to think if we fund religious schools through taxes, DD should be considered for a place?

[experiencethis]

I'm not originally from the UK, so maybe I am missing the point here. It puzzles me that whilst some religious schools are (partially) government-funded by taxpayers, they do not treat all as equals when allocating places. Our local state CoE primary is lovely and walking distance from our house. But looking at the local authority's website we'd have to get the local CoE church to validate that we are part of the congregation (which we aren't) and attend service a number of times per quarter (which we don't). DH and I would be happy for DD to attend a religious school, we think exposing her to different faiths and beliefs will make her a well-rounded adult (we have Jewish, Catholics and Buddists in the wider family). She will then be able to decide on any of them or none at all as she pleases. AIBU ?

It's not about results. All my local state schools have similar Ofsted reports (mostly 'good with outstanding features'). It's about equality of access.

The problem is that 60% of local school places are reserved for Christians, when they're not 60% of the local population, and the faith schools fill up spare places with Christian children from outside the area rather than take local children of other faith backgrounds.

Christian parents can apply to any school they want and will be able to secure a local place. The rest of us are scrabbling around for the scraps.

I think MrsTPs point is that if you want a school which gives your particular group preferential access then that group should cover all the costs. The current situation is that the population at large pays most of the costs but their children do not have equal access. Do you honestly think that is fair?

"Christian parents can apply to any school they want and will be able to secure a local place"

• only if they are the right sort of christian though - which IMHO makes it all even more ridiculous and intolerant.

We are Quakers, but started attending our local C of E as well in the hope of a school place. Many friends of mine are committed christians but because they go to the more modern "house churches" missed out on places for their DCs. Catholics too often miss out on C of E school places. At my DD's school places first go to C of E or (recently) Methodist children. Then to children from families of any other denomination or faith equally (so tends to go on distance from school by that stage as well as how involved parents are in their faith community) Looked after children are obviously top of the list, which is about the only christian thing about the admissions criteria !

I would imagine if the NHS was on religious land they might be the same - still wrong though.

Juggling: "Looked after children are obviously top of the list, which is about the only christian thing about the admissions criteria!"

And it's only there because it has to be there by law.

I have a question for you: genuine question, not intended antagonistically. Did you feel bad about attending the C of E when you were a Quaker? I have Quaker friends and I know that honesty is an important part of their faith. Did you feel you were compromising that, or did you feel that what you believed was sufficiently similar to what the C of E believes that you weren't actually being dishonest? Just curious really.

Juggling - my local school places 'looked after children' only 7th on the list of entry criteria (ie. no chance of getting in). Only Christian looked after children are considered first.

Thanks for asking so nicely Hackmum !

No, I have felt my integrity and my spiritual journey have been compromised in the last few years through this process (of jumping through the required hoops for my DCs education) Though there are things I value from having been a member of our local church, such as the sense of community, becoming familiar with some beautiful old prayers, & singing which we don't do so much of at Quakers - but it has come at a price, especially when the C of E seems to be squeezing out liberal faith (focused on charity to others) in favour of a very literal, evangelical version (focused on personal salvation)

I'm hoping that having come out the other end of the hoop jumping process I can get my spiritual life more back on track to my liking and regain a greater sense of integrity (which is actually pretty important to me) I acknowledge though that I'm a bit of a pragmatist and an opportunist - I think that's part of the human condition too. I've embraced that as part of my life philosophy as well.

I think more of us hoop jumpers should speak up about our personal experiences and the effect it's all had on us.

Are you a hack by the way (as in your NN) - will you be writing this all up in the Guardian ?!!

I'm sure it would make a good story !

only if they are the right sort of christian though
Which just proves to exemplify how the current system is totally messed up. My personal favourite example of this is my neighbour who has one child in an incredibly sort-after RC school but his younger sib didn't get a place because he hadn't been christened before he was 6 months old - you couldn't make it up!

I would imagine if the NHS was on religious land they might be the same - still wrong though.
Exactly - wrong! And no one has attempted to defend it; yet when it comes to schools and education it's ok? A bit of cognitive dissonance going on here I think!

Juggling, thanks for the answer and its a shame that your have felt that you had to compromise your integrity for your children.

