to think faith schools should be banned?

[fluffymouse]

Not just because they aren't inclusive or diverse, but also because of the local impact.

My nearest school is a faith school. Every day when I drive to work, I see dozens of cars parked along the street of the school with parents dropping off children. They park everywhere on a very narrow street including double yellow lines and the zig zag lines outside the school. It seems like nobody walks to this school, as it quite simply does not serve the local community.

Local people have no chance of sending their children to this school unless they are off the faith, and they have very strict criteria for this. Meanwhile locals also have a lot of congestion to put up with. There is obviously also a big environmental impact.

Aibu to think that state schools should be inclusive, and not exclusive based on faith grounds, as all tax payers are contributing towards their running costs?

**faith-based state education criteria.

I can both actively campaign and post opinions on an Internet forum - they're not mutually exclusive! And social media is a great campaigning tool.

I find it very heartening and encouraging that the supporters of faith schools continuing to discriminate in their admissions policies, have such appallingly weak arguments.

StanleyLambchop: " I always feel sad when people compare posting opinions on a forum to those great movements that actually got things done."

Gosh. Happen a lot, does it?

By the way, do point me to the bit in the Bible where Jesus says, "Hey, there's loads of injustice in the world, but don't let's do anything about it. After all, life's not fair, you know."

Our local faith school was built relatively recently. It was funded by the church. It takes a large proportion of people from different faiths or no faith at all. If the church hadn't built it then all of those children would have had to go to school elsewhere. As there is a shortage of spaces anyway the large cost of housing them would have had to be born by the tax payer. It has freed up places at other local schools allowing people to get into their own local schools.

stanley, I posted upthread about the RC secondary school local to where I work where there are 17 admissions criteria, number 17 being "other children", so they are admitted after children in the other 16 criteria have been offered a place. These criteria are available to view on the internet; they are no secret. They allow the school to claim they admit everyone, regardless of faith. In practice, everyone knows you have no chance below priority 10.

Priority 1 at this school is baptised RC children who are looked after (in care). Looked after children who are not baptised RC are priority 10. I'd be really interested in whether this shocking discrimination against the most vulnerable children in our society, on the basis of the faith of their foster parents, counts for you as an example of your "life isn't fair" philosophy.

"I find it very heartening and encouraging that the supporters of faith schools continuing to discriminate in their admissions policies, have such appallingly weak arguments."

Well, yes. But it's all about protecting privilege. People who have some kind of advantage enshrined in law always like to imagine they deserve it in some ways. It doesn't matter whether it's being white in apartheid South Africa, or inheriting lots of money from one's parents or being allowed to attend a school exclusively for people just like to you, they think it's their right.

Looked after children should get high priority. I agree that is wrong that they don't in your school Rhonda.

OhYouBad, what's the proportion of children on FSM? What's the socioeconomic breakdown of the relevant faith congregation? What has the presence of the school done to house prices where distance criteria are likely to apply? How much did they get from the EFA?

Net benefit to the community or society is not as simple as 'creates more school places'. I'd prefer more taxpayers' money was spent to ensure schools that discriminate less.

Rhonda, I have said all along I have only spoken of my own DC's school which does not have the criteria you mention.

As for those calling me 'ignorant' and saying I have a 'weak argument' - I am not particularly won over by your arguments, but I am not getting personal. We don't agree. Get over it. Your opinion is no more valid than mine.

You were ignorant of the facts around middle-class bias in faith schools, as were many on this thread.

Others have provided facts at data, so I'm assuming that ignorance no longer exists. Job done, and certainly nothing personal.

You need to differentiate between opinion and fact, though. It's a fact that faith schools are crushingly unequal from a socioeconomic standpoint. It's your opinion that this isn't a problem.

I'm still quite ignorant about why the church wants to promote inequality, though. I'd prefer not to be, so I'd be grateful if someone could explain it.

OYBK, it's not my school (thank goodness), it's near where I work.

