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?

Wouldn't help a lot of people, Rhonda. For a lot of folks is not just about avoiding bad schools, bet getting into any schools within a reasonable distance because school places are in such demand.

If we get lucky, and there are not a glut of siblings of children admitted under the church criterion, my DS may get into the school around the corner. If not, it's miles away because all the schools within a reasonable distance are oversubscribed.

I am starting to consider going to church, even though the thought makes me sick, because I don't want to have to explain to DS in 2 years' time why he isn't going to the local school with his more parentally pious or parentally rich friends, and is instead going to school on the opposite side of the borough, meaning extremely early starts and late finishes for everyone.

I agree on free schools/academies, by the way. I just can't understand why the state (via councils) doesn't prioritise building schools where there is a demonstrated demographic need (they have the data!) rather than where an independent conglomerate thinks it would be financially viable to build one.

And on that subject I just heard yesterday that - again, in the area where I work - the LA has decided to reinstate a council building as a secondary school (it was closed down about 20 years ago) in response to a predicted shortage of school places.

The proposal most likely to succeed is from the nearby RC secondary (the one with the 17 admissions criteria). The school will be a free faith school, converting to an academy in time. If it's oversubscribed, 50% of places will go to the non-religious. All SLT members will be required to be practising Christians. The proposal states that prayer and worship will be central to learning. AFAIK there has been no concern raised locally that there is not enough religion to meet demand

YANBU. I haven't read the whole thread but I believe if you want to send your child to a faith based school you should pay for it. State funded education should be secular. I think it goes further than making sure faith schools have inclusive admissions policies. I think they should cease to be faith schools. I often wonder about how vicars feel staring out at their flocks of parents of the under 5s knowing they will mostly disappear once DC1 gets their place, and thank heavens for sibling priority.

Ach, Rhonda, that's mildly depressing.

I just can't get the whole concept of people of faith, who claim a superior moral standpoint to us benighted atheists, saying "yep, we have a choice of two schools, you have a "choice" of one. If you don't like it, you get on and do something to change it- there's no way we're going to do anything to make life fairer. We're just going to cling on to our privileged position until someone forces us to give it up"

Alan Bennett recently said something about private education couldn't be as fabulous as its supporters say if kids come out the end of it still thinking that private education is a good thing. Well, faith can't be as wonderful as all that if people of faith genuinely think there is no moral issue with faith schools.......

Yes, that cynical 'I'm all right Jack, what are you going to do about it' attitude doesn't smack of loving thy neighbour all that much, does it?

House non faith parents have exactly the same attitude don't they?, especially if they only get into a certain school because they can afford house prices in the catchment area.

Where my Sister lives the local outstanding school is almost on her doorstep, however the school has 'bent' the boundaries so the council estate where she lives just falls outside the area, so she would have had to send her 2 dcs to the crap school which is in her catchment area

However there is an outstanding faith school also in an affluent area that my sister is able to get her Dcs in as she is a practising Christian and a regular church goer.

Now there was never a problem with this until a few years ago when suddenly entitled middle class professionals found that they could no longer buy their way into the good school as house prices in the area have tripled and they couldn't afford to move there.

So now they are moving into the catchment area of the faith school where houses are cheaper in the hope they will get one of the (50%) places available to non faith families and when they don't get a place suddenly the fact that the school is a faith school becomes a problem and they are up in arms and whining about how unfair the whole system is.

How many of those families know or give a flying fuck that the children from the council estate only have the sink school for their children and that without this faith school my Sisters children would not have as good an education as they want for their own children.

I would suggest that those people who can buy their way into a good education have more of an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude' then people who qualify for a good school on faith grounds

YANBU. I haven't read the whole thread but I believe if you want to send your child to a faith based school you should pay for it.

Why on earth require this? In most Western countries, the UK included, there remain huge numbers of professed Christians. In fact as per the last census, they in fact remain the majority. They are hardly a niche group and it is completely appropriate and not in any sense a burden that the State take account of their preferences.

I often wonder about how vicars feel staring out at their flocks of parents of the under 5s knowing they will mostly disappear once DC1 gets their place, and thank heavens for sibling priority.

I don't know, not being a vicar myself, but I expect they probably think a faith-based education won't do the kids any harm, as indeed it won't, if you are talking about the CofE for example.

I suggest you concentrating on solving the many genuine problems with education in the UK, not this non-issue.

Maybe you ought to start going to church Jessie.....you could do with a little love in that angry, bitter heart of yours. I have rarely read posts with such intensity of hatred. Poor you .

Lots of nasty bullying on this thread, as usual.

Right. I am completely fed up with being accused of anger, and bitterness and bullying because I dare to question the postiion of privilege Christianity holds in society in this country.

