to go to church to get DS into a better school

[ilovejesus]

We live in the centre of a big city, near some badly rated schools. The faith schools are, of course, much better.

I am an atheist and so is DH. We both think the current system is appalling, but I am prepared to start going to church in order to get DS into a better school when the time comes (he's 2). DH is strongly against this, saying it's unethical. I think the whole bloody system is unethical, but until the system is changed, I don't want to ruin DD's future over it. He's also morally against sending her private (not that we could afford it), and I am too.

So as not to drip feed, my problem with the schools is not the teaching which I'm sure is fine, it's the low expectations set for these children. Basically the children at the closest school are expected to become checkout workers and security guards. There's nothing wrong with that but I want more for DD. We both went to good unis and have professional jobs.

AIBU to go to church with my fingers crossed, and if not, how do I convince DH?

Go and have a look around all your local catchment schools before making a judgement. dd goes to the one undersubscribed school in our town that loads of snobby parents won't even look at because it's the 'council estate school' which is 'excellent for special needs' It's great, she's really happy, the teaching is good, lots of extra curricular stuff, caring atmosphere, loads of space, and if some parents drop the kids off in their pyjamas I can't see how that affects my child's education, tbh.

There is really very little correlation between having lots of naice middle class parents and the quality of teaching and learning in a school.

Then if you are really sure that the church school is the one you want to send your children to (and you'll be happy going to religious assemblies for the next 7 years) you'll have to acquire some faith, won't you.

Maybe 7/8 miles is too far for primary, but it could be extended for secondary. There are lots of children that attend secondary schools much further away than that.

The things with catchment based admissions is that then you get people understandably complaining it's unfair because the schools in the the leafy villages surrounded by five bedroom houses are better than the schools in deprived areas of high unemployment.

Honestly, I wish we had. Our first choice was a hugely oversubscribed church school, but not being churchgoers and being more than 300yards away dd didn't get in. The school she did get in, where she is now is a fucking shambles, and I wish I'd bullshitted like a large proportion of the other parents.

But that would be fairer than the current system whereby someone living much further away can get a place at a school simply because they tick the right religion boxes.

I am a regular church goer but still don't like the faith school system. It seems wrong that I get more 'choice' in which schools I send DS to than someone who hasn't got faith (or the same faith as the available schools) so understandably doesn't want that for their child.

Woowoo, that's much less true for urban areas where many communities tend to be more mixed. And inequities are going to be difficult to overcome in totality, but does that mean we need to cling to all of them - especially those that give further advantages to committed and largely middle class parents?

If people want to send their children to faith schools, either they or their churches should fund it. Anything else is propping up a deeply unequal and unfair system.

OP YABVU TBH

Have you seen all the non faith school parents outside the school swearing, smoking and in their PJs or just a small group??????????

There are also similar groups outside faith schools as well.

I used to work with an anti-bullying organisation that worked across the whole spectrum and am sorry to say that faith schools were the ones we got the most calls about. They also refused input saying "Bullying does not go on at our school"

As suggested up thread go through all the OFSTED reports with a fine tooth comb and stop judging before you have all the facts.

If you won't go private, why are you ok with going faith?

Ok to lie and deceive, but not ok to pay money?

Genuine question.

PS where we live, you would need a track record of attending services, and to be a "contributing parishioner" ie to pay money...sorry, I mean donate money to the Church to be able to send your children to the faith school.

That's why I'm genuinely puzzled by your moral dilemma.

I don't disagree with you when you say people who want a faith education should either pay for it or have their church pay for it. And I realise there will be big differences in how systems work in urban and rural areas, and all those inbetween.

I just think that there will never be a system that is completely fair to everyone, and if there's going to be hoops to jump through, I'd rather the hoop be a free one than can be conquered by anyone who is prepared to give up a couple of hours a week than it be an expensive one that will never allow some people through no matter what they do.

ErroltheDragon what does ethnically Chinese have to do with church attendance? The (underground and much persecuted) Chinese church is the fastest growing church in the world!
Hounding a child of any ethnicity for her/his parents decisions is awful, however.

Like others I am a Christian and don't think it is at all fair that faith should get you a better education. I don't think that's really what Jesus would have endorsed either.

YABU, but not any more unreasonable than the parents who do have that faith and who are taking advantage of it. No child should be privileged or punished because of the faith activities of their parents, whether those activities are genuinely-felt or not.

What were you planning to tell the child? Or are you genuinely going to being them up as believers,. even if you aren't?

(If the faith you are thinking of is Catholic, you've already missed the boat, as around here if you haven't got them baptised and attending by six months, you can go whistle for a school place.)