If you read my post properly, you'll see I said that in this RC school, baptised RC Looked After Children are indeed the highest priority for admission.

Non-baptised Looked After Chicoren, on the other hand, are admitted under priority number 10, after all the baptised RC children have been admitted.

In other words, to make it crystal clear, children in care who have not been baptised RC are considered a lower priority for admission at this school than any other baptised RC child.

stanley, I'm asking for your view about the shocking discrimination against children in care at the school I mention. You stated that you have a general philosophy about life not being fair, so I'm sure you're also able to comment on issues in other faith schools than your own child's.

Or maybe not?

hackmum, you're so right.

When LA budgets were slashed by the government, many LAs decided they could not longer afford to pay the transport costs of children of religious parents to their nearest faith school, as they had been doing for years. For some LAs, the costs of this subsidy ran into millions per year. Many people had no idea their taxes were being used in this way, and were shocked to find the subsidy only applied to transport to faith schools.

When the subsidies were withdrawn, churches reacted with outrage, claiming the removal of the subsidy was "discriminating against religion", conveniently ignoring the fact that the provision of the subsidy for faith schools always was discriminatory.

ohyoubadkitten - does the school you're talking about use faith as part of their selection criteria?

It doesn't need to. It could still be a faith school. There are faith schools in the UK which don't select on the basis of parental faith.

It has a significantly above average percentage of students with EAL and an above average percentage of people from minority groups. Below average number of pupil premium though. I have no idea about house prices because the whole town it is in is very expensive and very very white British middle class. It has a large catchment area, supplied well by buses and that is where the diversity comes from.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the contrast between the racial diversity and the pupil premium situation.

"I'm still quite ignorant about why the church wants to promote inequality"

I'm not sure the church does want to promote inequality. I suspect though that they just accept it as an unfortunate by product of the educational policy they support which is primarily about getting and keeping bums on seats in church in an increasingly secular society.

It's like the Catholic church covering up child abuse, and moving paedophile priests around to prevent their arrest and prosecution. The church doesn't support child abuse, but they're willing to tolerate it if that's the price of maintaining the power and status of the church.

It's really horrible isn't it?

It does minifingers. It would mean of course people who lived further in away in that catchment who have that faith wouldn't be able to get in. So they would move closer and that would drive up local house prices and would create a bubble of that faith living around the school. As it is, there is a large number of students who attend who do not have that faith who can walk into the school each day, it is large enough to supply the local community and those who share that faith.

I realise this is just one example though.

Rhonda, I was agreeing with you that that was wrong.

I think all schools receiving state funding should have exactly the same entry criteria. I don't think it is fair to have selective faith schools or selective grammar schools.

It's grim. It's basically 'we know this is divisive and actively promoting social division and inequality. However actually doing anything about it would upset our middle class members and reduce attendance at our services, so we would prefer to keep doing the wrong thing because it is more convenient for us.'

It reminds me why I'm no longer a member of the church. They are very good at holding others to a higher moral standard, not so good at maintaining that standard themselves.

OhYouBad, EAL/ethnic diversity isn't a reliable measure of deprivation. FSM / pupil premium are better and as a whole faith schools that practise selection have many fewer pupils on FSM than is representative of their communities.

Your school may be a paragon but by practising faith-based selection, that is a likely outcome simply based on the demography of churchgoers.

"It would mean of course people who lived further in away in that catchment who have that faith wouldn't be able to get in. So they would move closer and that would drive up local house prices and would create a bubble of that faith living around the school. "

House prices in the catchment of all highly popular schools which have proximity as part of their selection criteria go up, regardless of the faith criteria of the school.

Maybe the answer is for all schools - including faith schools - to award places on the basis of a lottery system.

YANBU

It's shocking that we have a school system that is allowed to discriminate against children based on their religion. It's unbelievable really.

Religious schools are fine as long as they're privately funded. State schools should be for everyone.

Or maybe the answer is for the DfE to put money into raising standards in all schools, instead of throwing billions at the free schools and academies programme.