).

1. Siblings of children already in St. Leonard's School at the time of admission.

1. Children of families who are members of other Anglican churches who worship regularly at their church (at least twice a month for the last six months). (Signature of priest required).

1. Children of families whose church is a full member of Churches Together in Britain & Ireland who worship regularly at their church (at least twice a month for the last six months). (Signature of minister required).

1. Children with an exceptional and professionally supported medical or social need for a place at this school. (This must be supported by written evidence, e.g., from a specialist health professional, social worker, or educational psychologist, which sets out the reasons why this school is the most suitable school and the difficulties that would be caused if the child had to attend another school).

1. Any remaining places will be allocated with regard to closest proximity to the school.

And those who say that religion doesn't pervade the curriculum aside from the 10% RE, here is the curriculum policy for said school...

"At St. Leonard's we believe that the whole curriculum should be concerned with the spiritual development of the child. It is not just the concern of the RE lessons and Collective Worship. RE therefore runs through the whole curriculum and is concerned both in an implicit and explicit way. Teachers are sensitive to the fact that particular questions and circumstances can lead to RE (eg. quarrels can give opportunity to discuss reconciliation, social responsibilities and forgiveness)."

Horrendous, but at least they are upfront about it so I know to steer clear for DD's sake. It makes me feel sick that our taxes fund such places and that children get brainwashed like this.

claw3 you are completely off beam.

Wildmutt: 'What is so 'evil' abour collective worship?'

The point is that for many many (probably most) children and their parents the idea of worship (and let's just think about what that word means for a moment, shall we?) is irrelevent at best, and brainwashing nonsense at worst.

We have absolutely no problem with people of faith worshipping, and encouraging their children to do the same, but it is not appropriate or relevant as a collective act, in school. It is a private and personal matter of choice and should not be forced upon other people's children who do not share your faith, or any faith.

Could we withdraw our children from assembly? Of course we could. But why should we? And in all honesty, if we did there'd be far more kids standing outside in the corridor than there would be in the hall, praying.

Sorry to seem trite, but it's like saying that just beacuse you want to smoke, and you don't mind your children smoking, I don't have a right to object to my child being in a closed room whilst your child smokes overe them. OK, so one example hasvery real damaging physical/health implications, but the issue we are discussing has (for many people) damaging implications of another kind. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make it OK.

Why is it so hard for people of faith to see what we are saing here? I know part of 'loving God' is thinking you are doing him, and us heathens, a favour by spreading his word and his love, and all that stuff to as much of an audience as possible, and thanks for that, but the vast majority of us are just are not that interested. Just because many of has have grown up in a loosely Christian cultural environment and we therefore have an apathetic/benign attitude to it, doesn't mean our children deserve to be treated as sitting ducks and fair game.

I don't how you vote, or how passionate you are about politics, or your views on society, but just imagine you are a dyed in the wool socialist, and your child is compelled, by law, to sit and listen to a lecture on the benefits of an extreme right wing government, and all it entails, from aged 5 onwards, every day until they are 16?

Stop thinking about this from only your perspective and open up your mind to the wider implications and issues.

This is NOT about 'abhorring' religion.

"For those who think the US or the French system is so great as they offer only secular state eduction tell me which country is the most tolerant?"

I'd agree actually. Nothing like a little enforced hymn practice to encourage secularism.

Well overall the US and France have a far more religiously observant populace, which makes a mockery of the need for children to be 'enriched' by an enforced daily act of worship in our schools.

Just to address a couple of points made to my post.. The admissions criteria at the school I am concerned with is explicit, priority is given to children of parents who attend chuch - full stop, no requirement for belief no requirement for baptism. The school must stick by its published criteria. No need for any deceit. By attending the church school my children will not 'be living a lie'. Even if I 'faked' belief, that would be me not them.

It's the same at our nearest primary 8hours. I guess then it's just a question of how comfortable you are with having the DCs attend church and how much you think the messages will influence their thinking/beliefs.

For me, I'm not comfortable with that, but I know many many people are more relaxed about it.

I want DD to learn about religion (of all sorts) and to have a sense of spirituality, but not to be indoctrinated with one set of beliefs.

8hours - yes, but I think you might be expected to actually get involved to a greater degree than just sitting at the back. What us the tie-break if there are more children with parents with the appropriate attendance record than their are places?

The local church here publishes a whole guide for parents trying to get their child into the associated C of E primary ... it advises such things as ensuring you make yourself known to the rector at each service and getting involved with volunteering with church causes. Very odd.

Ir's recruitment by stealth! They are hoping that in doing what's required for your school place you will actually find God and stick around voluntarily! Let's face it, how much emptier would C of E churches be if it were not for this schools admissions business?

I said that to the rector at the local church in one of my more outspoken moments . It did not go down well.

To be fair, we'd just been made to feel thoroughly unwelcome at a christening. Some other members of the congregation were shockingly rude to us, and some other parents. OK so we're not churchgoers, but it was a real eye opener.

Anyway, I left the church in a storming mood and that combined with PG hormones meant I had a huge (polite but totally passive aggressive) rant at the rector on the way out. Not my proudest moment. But the whole experience did at least clarify in my mind that I want nothing to do with the place.

Fellatio "Well overall the US and France have a far more religiously observant populace, which makes a mockery of the need for children to be 'enriched' by an enforced daily act of worship in our schools."

Really?? I don't have stats but I am almost certain that is not the case in France. I know in the US there are some very conservative church attending states but would not have thought the country overall to be more observant.

I am trying to see this from your point of view but I still find it hard to see what harm children will suffer from 'collective acts of worship' in our schools. I still cannot see how someone would refer to this as brainwashing. It may be because I find it hard to imagine school life without the christian ethos. Would a completely secular school still teach the children to love one another, show compassion, kindness, forgiveness and understanding?

wildmutt - from wikipedia: "Gallup International indicates that 41% of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services, compared to 15% of French citizens, 10% of UK citizens and 7.5% of Australian citizens." (but see caveats afterwards)

"Would a completely secular school still teach the children to love one another, show compassion, kindness, forgiveness and understanding?"
No, I believe they prefer to give them weapons, throw them in an Ultimate Fighting style ring, and place substantial wagers on the outcome.