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 ?

Surely the concept of cherry picking children is not just confined to faith schools, what about schools where the only houses in the catchment areas are out of the reach of working class (and tax paying) families who cant afford to buy property within said CA.

Its all very well saying schools should be for LOCAL children but its not fair on families who cant afford to be local to the school.

After all you could go to church and go down the religious route of you want to get your DCS into a certain school, but its bloody difficult to suddenly double/triple your earnings and buy a house at 1/3 or so over the odds to get them a decent education.

I think we need to address these type of issues before pointing the finger at faith schools and their admission criteria

Why before? Why not do both?

Both are wrong.

But you could certainly make a start by addressing the situation with faith school admissions. They should not be accessing the vast majority of their funding from public money whilst excluding children who live closer to the school than the children they are admitting.

Just because a dubious organisation has at some stage in history managed to obtain some land & set up a school doesn't make it a fabulous C21st provider.

This guy set up a few schools in Bristol en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston - with his money from slavery. Very philanthropic of him, no doubt, but ideas change.

It's not quite as simple as 'well, they bought the land 500 years ago, so they get to say who goes to their school'. Not when you & I are meeting the overwhelming majority of their running costs.

YABVU.

I think you will find that the parents of children in church schools are paying their fair share of taxes. The "my taxes" argument is a poor one.

I went to catholic school. Which has a number of non catholic attendees. Mum and dad already paid 'their taxes'. They also contributed quite alot to the school and church.
My issue with non faith attendees is that while the ones that attend church will give to the collection etc, the ones that attend don't contribute the same.
I went to school with a Muslim girls who's family were very involved in fund raising at the church and school even though they didn't attend mass. Another muslim not family refused to help in anyway. He wasn't allowed to take part in anything with a sniff of religion. I really don't know why you would send a child to a school which means they spend alot of time self excluding.
I moved dd from a catholic school (it was shit) to a better school, which has now been made an academy. They get to pick their children to some degree and get more funding. Does that piss people off too?

"I really don't know why you would send a child to a school which means they spend alot of time self excluding."

Probably to get a good education. Just a thought.

YANBU! My v local C of E school only admits regular attendees of the church the next nearest only baptised Catholics, who come from miles away. The nearest 2 community schools are also v popular and in relation to where we live I don't think we will get in on distance because we are nearest the faith schools. I'm seriously worried about my kids getting any place at all, except maybe in the failing school the other side of town because its undersubscribed.

YANBU. Of my five nearest state schools, 3 are religious ones ( 2 CofE, 1 Catholic).

If you are Christian you can apply to 100% of local schools and stand a good chance of getting in. If you are not a Christian you can only apply to 40% of local schools.

The selection criteria for all 3 religious schools places parents of any Christian denomination ahead of parents of other faiths or none, regardless of proximity to the school.

If you are non-Christian your access to state funded education services is poorer than that of Christians, even if you are all paying the same Council tax.

Can you imagine if the Council told you that your access to other services they fund was restricted by your religion? "Sorry, we clear Christian bins every week, Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/godless heathens get collected every fortnight".

RavenAK whilst excluding children who live closer to the school than the children they are admitting is the whole point of my argument

My own DS went to a faith school which was a wonderful and sought after school,but we were not local to it, had this school only taken local children
my DS would never had been able to go there as the properties in the area were well over our budget. The 'local' school was and still is a shit hole

I was (and still am) a tax payer yet my DS would have been denied a place at a school I helped fund through my taxes just because of mine and Ds salaries.

So no I wouldnt start with faith school admissions first not when they are giving some children the type of education richer people buy by moving into the area and putting house prices up

sorry DH salaries

But soup, that's not the case here. As I said I removed dd from a catholic school because it was rubbish. My school wasn't great.
How great can an education be to make it worth your child being the one that isn't allowed to participate with class mates.
I don't live in an area that has mainly faith schools, that must be rubbish. But all the faith schools I attended (3 including sixth form) had to take a certain percentage of non faith children.
You can't compare it to bins though. The comparison would be if a bin collection was a kosher collection that only picked up Jewish peoples rubbish. If Jewish people wanted to pay extra for that I wouldn't have a problem.