It is unethical to me, though if you did this, you would not be alone. Many are those who were baptised, hardly ever set foot in a church after early teens, and then suddenly 'rediscovered' their faith.

Allegedly this applies to the Prime Minister.

YABU. I hate faith schools. They basically discriminate and cream off the best pupils.

Go and invest time in your local schools. If more parents did that then schools would improve.

So there seems to be an agreement among many of us that the system stinks.

Given this, what are you supposed to do if you're in the OP's position (let's assume the alternatives will genuinely disadvantage your child, for the sake of argument)?

To those of you who say it's wrong to "cheat" and "lie" no matter how wrong the system you're cheating is, I roll out the tired old example of the Nazis: would you judge someone who cheated and lied in order not to carry out their instructions (i.e., the accepted "system" at the time)? Extreme example, obviously, but this is the principle.

I would say that, arguably, the most morally acceptable position might be to "sacrifice" the education of your own child in order not to buy into a bad system (after all, as lots have said, isn't it odd to think it OK for your child to get a better education than others?). But on MN, the parents who get the most judged seem to be those who don't fight tooth and nail to get their DC ahead - to be a good mother seems to require this.

What the hell we expect the OP (or anyone else) to do is beyond me.

Going against the Nazis is a different scale and the Nazis were morally wrong.

Faith schools are morally wrong IMO so no I wouldn't play the system to get my child into one.

We applied for our nearest school, we got our second choice.

You can move house if you can afford it. However lying about your religion is a different scale.

Would you convert to Islam and make your DH attend a mosque?

Would you grow dreadlocks and smoke herb and become Rastafarian?

What are your moral limits for getting your children out of School for Cashiers?

But you're too 'moral' to send them private?

Fascinating.

In the OPs position, I'd do whatever I had to do, and if that meant going to church, then so be it.

I completely disagree that the most morally acceptable position would be to 'sacrifice' your own child's education. I don't think doing your best for your own child equals thinking it's ok for other children to not receive a good education, but then I don't think there's anything wrong with the education given by most schools. Any problems are more likely to be down to the parents.

Clockwatching. The way to change the system is to work within it. Send your kids the local school provided. Become a governor, get involved. You say 'what are you supposed to do in the OP's position', but she's already admitted she hasn't even visited the schools she's rejecting. Her position's one of ignorance led by the middle classes who perpetuate the system.

No offence meant by that OP - I don't mean you're ignorant, just that if you don't even visit the schools you're in ignorance of what they're really like.

Not everyone has the time or the inclination to become a governor, and there's only so much that one governor can do anyway. They certainly don't have the power to change the whole system.

ErroltheDragon what does ethnically Chinese have to do with church attendance?

just that why would a HT assume that this child and her mother 'should' go to church - the arrogant assumption that it was somehow 'right'. Of course the HT shouldn't have taken this line with any child, but it was particularly unpleasant, making her feel like an outsider.

You're right there WooWoo, but surely nothing changes unless you take responsibility and ownership. We all want the best for our kids, but we're part of a bigger society where surely every kid matters. If the school system stinks why perpetuate it?

I honestly do think there's a lot of myth making about 'good' schools/ 'bad' schools. Some of the hugely desirable schools near us really aren't so great when you scratch the surface. The school my son attends is far from perfect, but it's not the horrendous place lots of people made out when he went there. It sounds very similar to the one the OP is rejecting without even going to visit.

Right, I'm a Christian, and I do go to a church that's attached to an outstanding state faith school. There's a lot of parents doing what you are planning to do. They sit at the front, they make a point of shaking the vicar's hand at the end, and are usually rather involved. I don't really mind, my view is the DCs are there, the parents are usually encouraged (and do!) the "Christianity explored" or "alpha" courses, and some do keep coming to church after they've got their DCs in, so have found faith, or at least, have become part of the church community and don't want to give that up.

However, it's worth going to visit the school in question, some 'faith' schools are just like all other state schools, but the church owns the building, others, like the faith school attached to our church, is very Christian in ethos, not just for RE and a bit in the assembly.

So much so, that while I'd be happy for DS to go there, my athiest DH wasn't, we've chosen to send DS elsewhere.

And its also worth going to one service before you sign up for this plan, if you have only been to church as a child or to a Christmas/Easter service, you might find the sermons a little harder to sit through...

I also agree you should go to the other schools and see what you think.

If the school system stinks why perpetuate it?

Because each of us are individuals responsible mainly for our own children's education, which they only get one chance at. Most parents would rather take a safe chance than a risky one when it comes to something as important as their child's education. And I can't blame them.

The question still remains: what are you going to tell the kids?