For me, I don't believe in God and my DH is an atheist but his Dad is Jewish culturally. His family is not religious but do have a cultural Jewish bent, if that makes sense. He would never go to Church to comply with faith schools entrance requirements as to do so would deny all that his father and his family has gone through. Its insensitive of some of the posters on this thread to suggest that he does this.

A lot of posters don't seem to understand that LA funded schools which are Voluntary Aided, of which there are about 40% near us have admissions determined by the governing body, so have religious admissions criteria which we do not fulfil. We are discriminated against irt these schools and they are primarily funded by the taxpayer i.e. me. What do people not understand about this argument, my child is excluded because of his parents religion, or lack of it.

DS goes to the local village school, there is only one and whilst it is CofE it is voluntary controlled. Hence normal LA admissions applied, thank god and he can go to a lovely school which his friends go to. What is wrong with that? He doesn't care about religion, has no idea about it and is free to make up his mind at a later date. Shouldn't that be what the schools want.

Juggling - thanks for the honest answer! Yes, I am a hack but won't be writing it up for the Guardian. The thought "that would make a great story" frequently occurs to me when I'm reading Mumsnet but I've never yet acted on it! (Though it's obvious that lots of journos do.)

It's always a pleasure Hackmum to be honest given sufficient opportunity And I have great respect and admiration for those who show integrity in any situation no matter what the personal cost. Though I have sometimes felt that I was compromising my integrity through my own choices in this (at times) I haven't personally felt that I was being hypocritical. I guess I think there are worse things I could do than going to church, and joining with a faith community.
If anyone has personally asked me anything I have always tried to give an honest answer. ( Though perhaps there might have been times when I haven't lived up to this ideal )

I sometimes thought whilst reciting the creed that if you really want to know what I believe just ask and I'll try to tell you in my own words - don't give me a sheet with the words already written out for me to read !

As I read I tried to think of any ways in which I could affirm what I was saying.
(An exercise in positive, and sometimes creative, thinking ?! )
For example as I read "Born of the virgin Mary" I would think of Mary's experience as a mother, and be thankful for my own children. ( So, not particularly focusing on the "virgin" aspect, more seeing that as a word for a young woman - a bit like myself )

It might have been easier and more truthful to keep a thoughtful Quaker silence throughout

I would imagine if the NHS was on religious land they might be the same - still wrong though.

In the Middle Ages, most hospitals were on religious land. Their mission was primarily to serve the poor (just as church schools were intended to be). Henry VIII closed or reformed monastic hospitals. (Some history here for instance).

Grimma - good point

See the history of Barts for example
www.bartsandthelondon.nhs.uk/about-us/our-history/historical-features-the-vault/historic-barts-and-smithfield-guided-tours/

"The Church of St Bartholomew the Less is unique in that it is the parish church for the hospital. Barts is the only hospital in the country whose precincts make it a parish in its own right. The church was originally established in medieval times but has been rebuilt over time into the essentially Victorian structure we know today. Only the tower from the original building remains and there have been a couple of later additions such as the stained glass windows, donated by the Glaziers Company after the Second World War."

(see what I have put in bold)

Quick lets kick all the non-Christians out of the hospital...

Absolutely - so there should be equal access in schools - and I say that as a card carrying Catholic.

Thanks Grimma, that was the point I was making. Not that Christians don't pay for State education but that if they want exclusive, selective, discriminatory schooling, then open private, religious schools. I wouldn't give them charity status though but that's another matter.

Let's deal with the NHS point first. While there are Catholic medical ethics there is no such thing as Catholic medicine - an eye operation is an eye operation hence no need for Catholic hospitals. There is though a very distinctive pedagogy associated with Catholic education - hence Catholic schools (a philosopy of education that is in fact attactive to non Catholics hence the 30% of non Catholics in Catholic schools nationally).

Now on paying. Catholics are a sub-set of what posters have described as "all the rest of us who pay for faith schools". Unless you see the Catholic part of the population as somehow a sub-species of course state Catholic schools should be paid out of general taxation. We in fact pay more than our fair share - taxes, part of capital costs, rental income from the land.

Clearly admissions to all schools can be problematic - GS no less that high performing community schools and faith schools - but all schools must operate by the same code of practice.

blinkblink: "Hence Catholic schools (a philosopy of education that is in fact attactive to non Catholics hence the 30% of non Catholics in Catholic schools nationally)."

