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?

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

I agree.

Private schools are even more discriminatory, because they admit only a tiny, tiny percentage of poor children, far fewer than faith schools.

alanbennett

In the words of Alan Bennett:

"Private education is not fair. Those who provide it know it. Those who pay for it know it. Those who have to sacrifice in order to purchase it know it. And those who receive it know it, or should. And if their education ends without it dawning on them, then that education has been wasted.

"My objection to private education is simply put. It is not fair. And to say that nothing is fair is not an answer. Governments, even this one, exist to make the nation's circumstances more fair, but no government, whatever its complexion, has dared to tackle private education.

Private education is not only unfair, according to the playwright: he also suggested it was "not Christian either". "Souls, after all, are equal in the sight of God and thus deserving of what these days is called a level playing field. This is certainly not the case in education and never has been, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go on trying. Isn't it time we made a proper start?" he asked."

Can I say, that you'll get bugger all support on mumsnet if you suggest that nationalising private schools would be good for the nation's children.

Private schools make me less angry as they aren't being funded by the state to continue entrenching inequality.

I agree with what you've said - but the state funding of an openly unequal and discriminatory system is a huge issue for me.

Toad- there are no secular schools in the UK.

I notice from another thread (sorry- but I think it's relevant) that you are not in the UK. Can I just check that you understand how school admissions wok in this country? Because if you don't then there isn't much point, surely, in you contributing specifically on the admissions issues.

There is a debate to be had about whether there should be state funded faith schools at all, but that is philosophical, rather than practical. Perhaps we'd need two separate debates?

Donnie- please could you come up with the examples of "nasty bullying" for us to put to MNHQ.

Toad in the hole - there is no such thing as a secular state school. If you can find an example of one then it would be interesting to see.

If the head of a non-faith community school, for example, decides to include a lot of Christian worship in assemblies there is nothing stopping them, even if the school is mainly comprised of children from other faith backgrounds or none. Indeed, the head has a legal obligation to provide a certain proportion of assemblies including worship of 'a broadly Christian nature'. The only thing they can't do, as far as i know, is practise discriminatory entry policies.

I dont understand how people defending the system just dont get how unfair and bonkers it is.

Would you think it reasonable if Christians got first dibs on state benefits? If a vicar had to sign a form before the council would collect your bins?

I notice that my hospital analogy has sunk without trace again.

I do think that christians are so used to being given special privileges in this country that any attempt to make the playing field level feels like discrimination.

I don't understand why no-one questions the underlying assumption in so many posts that being educated "in the local community" (= local geographic community) is always a force for greater equality and the greater good as well as the good of individuals.

Bonsoir, current admissions procedures allow oversubscribed faith schools to cream off the better-off children, meaning the least advantaged are disproportionately represented in non-faith schools rather than all schools being broadly representative of the communities they are supposed to serve. In areas of particular school pressure this may be some way from their homes.

Is it somehow more desirable for the children of better-off parents to be educated together, and poor children to be educated together? Why?

On a purely practical note, the further from your home your school is, the more complex it can become. How do you get them there and back? What if you don't have a car? How do you manage longer journeys to school with pressures of work? How do you tell your kid they can't go to a schoolfriend's to play as it's harder for you to get them home? If your support systems are local, what impact does that have if your child's school is miles away, meaning you can't share pick-ups, etc, with people you know locally?

People with funds, like me, are more able to deal with these pressures though they're still horrid for the kids.

Being educated in your local geographic community makes sense on many levels, especially for younger children. It makes practical sense in terms of travel, the environment, making the most of the hours in the day (ie not having to get up early just to sit in a vehicle for up to an hour), community relations, knowing who it is that your kids spend time with, playing together after school, shared pickups, the list goes on.

Here's a practical example. The school my child is likely to attend if we don't either pay or get lucky will mean he spends nearly an hour extra a day travelling to and from school than if he went to one of his local schools.

That's an hour less for homework, family time, sport, clubs, friends and other activity outside school. And that's based on me having a car - it would be more on public transport.

The loss of an hour a day to commuting, relative to his or her peers, seems to me to be a net detriment to a child.

There are loads of reasons to get rid of state funded faith schools but parking isn't one of them.

