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 ?

My last choice would be a faith school. I was lucky we were able to pay to avoid them at primary - fortunately the secondaries here don't have the same ridiculous disproportionality.

My neighbours mostly 'choose' the village school because - duh - its their village school. Mostly they are not overly happy at having to attend church to be sure of getting a place there rather than being consigned to a less well subscribed faith school they'd need to drive to. One is a divorced, remarried catholic so she's effectively barred not only from the village CofE but also the nearby RC schools - she had to drive through the lanes to a tiny non-dom with poor facilities. I don't know how people without cars manage - I think they do have to 'suck it up' and play the game.

Schools should be about communities - and that should include everyone in those communities, not just those of a specific belief, church schools that select on the basis of religion are divisive.

Religious practice should be eradicated from schools - religions should be taught about, like history etc. Religion is a matter for each individual privately and should not be part of state provision.

Gingerodgers Have you read the whole thread? A lot of people don't want to send their child to a faith school but if the only school in the village is faith school they have Hobson's choice. Personally I just want what every other parent wants - the best for my DC - so I am unhappy about the deep injustice of a system which means that my children have many fewer choices of school because they happened to be born to a principled atheist who does not want to lie about her beliefs! How can you fail to see the unfairness of this?

Catkins Excellent post!

ariadne1 Personal attacks are against the Talk guidelines and merely reflect back on you.

Ginger
In the area where I live (as I have posted above) one of the things the faith schools do different is to have less poor children (Free school meals) and less children with English as a second language.

I am not that people pick faith schools to avoid poor children or ethnic minorities but the reality is that in some areas faith schools do have a less deprived intake to the nearby primary schools.

I am lucky because I could afford to pay for my children's education but I really don't understand why my children should, as Catkins put so well, have less access to council funded services simply because they belong to a different religion.

I wonder if anyone really thinks if a Hindu organisation contributed 10% of the capital costs of an NHS hospital they should have the right to have 50% of the beds ringfenced for Hindus only? So why is it the case for Christian schools?

2nd para should start
I am not saying that

Ariadne: You sound like a delightful person. I'm sure you're a credit to your faith.

I don't think you understood my post, however. I said that about 10% of people go to church (ie are active Christians) but approximately 20% of school places are for Christian denomination children. So it doesn't matter whether 72% of the population describe themselves as Christian or not - the vast majority of those people aren't going to church. They then have to profess an active attachment to a particular church (either C of E or RC) to get their child into the school.

You also say, "People are not being asked to affirm their beliefs on an admissions form just how often they go to church and what practical help they give the church."

That seems to imply that the church schools don't really care whether people are Christians or not, they only care whether they go to church. That seems a little back-to-front, if you don't mind my saying. (Though I expect you do, from the tone of your post.)

Ariadne, whether people are welcome in church is beside the point. The issue here is that children are precluded from attending faith schools , which we all pay for the staffing and maintenance of.

Other publicly funded services do not discriminate on the basis of religious. No publicly funded body is allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex or race - why is religious discrimination acceptable?

We could go round in circles here, often the land and buildings are owned by the church with a percentage given towards education too. Therefore as they own the land and buildings plus contribute to the running costs they get a say in the admission criteria.
It's crap because there are not enough secular schools to meet need and too many schools which are not doing well.
If all State schools were of high quality then all the church attendance to secure a school place would stop.
The issue is not the church school denying a place but the crap (in some cases) alternatives.
I'd like to see 50% minimum of children taken from the local area rather than have children being bussed in from 10 miles away while the child up the road misses out.

"The issue is not the church school denying a place but the crap (in some cases) alternatives."

I disagree, I think the issue is the church school denying a place. Any school that receives state funding should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

There are virtually no non-faith schools in the villages round here. So some people in village A start going to church to get their kids into the better one in village B, then the people in that village have to go just to be sure of getting their local school. We have a 4x4 jam at hometime.

"Any school that receives state funding should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion." Amen

I went to a church primary. There was never any consideration of going to church, the church felt it their duty to provide a high quality education which the government paid for. If they no longer feel it is their duty to provide a high quality education (of a christian ethos) for anyone who wants it, then they should decline government money and fund their own religious schools.

how would people feel about christian hospitals only? Obviously the church would pay 15% of the running costs and may (or may not - our local proposed catholic school is having the land provided by the local council at a knock down rate) provide the land.

That's OK then.

