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 ?

ruby I don't get it either. Evryonrnis of the opinion that faith schools are better. But why? Its not the presence of the religions itself, god doesn't make it a better school.
This is why I don't understnd why parents send their kids and don't let them join in. There is a reason its a good school.

RubyGates and DPrince have made very good points. Why is it that the faith schools, especially at primary level, sit at the top of the league tables? Here in Wandsworth the schools close to the top are consistently church schools - what is it that makes them better and why isn't it reproduced at other schools. Many years ago now, we looked at all the primary schools and wanted the school we thought would best help our dc to achieve their potential. There were four schools we thought would do that; two were cofe and two were completely beyond our catchment.

I also think the red herring here is the taxes/fairness argument. We pay our taxes and although we would have loved our dd to have been offered a secondary place any one of: Tiffin Girls, Wallington Grammar, Nonsuch, they are all grammar schools and she is not in that league. That was a fact but I don't think cleverer girls should be prevented such an opportunity just because dd couldn't have it.

Both our children now attend independent schools. DS's has a firm Christian foundation although that is not a selection criterion; DD's is a convent - again faith is not a selection criterion. However, we were more comfortable that they attend schools where faith is important than otherwise. Faith to us is very important and I want my children to be educated where Christian principles are held in high regard.

PS: I have always loved the idea of Faeries and am sure they are out there somewhere in some form or another

So if we got rid of faith schools, will that automatically make the other schools better.
going to the juggling analogy. Are we saying that some schools are not good because the parents are not committed enough. Then surely that is the problem that needs tackling.

If I ruled the world, there would be no state religious schools, and no worship in non-denominational schools.

But believing that is probably akin to believing in fairies

The OP makes an entirely fair point. And apart from the injustice of taking taxpayers' money but saying 'you and you and you can't come into our exclusive club', it's not very Christian. Or good for the Church - the more children who are exposed to Christian teachings, the better in their eyes, surely?

I went to a CofE middle school - back in those days they were just local schools that took anybody in the catchment. And my senior school, although not a Church school, had Assembly every day and a Christian ethos. I'm very glad - it taught me an awful lot about the religion that has shaped our country and the whole of Europe (and the New World, given it was Christian Empires that went out and conquered it).

It gave me some great music, philosophy, some fantastic stories (I mean that in its real sense, not as a slur) and the ability to understand much of art, literature and music. A good grounding in the CofE really helps you get more from the average art gallery. Oh, and no doubt that's why I took religious studies O-level and got an A. ;-)

Seriously, evangelical Christians are fond of asking WWJD - well, if you've read the Gospels, it's clear he wouldn't be setting up exclusive clubs and saying 'you can't come in', especially when the people being excluded are children. 'Suffer the little children to come unto me'.

To come back to Grimma's question about how the Church of Engkand came to own the land in the first place, I think it was as a result of the Reformation, when money and lands were seized from Carholics who wouldn't convert (and then they were executed in horrible ways) so really they should hand some of it back and Catholics shouldn't have to pay as much tax for their education.

I find the system decidedly non Christian. Isn't Christianity about community and loving thy neighbour?

I live incredibly close to two church schools, both oversubscribed so only church children get in, so no local non Christians can get into their local school, and this being inner London that leaves a lot of children pushed out.

It is cherry picking, and in my area it causes an unbalance and segregation in the schools.

I don't know why so many people see it as 'it's their land so they can do as they please' the way I see it is if they want to cherry pick their students and opt out of serving their local community then they should become private schools, then we can get a true picture of state schools that are available. I know someone will come along saying we can't afford to lose these schools but I imagine a fair amount of them can't afford to lose the state funding they receive.

Not really a major part of the issue for me but as an aside I can't fathom why a child needs to go to a school with only/predominately other children of their faith, why is this segregation seen as desirable?

Partially state funded religious school have to take 20% of students from other backgrounds.

I think much of this arguement must depend on the particular individual churches/diocese (if that's what it is).

My dc went to/are at a CofE primary school, and back when I was looking at schools for my oldest, I had a choice of three CofE schools and one secular. None of them had any admissions criteria that was likely to exclude me child other than distance. So churches don't have to select by faith, even if they can if they want to.

If they do want to, it doesn't seem very Christian to me, and the problem is with them, not the local authorities. The churches could waive their right to selection based criteria if they want to, and they should. But I think forcing them to gets onto dangerous territory.

Personally I do not agree with education and religion being mixed at all.

However there has to be certain criteria s within the system we operate with at the moment and if we permit religious schools then yes I believe it is acceptable that they can say members of the " club" first.

My children go to a CofE VA school. we are not CoE I would estimate about 40% of the families in the school goes to church regularly.

Before any asks why my kids are in a church school considering my education and religion belief when we moved down here it was the only school with available spaces for the 3 I needed spaces for. Over all I am satisfied with the school and I will say it is making progress currently receiving a 3 from Offstead (earlier this year) Prior to this my oldest two attended the local hard to get into get 10K added to your house because your within walking distance to this highly desired infant school (dito with junior next door to it) What the CoE school does better than the outstanding infant school is community spirit. I suspect that is what most faith schools are able to do and why so many of them are outstanding in ofstead.

Personally I think we should completely revalue the system and go with a system similar to Scandinavia where you do not get a choice you simply go to your closest school and teachers are found after class needs. However to suggest such a radical reform of the school system will not happen and the uproar at parents " having their right to chose" taken away would also cause issues. Hence I suspect the system as it is will stay and within such as it stands yes I think a faith school should be allowed to say faith children first. I know this is not a popular belief and I know I may get a lynching for this but it is my opinion.

my two elder daughters go to a non faith secondary we did not approach the local faith school when we were looking around. We did have that choice that time around.