So, Donnie, I'm calling you on it. Please C&P some "nasty bullying". Shouldn't be difficult- you say there's lots. Pick the two worst and we'll get MNHQ to adjudicate.

"They are hardly a niche group and it is completely appropriate and not in any sense a burden that the State take account of their preferences."

Please could you explain to me why the State should take into account the preferences of Christians, but completely ignore mine?

Yours are already catered for.

I note your non-point earlier in this thread about hospitals.

"Yours are already catered for.

I note your non-point earlier in this thread about hospitals."

In what way? My preference is for a secular school.

Why is it a non point?

Toad in the whole - although Christians currently make up the majority of the British population 59%, this will change in a few years. 25% of the population has no religion and most of the current Christian population is aging and the majority of people aged 25-49 are not religious.

So why are we still allowing religious schools to reap the benefits of well behaved/supported middle class kids to boost their results when if these kids are spread out amongst all the neighbouring schools evenly all the kids would benefit.

My parents where among the many that pretended to be religious (Mum actually "converted" to Catholisism in order to get my siblings into an apparently well performing Catholic school. This was along with many other middle class parents in the area who didnt want their kids going to the local sink comprehensive.

If all schools where non-religious and all resources shared equally we wouldnt have this ridiculous situation.

And before anyone claims its the religious instruction that makes these schools perform better - its not. Its the fact that the students who make it to these schools come from families that have bothered to jump through all the hoops to get their precious kids into these hallowed halls. They have the support and encouragment at home that enabled them to achieve so highly.

Hakluyt

Then send your children to a secular school.

I'm not sure where you are, but if there are no secular schools, then I can understand your irritation, but that is hardly an argument for switching the entire system over to your preference.

Lavender

At best, it will be many years before Christians form a small enough minority for it to be unreasonable for them to be discounted in matters of educational planning. And as a separate point, non-religious parents sending children to a religious school operates as a vote in favour of that religious school, regardless of what their own views are. If Christians en masse started sending their kids to atheist schools, you would have a better argument for abolishing religious ones.

Toadinthehole - exactly right.

Toad, where is my son catered for (see up thread?) he simply isn't, and claiming otherwise is palpably false. Unless you are suggesting that he is catered for through the privege of getting his 'local' state education miles outside the community he has grown up in, simply because his local schools reward parents who are prepared to be mendacious about their apparent faith, and those who can afford the wildly skewed house prices driven by faith-based admissions in areas of general over subscription?

In many places, faith-based admissions drive up house prices nearby even more than regular oversubscribed admissions, because there are so few places for non-church children to attend local schools. The worst examples of overpricing near me add £500k to the price of a house that is almost guaranteed to get a child a school place, versus identical houses three or four streets away?

Those accusing people of hypocrisy will also, of course, have noted the alternative admissions methods many on this thread have suggested and which are championed by the campaign for fair admissions. Or have you ignored that as it doesn't help you make your point?

Donnie, Toad, how do you justify the non-representative socioeconomic character of faith schools?

And Donnie, yes please, I'd be thrilled to see examples of that hate you were suggesting. The one that springs to mind was the suggestion that Christians are better teachers, more caring people and better at discipline than non-Christians - the implication being that Christians are also better parents. Is that the sort of hateful comment you were referring to? I agree, it was pretty grim.

Toad: faith based admissions are discriminatory and in particular discriminate against the most disadvantaged children. They entrench inequality in society.

To me that's an excellent reason to change the system.

The fact that my child has less choice of state-funded school than a 'religious' child (read: child of churchgoing parents') is also wildly nonsensical. Can you explain the benefit of forcing children to be educated outside their local communities to accommodate the faith preferences of others?

Toadinthehole - atheist parents sending their kids to religious schools is not a vote in favous of the religious school. It is done because of the lack of alternatives caused by the very existance of religious schools.

If there were no religious schools education would be a far more level playing field as people would simply attend the closest school to them (or in the case of specialist school the ones most suited to their needs).

Facilities and money could be spread far more evenly and hopefully behavious and achievement in schools would be more even. (Please see argument in previous post)

Plus since Christians currently make up the smallest minority of faith in the age group of 25-49 (therefore the age group most likely to have kids) why are we still pandering to their demands!

Jassy - agree with everything you've said and put much better than I could!

Equally, lavender, parents willing to fake faith or pay the wildly skewed house prices caused by faith admissions codes are choosing an apparently 'good' school - which is principally good because the school is allowed by the state to select from a pool of disproportionately well-off middle-class children.

The church itself admits that its congregations are severely unrepresentative of their surrounding communities, strongly skewed to AB demographics.

Lavender, I'm getting a lot of practice on this thread...

Toad 'Then send your children to a secular school.

I'm not sure where you are, but if there are no secular schools...'

That would be anywhere in the UK, then? There is no such thing as a secular school in this country.