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 ?

No I am jot saying meals on wheels should educate my child. What I am saying is my taxes pay toward sure start. Dd doesn't fit the criteria, but I want her to go as I think it would be good for her. So following the ' I pay my taxes so there so be no criteria' argument, I should be allowed to take her.
Here is my point in short paying tax does not make you eligible, for anything. People who pay more tax have no more rights than others. We all miss things because we don't fit the criteria. But it only seems to be a major issue if irlts religion that is the criteria.
People keep saying faith schools are better because parents that send their kids are more committed to the school. So THAT is the problem. The parents who are not interested/ committed to their childrens education are the problem. Not the fact a school is faith based.

The Catholic school that dd1 is going to has just built 3 new classrooms with another one still to go. Guess who paid for most of it? Yep, the parents of the children and the congregation at the next door church. That's in addition to those parents and the congregation paying towards the school and the parents of the pupils all paying taxes, as much as the parents of any school do. I pay through my taxes, will pay through collections and fundraising at the school and through the church. Dprince is spot on.

Am I missing something or is the collection voluntary? Whatever, any contribution is a hell of a lot less than LA funding for the school.

so, if our local PTA banded together to build a new resource for the school, you'd be cool with only PTA members/ helpers kids getting to use it?

Yes you can put £1 in that's still £52 per year more than a person that doesn't attend. Most people I know, put what they can in. If its a small amount its a small amount, but alot of people but alot more than £1. Then, like me, have a standing order to the school.
Me and dh worked out that we could afford to put dd in a local private school for we donated. Between the collections, standing orders and spending/ helping at fundraisers. I was by no means an exception. Just a shame the heat was such a knob. I actually have saved money by sending her to the new school. Which became an academy after she started.

Im obviously missing something. My LA funds grammar schools - should I demand a place for my child? I rather fancy the girls one, shame he's a boy and didnt pass his 11+

£52 :)

if someone offered any of the parents in 'London primary admissions hell' to pay that much (or much more) to get their child in to school of choice, or even just for an advantage......

jumping
'something else is wrong' doesn't mean 'this is ok'

Dprince, you are misunderstanding what discrimination is.

Surestart is for children up to school age, it is a resource to help children before they start school and was set up as this period is key in a childs development. Your DD would have been eligible up to school age. Now that she is at school, its just not aimed at her. To discriminate would have been to not allow her to use it because she had blonde hair for example. Don't worry she'll be eligible for meals on wheels once she reaches a certain age / income criteria.

I'm not saying that I have more rights than someone because I pay taxes. My children should not be discriminated against in choosing a school because they do not fit the religious criteria for selection. There is a difference. The issue over taxes is that is a publicly funded body, and should be open to children of school age, irrespective of religion and based on LA selection criteria. If the schools don't like it, if the funding is conditional on not discriminating, become a private school.

You are mixing the two arguments about selection and that some faith schools are better than non faith schools.

And it's not a child's fault if he/she is/isn't taken to church or not.

All kids should be able to go to their local school,they shouldn't be discriminated against because their parents don't sit through a sermon for an hour once a week.

A lot of people I know who frequent church do it for social reasons and to be frank have very little values that Christians are supposed to have.So basically little Johnny down the road gets pushed out because Tarquins's mum likes to be a pillar of the community and doesn't want him mixing with the savages in the school down the road or conveniently "discovers religion. It's wrong.

I agree also with the poster who things there should be no church schools and kids should be learning about a variety of religions. Lets's face it the world is so screwed up a bit of knowledge and tolerance re all religions instead of a blinkered view of just one could only be beneficial.

Dprince If Surestart offers services up to the age of 3 then all children up to that age qualify, so everyone gets their turn and there is no discrimination, how can you not see that?

Yet again, to those of you saying that your extra donations justify your preferential treatment can I ask if the (fictional) FSM religion donated to a NHS hospital and then their members jumped ahead in the transplant queues, irrespective of medical need, would that be ok? If not, why not?

And why should I accept discrimination on the basis of religion? I don't accept it on the basis of race, gender or sexuality, so why on earth should I accept it on the basis of religion?

But people are born with a particular sex / skin colour; some are born with (or later develop) disabilities. I think we are all in agreement that it's unreasonable to discriminate on these grounds. Religion is a lifestyle choice. How is it that religious groups get to discriminate while others get no say? Tobacco companies probably pay millions in corporation tax - should they be able to hive off education budgets for the children of smokers only ? ( Mind you, the way the academy free-for-all bonanza is going I probably shouldn't put these ideas out there).