My son is in an oversubscribed Catholic school and has been there since Reception. He got a place only because when we moved to the area (Easter of his Reception year) it was the nearest school and by a miracle had a place. I would estimate over half the children are non-church attenders and come from non-religious families. I think that's good tbh, DS is now a Catholic (only recent) as am I but it didn't come from the school - more a desire to find out more and feeling at home in our local church. DS knows that other people have different beliefs and the school has displays at various times of year looking at other faiths and their special days.
Personally while I feel the church should have some say in admission I don't think that it should be a disqualification just because you do not attend church so YANBU.
On the other hand if it's a religious school and you don't believe in it then do you really want your child educated there anyway?

My DS goes to the local cofe school, its VC so is based on LA admissions criteri, there are no religious criteria. My OH and I are both aethists. He goes because it is the only school in the village, we want him to make friends here, it has very good results and when I visited prior to the admissions I had very good vibes from it (HT taking an hour to show me around the school, knew all the children by name, amazing). DS can make up his own mind about religion when he is older but I don't the school is OTT on religion so I feel comfortable with it.

However, when I was applying there were a number of schools I couldn't apply to as they had additional religious criteria, about 40% of local schools within 10 miles. I find this annoying, actually discriminiating, my taxes are funding these schools and the likelihood of my child going is 0. (Pre schools must x% from other denominations). I don't think faith should be included in state education and it certainly shouldn't be extended.

YANBU

RubyGates: "What is it about faith schools that attracts the non-faithful?"

Maybe in the OP's case that it's her local school? Most people want to send their children to the local school. It's not unreasonable.

"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."

Well, a lot of faith schools aren't better. Some of them are better, some of them are worse. They do of course benefit from a circular effect: middle-class parents believe they're better, so they make extra effort to get their kids in there, and then the faith school ends up with more middle-class kids and fewer children with social problems.

Remember that school where the dinner lady was sacked for telling parents that their little girl had been physically assaulted in the playground? That was a C of E school. So much for the faith "ethos".

but I can't get into the lovely schools in our city as we live too far away from them. taxes opay for those too...

agree hackmum

Surely sending your DD to a religious school defeats your goal of introducing her to a variety of faiths? I was under the impression that religious schools show bias in favour of their religion and at a detriment to other faiths. So you would in theory be reducing your DD's ability to learn about a range of faiths?

Why can't you send her to a normal school (not funded by a religious group) and then talk about the pros and cons of different religions that may or may not be covered in the curriculum? A lot of schools fail to inform their students on the negative aspects of certain religions. Thankfully university lecturers are more than happy to re-teach you if religion forms part of your chosen field :)

JamieandTheOlympicTorch You've got my vote!

Ok so seeing as the advocates of religious schools are arguing that they should get precedence because they contribute additional fundraising (and it doesn't look like the churches are going to donate their land and property to the educational system any time soon) how about a compromise?

If the religious bodies in question contribute 20% of costs they get to pick 20% of the children based on their criteria and the rest is selected in the usual local authority way? Seems like that would be a heck of a lot fairer to me!

I think the question of why faith schools do better has been answered by seeker's juggling analogy and the fact that these schools have selection criteria and are able to cherry pick their intake.

But I also feel that there is a big problem with labeling children with their parent's faith. My DC happen to be the children of atheists, that doesn't mean that they couldn't choose to be christian, or muslim or jedi, yet they wouldn't get to go to a faith school because I don't go to church and I didn't get them baptised the minute I squeezed them out. (My friend's son has been refused a place at the High School his brother attends because his mother failed to get him baptised before he was 6 months!!!) How can a system like this possibly be in any way fair? As far as I can see, all it does is promote hypocrisy in parents.

To people who are moaning about their taxes going towards faith schools and being excluded. What about people who don't work or earn under the tax threshold? Do they not have the same rights? If paying tax should entitle you go to a faith school, does that mean people who don't pay tax shouldn't be?
if you work and pat money toward the NHS you don't automatically become eligible for any medical treatment you want. You pay tax, but you don't get the benefit of everything the tax goes towards.

dprince - that's not a good analogy. The NHS will treat anyone who needs healthcare. They don't pick and choose according to which club you belong to (although you will get a bill if you are a foreigner not entitled to NHS care). Your analogy would only work if there were church hospitals and state hospitals, and the church hospital took taxpayers' money but refused to treat anyone who couldn't provide a baptismal certificate and a letter from the vicar confirming attendance three weeks out of four.

I think people who are subject to the NHS postcode lottery would disagree with you.
My point is paying tax does not automatically make everything available to you. So the argument that as people are paying they should be able to attend.

And if paying tax should make you eligible for everything what about those who haven't worked. Should they only be given the left over school spaces?

people who don't work do pay taxes - ever heard of VAT?

There should be no place for teaching religion as fact in education. Full stop. End of. And there should be no such thing as a state funded faith school.

And you are missing the point. It's not that paying taxes entitles you to your own cruise missile. It's that public services funded by taxation should be available to anyone who needs them without discrimination - whether that's a hip operation or a school place.

Dprince, sorry to moan about where my taxes go, I said that I resented paying taxes that fund schools which then exclude children based on their parents faith or lack of it. This potentially would include my children depending on which village I lived in.

Faith schools are available to er, children whose parents go to chuch enough to meet the admissions criteria. I don't think that state funded schools should be able to discriminate on who can / cannot go.

When I looked last, the NHS didn't does this. The NHS is available to all who need it, no one is excluded from accessing it because of their religion or lack of it.

The point about someone not paying taxes not having the same rights is specious.