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?

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

I certainly believe that covert, discriminatory selection should be banned. Don't you?

I've just had a brilliant though. How about people who regularly attend church are only allowed to apply to faith schools, leaving the non denominational ones to the rest of us?

Yes - because selection perpetuates inequality and further disadvantages the most disadvantaged children.

I'm not sure that any form of selection is straightforward and transparent! When resources are rare, the fight to obtain them is always complex. People need to be less naive!

Hackmum - that's a good point re religious faith vs church-going. And yes, I wonder how measuring Christianity in terms of actually helping the worse off as opposed to just showing up in church and fund-raising for the steeple would affect school entries.

Hak - good thinking!

I feel that we are heading off in a circle, so I will bow out of the discussion but it's been interesting to hear your perspectives.

I'm not sure that any form of selection is straightforward and transparent! When resources are rare, the fight to obtain them is always complex. People need to be less naive!

I don't think people are being naive or stupid, of course no entry criteria will suit everyone or be perfectly fair.

It's just that if you take out the most unfair, discriminatory and downright bonkers element of the selection system, you have a chance of approaching something better.

I have followed this thread for a couple of days and I find it quite sad. Ok I get it that people don't like faith schools but IMO not everybody who attend faith schools are not hypocritical mc types. Until last year dd attended a faith school (I removed her to a private school because of bullying but that is another story).

I go to church on a regular basis and actually do voluntary work. When dd attended a faith school we would walk a mile and a half past an outstanding state school to our ok rated school. The school building and grounds had been left to the parish with the sole purpose of providing an education for the catholic children in the parish( which by the way are usually bigger than school catchment areas).

As church goers we regularly contribute to the upkeep of the school and additionally had to pay a fixed sum every year for the school building fund for the whole diocese.

I now pay for a school place via my taxes that I don't use and I do not begrudge this as I believe in a society where we all should contribute even if we don't use the services are provided. So please don't begrudge people a place at a faith school because they work the system. At the end of the day it is the ethos of the school that people are buying into and if that is missing in some state schools then I feel truly sorry.

Just as an aside which was actually what the op was complaining about some of the people at dd new school are also extremely selfish in the way they park.

Slightly different but just as discriminatory, in my dsis's area community schools are oversubscribed so children are forced to fill up the surrounding c of e smaller schools where (in the school dns attend) children of atheists pray twice a day, have a vicar in preaching once a week, go to church for assembly once a week, have crucifixes and other paraphernalia in the classrooms and work on an unhealthy amount of topics that are Christian based. There's no right of appeal either.

A lottery-based system has a lot of merit.

Millais - do you have evidence for that argument on FSM? Most I've seen contradicts that viewpoint.

Muskey - why are (disproportionately disadvantaged) children who are excluded from their local schools less important than those whose parents 'play the system?' Why shouldn't' those children begrudge their contemporaries those advantages denied to them because their parents are of a different, or no, faith?

Muskey.

There was absolutely nothing stopping you attending the outstanding school you were walking past. A child living next door to the faith school your child attended may not have been able to get into it. She might well also not have ben able to get into the outstanding school you walked past because of catchment.

So it might well have been that you had a choice of two schools for your child, and the child living next to the faith school had no choice at all.

Does that seem right to you?

At the end of the day it is the ethos of the school that people are buying into and if that is missing in some state schools then I feel truly sorry.

You really can't assume that 'people' are buying into the Christian ethos. You might be, but others might be attending that school through simple lack of choice.

"At the end of the day it is the ethos of the school that people are buying into and if that is missing in some state schools then I feel truly sorry."

Ah, the elusive "ethos" we hear so much about. What is it, exactly? At my DD's non-faith primary, the children were encouraged to be kind and thoughtful and respectful towards one another. What exactly are faith schools teaching that is so much better than that?

Or perhaps - gasp - the "ethos" isn't all that it's cracked up to me?

Remember the dinner lady who was sacked for telling parents that their little girl had been physically assaulted by two boys? That was a Church of England school. (www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6216303/Dinner-lady-sacked-after-telling-parents-of-daughters-bullying.html)

Remember the teacher who shouted 'die, die, die" as he attacked a boy with a dumb bell? He had been provoked by the relentless bad behaviour of pupils, but had received no support from senior management. That was a Catholic school:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/apr/26/dumbbell-attack-teacher-student-die

Perhaps the "ethos" of faith schools is nothing to do with faith, but varies according to the quality of senior management, just as it does in non-faith schools.

The way I hear 'ethos' used it is often was to do with faith or belief and more to do with 'people like us.'

It's reasonable for people want to send their children to school with people who are like them and have similar values. It's a very human trait.

It's not reasonable for either the state or individual faiths to perpetuate systems that enable that, knowing they are deeply divisive, unequal and disproportionately exclude disadvantaged children.

Yes, if the 'Christian ethos' is indeed a good thing, the school is still going be run by human beings who may or may not be very good at practising it.

Which is why you need robust, accountable standards in place for ALL schools. And it's another reason why schools shouldn't be run by self-interested organisations, as there's so much scope for self-protection and corruption.

I now pay for a school place via my taxes that I don't use

Muskey are you sure the school dd is attending is not a state-funded faith school? As I understand it most of them are.

"So please don't begrudge people a place at a faith school because they work the system"

It is not the parents who will be attending the school, so why is their behaviour even being taken into account when it comes to allocating school places?

With the exception of church schools, state funded schools in the UK know nothing about the lifestyle choices of parents when they are allocating places to children. They don't need to know, because it is not the parent who they are educating, it is the children.

To me, a true Christian ethos would go something like this: "Let's take the most disadvantaged kids in society - the ones whose families have no money, or whose parents are drug addicts or alcoholics, or can barely speak a word of English and have to do three menial jobs to make ends meet - and give them the best possible education we can. Let's make up for their disadvantages by lavishing them with care and attention and giving them the opportunities they might never have."

So please don't begrudge people a place at a faith school because they work the system

I'm an inclusive sort of person and I begrudge anyone and everyone a place at a faith school whether they have worked the system or not. We lived abroad when my kids were school age so thus issue didn't effect us but it still pisses me off that some children are discriminated against because of their parents religeous or fake religeous beliefs.

I do find it interesting that supporters of faith schools never address the really difficult questions. 1.My post to muskey of 11.05, for example. 2. Jassey's situation. 3. My hospital analogy. 4.Why it would be a bad thing for people who attend church only to apply to church schools. 5. Why church schools have a much smaller proportion of children attracting pupil premium than other schools. 6. Where the "nasty bullying" on this thread is. 7. Why the state should make provision for the preferences of people of faith when allocating tax payer's money for education provision and not my preferences..........

I don't think I can spell religious

It's probably because I didn't get to go to one of those fancy faith school.

That's at extremely good list of questions, Hak. None of which can be answered effectively with 'oh, but it suits me' or the ridiculous 'people can just send their kids elsewhere'.

The people pay taxes argument annoys me. 1/3 of schools in the country are Christian. 1/3 of the people in this country actively worship. One would presume that these people in general pay taxes. Therefore they are entitled to faith schools to educate their children.

People forget that very often the schools were built by religious orders and are on grounds still owned by the church. Yes they are voluntary aided but they are not fully funded or owned by the taxpayer.

People feel entitled to send their children to faith schools because they pay taxes, and because generally these schools are better more often than not. The reasons for this are the boundaries and a degree of selectivity that happens within these schools. State schools often have no ethos and an ethos can make the world of difference to a school...

"State schools often have no ethos and an ethos can make the world of difference to a school..."
What do you mean, "have no ethos"?