Parking aside, the idea of teaching faith in schools is wrong. They're kids FFS they should be allowed to grow up and make their own choices, not the choices that their parents have made for them.

And it's also unfair that my friend has had to start going to church just to get her DC into a decent school.

There should be no faith criteria.

"And it's also unfair that my friend has had to start going to church just to get her DC into a decent school."

No. That bit's not unfair.

YANBU. All state schools should be nondenominational. Religious belief should be taught in an unbiased way in school ie some people believe this some people believe that etc.
If parents want their children brainwashed they can do it with their own money or in their own time.

Hakluyt please explain why that bit is not unfair.

Surely eveyone should have access to a decent school?

It's wrong on many levels but not unfair- if that is the admissions criterion then that is what she has to do.

I don't understand the assertion that faith schools cream off the better-off children. I don't see anything in admissions policies that I've looked at that causes that. Please can you explain it simply to me.

OYBK- any selective criterion, whatever that selection is on, favours parents who are aware, understand the system, involved in their children's education, and have the time and ability and desire to "jump through a hoop" for their child's education. You will find such people disproportionately among the better off. That is why over subscribed faith schools have a lower rate of children who attract pupil premium than you would expect from the surrounding area. That is also why faith schools which are not oversubscribed do no better than similar schools. The "advantage" only appears once the selective criterion kicks in.

OhYouBadBadKitten - it happens because of the strict admissions policy. Firstly through the faith requirement. Many parents who have the money and time will make sure they attend church enough to enable their kids to attend.
These parents will naturally be the ones who make sure they give their kids the support and encouragement at home in order to achieve well at school.
Kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds are unlikely to have parents who can afford the time (or be bothered) to jump through the hoops that are required to get their kids into a particular school.
Many churches will also admit that their flock are not from diverse socio-economic groups. This means that many of these schools naturally have students from middle class/comfortable homes with all the support and encouragement from home that causes these schools to get the good results.

It's not an assertion. There's lots of data upthread. Faith schools take a much, much lower proportion of children on FSM. I'm not going to replicate it here.

The Church of England acknowledges that its congregations as significantly skewed to AB demographics. RC secondary schools with a faith admissions criterion have 24% fewer FSM children than us representative of their communities.

'We would prefer better-off children' is not written into admissions criteria, but that is the net effect of applying those criteria. If that is not the schools' intent, they need to revisit their criteria.

Quite apart from those families with children who have special needs for whom regular churchgoing may be impractical.

I understand the theory that faith schools have no place in modern society and I hold my hand up to say I'm hypercritical as my Dc go to an outstanding faith comprehensive.

However, what about schools that discriminate because of academic ability or sex?

What about the good schools in middle class areas that are not available as parents can't afford to buy there?

My Dc's faith primary had a much wider socio economic mix than most (travellers, unemployed people,teachers, doctors, socicitors and very rich business men).

Inequality in the education system won't disappear if faith schools vanish.

The schools I know has baptism as a criteria, not church attendance. You don't have to be well off to get a child baptised.

However I can see that those schools requiring regular church attendance does mean that people can work the system. Which is of course hypocritical, the schools are there in part to serve members of the faith and others are taking advantage of that. It's not though that the schools are trying to cream off middle class people it's that some middle class people are very good at working systems to their advantage.

Some people clearly believe that all forms of school selection should be banned.

"However I can see that those schools requiring regular church attendance does mean that people can work the system. Which is of course hypocritical, the schools are there in part to serve members of the faith and others are taking advantage of that. It's not though that the schools are trying to cream off middle class people it's that some middle class people are very good at working systems to their advantage."

It's not really hypocritical. People pay their taxes so there's no reason why they shouldn't do what it takes to get their child into the school they want. You say "the schools are there in part to serve members of the faith", but if that's the case perhaps they should come up with a better demonstration of faith than attending church. Perhaps, for example, they could insist that people demonstrate their Christian principles by doing voluntary work in an old people's home for a year, or working in a soup kitchen.

Also, it's hugely naive to say that the schools are not trying to cream off middle-class people. That's exactly what they're trying to do. If not, they could simply apply an inclusive, open-to-all admissions policy that welcomed children regardless of their race, religious belief or social background.