There are a whole load of people who don't get a choice about sending their kids to a Catholic school - see my post earlier in the thread (or possibly on another thread) about the Catholic school in Glasgow where most of the kids were Muslim. I can assure you they weren't there because they found the school's philosophy so appealing.

Faith schools should not be allowed. They are divisive and discriminatory. In fact if I had my way there would be NO selective schools at all - education would then become much fairer to all. As for the charitable status of private schools... aaarrgh! but as MrsTP says, that is another argument.

of course state Catholic schools should be paid out of general taxation.

All state schools should indeed be paid for out of general taxation. But provision of state school places should be equitable. At the moment this is not the case.

The 30% of non-catholics in Catholic schools is most likely for the same reason as the large number of not-^really-CofE in CofE schools - there is a disproportionate number of faith school places versus the genuine membership of those churches.

Tell you what... I will send my child to the 90% of the faith school that is 'normal' education. She can then be excluded from the 10% that is paid for by the church/congregation/whatever and we will assume that that bit is the religious education. I have no issue with teaching about religion and culture BTW in case anyone jumps on that.

People who send their children to private schools seem to understand that if they want to have a selective elitist and discriminatory education they will pay their taxes AND pay for the whole of the education of their children separately because they want their children to be separate. I don't understand why people don't see this being fair in this context.

blinkblink Fri 22-Jun-12 14:46:33

Let's deal with the NHS point first. While there are Catholic medical ethics there is no such thing as Catholic medicine - an eye operation is an eye operation hence no need for Catholic hospitals.
But by that analogy one could say that reading is reading hence no need for Catholic schools.

Religious doctrine can, and should, be taught in church and home. Further you could argue that there is a need for RC medicine, one where they could refuse to offer any contraceptive advice and refuse to carry out abortions.

There is though a very distinctive pedagogy associated with Catholic education - hence Catholic schools (a philosopy of education that is in fact attactive to non Catholics hence the 30% of non Catholics in Catholic schools nationally).
I disagree I don't think that there is a distinctive RC pedagogy, but even if there is it's place is in church and home, not state funded schools.

Now on paying. Catholics are a sub-set of what posters have described as "all the rest of us who pay for faith schools". Unless you see the Catholic part of the population as somehow a sub-species of course state Catholic schools should be paid out of general taxation. We in fact pay more than our fair share - taxes, part of capital costs, rental income from the land.
To reiterate, the debate is about the inequality of access to state funded schools on the basis of parental religion! I don't believe that there should be any state funded faith schools, but if there are they should not be permitted to set their own admission criteria. At a push I could see a compromise in allowing the school to select the percentage they contribute. So a 10% contribution means they can select 10% of pupils.

Clearly admissions to all schools can be problematic - GS no less that high performing community schools and faith schools - but all schools must operate by the same code of practice.
Firstly GS don't select on the basis of parental academic ability so it's not a fair analogy. All schools don't operate by the same code of practice!!! That is the problem, faith schools get to make up their own...

Excellent post Mothership

I like "At a push I could see a compromise in allowing the school to select the percentage they contribute. So a 10% contribution means they can select 10% of pupils"

• Just because I chose to jump through their hoops doesn't mean I have to like them.

MothershipG - your rather banal point about reading being just reading merely illustrates you lack of understanding of distinctive philosophy of education in the Catholic sector.

Generally, what people seem to be saying is (i) that you don't "believe" in faith schools - it is not a question of belief but fact; (ii) eg PrincessTamTam says "if I got my way" I'd ban them. Hopefully you won't get your way anytime soon.

Repeating nonsense like faith schools are selective, elitist and discriminatory (legally and practically they are not of course) is clearly not supported by the facts but hey why let some facts and realities get in the way of a strongly held phobia?

Repeating nonsense like faith schools are selective, elitist and discriminatory (legally and practically they are not of course). Oh, so they don't ask about religion or attendance at services then to determine admittance. I don't know where I got that from.

How is it not discrimination? These schools are admitting children based on their parents' religion. How is that not selective and discriminatory? It is the definition of it.

It is also a fact that selecting on church attendance selects in favour of wealthier families.

"Churchgoing a middle class pursuit
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%"

see here