Kew - yes, your old school is how it should be. These church schools were founded to provide education to children who needed educating. Not to provide education for a clique.

If the alternatives were there and were good though WHY would you want your child educated in a religious school if you were not religious?
If it matters, I agree that all children should have a fair crack of the whip - church schools were originally set up to serve the local population and imo (as a church attending Catholic) they still should do this. Theere should not be 100 children driven in from 10 miles around while the child down the road can't find a place anywhere. All wrong.
My son is in a Catholic school because it had a space when we moved here 5 years ago. I was not Catholic at the time but just needed a school for him, the school he is in was the first with a space. I would estimate 50% of the children and families are non-church goers or atheist. It makes no difference to me if they go to church or not - or the school for that matter.
However, at a recent Governor's meeting the admnission criteria was reviewed based upon the increase in the numbers of babies being baptised - they will now select more strictly on Catholicism - not something I especially agree with but am powerless to stop.

If the alternatives were there and were good though WHY would you want your child educated in a religious school if you were not religious?

Very few would.

Also, when discussing the disputed percentages of practicing Christians, don't forget that not all of those want their children educated in religious schools either. Some because it's the wrong flavour (JWs are the ones who always exclude their kids from assembly/RE if they have to use a faith school); others because their ethical values don't hold with discrimination and they don't need a school to instill religion.

I'm an atheist and my child goes to a VA aided church school. It's our closest school by a long way, and the only school in the village. I put up with the god stuff because all my child's friends are local and it makes a massive difference to the sense of community in the village.

Note that Ariadne has not returned .

If the alternatives were there and were good though WHY would you want your child educated in a religious school if you were not religious? The problems arises when there is no alternative- the nearest non-faith school is miles away, for example.

We should also consider the converse- why should you need the state to pay for your child to attend a faith school even if you are religious?If you're religious, you'll be taking your child to the relevant place of worship anyway, you'll be educating them at home- why should the state pay for a third method of religious indoctrination? I'm all for children learning about different religions- that can happen in RE lessons in schools which are open to all.

If I supported (let's say) Aston Villa, I'd expect to pay to take my own children to watch them play, and spend family time getting involved with their community activities and learning the history of the club. I wouldn't expect the local authority to fund an Aston Villa based school, which admitted only Aston Villa season ticket holders.

You should be able to apply; you will just be prioritised behind church attendees and people on benefits. If it's on your road you might do well.

you will just be prioritised behind church attendees and people on benefits.

I've read a lot of schools admissions criteria and I have never seen the latter - where have you seen that? . The first priority should always be 'looked after' children, then its usually along the lines of attendance at the particular church, attendance at certain other churches, siblings, distance.

You should be able to apply; you will just be prioritised behind church attendees and people on benefits. If it's on your road you might do well.

Eugene you obviously have no experience of the area where I live, I could apply but it wouldn't matter if I lived next door to the school! There are never any places offered to children who do not tick all the religious criteria boxes, with the exception of statemented and look after (i.e. in care) children, I think that this maybe what you are confusing with benefits.

'Note that Ariadne has not returned '

I do have a real life as well you know!! let me read through and see what I need to respond to!

Curvy pirate

71% of the population describe themselves as Christian - do you really think this many people acutally even think twice or is just something you put down, like you tick ethnicity? I don't believe for one minute that 71% of the population are active Christians in any way whatsoever

So lets get this straight.You are presuming to know people's faith better than they know it themselves. Really??

'Of course going to church if you're not a believer is dishonest - it's entirely dishonest.'

Why? The only dishonest thing would be if you said the creed.There is absolutely no requirement to do that .As I said before everyone is welcome at church

But as someone else said, anything for bums on seats eh?

That is unfair.The government has forced that! The law of the land is that admissions criteria have to be objective an measurable.what other criteria could they use?

'Then the church can claim they still have a right to dictate policy to the government of the day and be represented in the House of Lords whereas in actual fact it's anachronistic nonsense.'

The head of state is also the head of the Cof E.that is the consitution of this country.It is not the church's doing!

if you changed the order to 'no faith' first, that became the most ticked option.

a majority ticked 'not religious' on the actual census.

what people meant by this is probably more 'not a Muslim' i'm afraid.

Most people in the country are 'cultural christians' to greater or lesser extents.

what other criteria could they use?

The normal ones other schools use. Why should the (real or pretended) faith of a child's parents have any bearing on which school she can go to?