I agree. Being C of E does not constitute a special need.

Why is the education at faith schools better? Maybe that's what needs to be looked at. Surely if there was not such a gap, there wouldn't be an issue.

How would it go down if a religious group donated a large amount to a hospital and then insisted that their members jumped to the head of the queues for transplants??? Irrespective of medical need. They donated extra money so that would make it ok, right? Because that is what some people are saying about access to schools.

It is ridiculous that children can be discriminated against due to their parents faith, or lack thereof, and as many posters have pointed out it simply would not be tolerated in any other state funded provision so it should not be acceptable in education.

Also surely the Christian ethos behind these schools being originally set up was to help all local children access education but now you have to be part of club to join which is simply divisive.

Church and State should be separate in order prevent exactly this sort of scenario.

I don't agree with that comparison either. If it was a hospital for people of a certain faith and they had to pay towards medical help. I wouldn't have an issue. Isn't it the same as private health care? Which doesn't help a bit if you were to have a transplant.

YANBU. There is no need for religion to be involved in education - that's what churches, mosques etc are for. If I support Tottenham and pay my taxes, can I ask the state to fund a school which excludes Arsenal supporters? If I'm part of a same-sex relationship, can I ask the state to fund a school which excludes children from heterosexual families ? I don't understand why we as a nation continue to encourage discrimination on religious grounds when we have, quite rightly, passed laws to eliminate other forms of discrimination.

Ah cross post with Mothership - excellent point about hospitals.

"If it was a hospital for people of a certain faith and they had to pay towards medical help. I wouldn't have an issue"

But people don't pay extra towards selective faith based state education (over and above taxes).

The hospital analogy doesn't stand up, because churches do not own the real estate. Most (?) in UK were founded by individual philanthropists or by communities, not by Churches (think of Guys, and Thomas's, founded by evil banker)

Also, unlike with schools, Tony Blair did not permit the opening of new religion based ones. If you want to reduce the role of religion, perhaps start with these, where issues of ownership do not apply?

What motherg said.

Why is religion part of education?

I though RE was to learn about other faiths.

If you want your child to be educated in their faith, send them to Sunday school.

I wonder how many children at faith schools attend church every week?

The vast majority of funding for faith schools comes from th tax payer.

If you want to expose your child to different faiths and beliefs the last place you want to send h is a faith school!

Faith schools are a ridiculous anachronism and should no longer exist.

YANBU....but.
What is it about faith schools that attracts the non-faithful? The ethos is very much part of the learning experience and once you have watered it down with a large proportion of non-faith famillies who begin to demand a bigger say in the running of the school, then the very reason that they wanted to send their child there begins to disappear. The school becomes mediocre and loses its appeal.

It is not just magic that makes many faith schools better than others but the application of a particular ethos and discipline whith which many non-faith parents do not feel comfortable. They want the better eduacation, but refuse to believe that the application of that faith has anything to do with the outcome.

The sad fact is that any school which has any element of selection in it's admissions criteria apart straight proximity is going to do better than a school without. I've used my juggling analogy before- two school next door to each oth- ones says parents have to learn to juggle before their kid can get a place, the other doesn't. The juggling school will do better. Because parents will perceive it as better, and therefore aware, committed parents with the time, energy and resources to learn to juggle will largely go there. And basically, aware, committed parents who are not so poor they can't afford to buy juggling balls have children who do better. Sad but true.

Actually soup that's my point. If you go to church, you are paying. That's what the collections are for the church and school. That's what the money is for. There is more fund raising at faith schools as well. So my parents paid tax and paid toward my education. If you go to a faith school but don't donate at church, the people that do are paying more for the same education.
While dd was at the catholic school I had a standing order to donate to the school, every month. The school needed lots of updates (they had no it room) and was looking tired. The tax payer paid a very small amount. The parents and church goers raised the rest.