Yes, they are just partly funded through taxes. And they don't treat "all as equals" because it's a faith school. What exactly don't you understand?

I don't think the problem is that people don't understand.

I totally get why, if you subscribed to a particular mindset, & you got to have a school for your children where preferential treatment was given to other children whose parents thought like you did - well, I can quite see why it would be attractive.

The question is whether it's acceptable for you to have that, if it means that other children lose out.

There's a broader question as to whether it's actually in society's interests to encourage sectarianism amongst young children, too.

So I'd say most of us who object to the thinking behind 'they don't treat "all as equals" because it's a faith school' aren't objecting because we have trouble understanding the selfish reasoning behind faith schools, so much as we understand it perfectly well & find it morally objectionable.

What I simply don't understand is why anyone thinks it's even remotely acceptable for anyone to be denied access to any public service because they are the wrong religion! Apply the reasoning to hospitals and see how it feels. We have just accepted the church school thing unthinkingly because "it's how we do it". Well, it obviously shouldn't be!

ok, long thread and i've only read the original post.

you want your child in the 'lovely' c of e school and you aren't willing to take her to church and make your contribution by being part of the church community? yet you think you should have an 'entitlement' to a place at the school? above people who have made a commitment to church and community?

you are being unreasonable.

now i might look at the thread and see which way it went...

I feel the same as raven & seeker and have yet to hear an argument to convince me it's anything other than a ridiculous hangover from times past, it's an unfair system badly in need of an overhaul.

age - they tend to be the more established schools, not new builds - the leafy suburb has the c of e school, the 70's council estate has a 70s build school..

selection - selecting churchgoers allows selection in favour of wealthier people

it is nothing to do with anything particular to 'faith' schools.

Edgar - not all faith schools are in the leafy suburb. The one's in my area aren't. What some people are reluctant to admit is that the strong religious values instilled at faith schools have a positive effect on a child's attitude and behaviour which may lead to better performance.

Going back to OP's original post. Most schools seem to have a selection criteria don't they? I don't see why a faith school should not give some, albeit small priority to those who follow the faith, otherwise it would begin to lose its identity.

ah yes, it went down the 'we should have everything we want regardless' path.

imagine it's not a school, its a football team. can i join? but i want a place on the team? no, lovebunny, you're old and fat and you can't run. not only that, you're blind in one eye and you think football is a complete waste of time. the elitist football managers would soon put a stop to my ambitions, and you would not be making a case for me to join. its like that when i hear of non-faith families demanding access to faith schools. i ask myself 'why'? because we've made our schools better than average, by our commitment and our aspirations? which they aren't prepared to sign up to? they can't do it, so they can't join.

there's nothing to stop any of you making a commitment to a religion and putting your child into a faith school. all it takes is forethought, planning, determination, perseverence...

another route to a nice little school is to find a semi-rural area to live - where the local school is full of the lovely children of your lovely neighbours.

lovebunny, then fund the school totally yourself. If you want TP assistance, don't exclude the children of TP who live locally.

Just because you throw the word "entitled" around doesn't mean you have actually made an argument.

Oh, if you have the ability, you should be selected to the football team, whether or not you have ginger hair, or whatever. You'd wouldn't not be selected because of your faith.

YANBU

It is an anachronism

It is all down to property ownership (as Grimma I think said). Almost all the running costs are paid for by the state but the church owns the land and the buildings.

I think the argument that these were originally paid for in part by the the voluntary contributions of churchgoers and therefore that the wishes of these long-dead parishioners should over ride the principle of non-discrimination in state services, just doesn't stack up.

Not least because we don't know their wishes. When the church first set up schools for local children (who in those days were almost all Christian) how do we know whether the people who donated wanted to support the education of local Christian children or local children?

If you use the argument that the religious character of the first donators is paramount then shouldnt church schools still spend the same proportion of time on scripture now that they did then?

lovebunny - totally agree with you.

My Sister has just got her DD into a faith school, she is a regular church goer and does a lot for the commmunity but she lives on a council estate where the best school in the area has made it clear that her DS would not be welcome by ensuring its catchment area excludes the estate, the house prices around that school are sky high.

However that school is now oversubscribed so well off parents who have bought into the area are now whinging and whining that the only other school
they will consider (the faith school) had its own selection criteria and guess what? its not one they can get into just because they have more money then other people.

Islandlady, lovely that your DN is in the school her mother wants. Out of interest, which school(s) are the other children on the estate going to?

local underperforming shit hole bigjoeent

actually not all the kids on the estate are going to this DN has three mates from the esate going to her faith school and there are a few more - but mostly the aforementioned shit hole