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?

BOB - it's not mental gymnastics. They're entitled to their view - it doesn;t mean they are right. Just as people can support Burnley or Blackburn, they can "support" one or another religion, and I don't have to have a view on whether either is right or wrong.

Celtic - we'll have to disagree on the teaching of religion in school - the point is that the costs are borne by the parents, not the taxpayer.

Babybarrister - what makes you think I would read a book about another religion to my DCs? I agree that it is useful to know about other religions, but the important thing at primary level is to know about your own. My DC's have no problem understanding that others do things differently, while the kids from DC's school go to all sorts of secondaries - they don't seem to have any trouble fitting in.

hakluyt - it's a Jewish school, and gives preference to Jewish kids. Lots of Jewish schools have non-Jewish pupils, though. The new free schools take 50% on the basis of religion and 50% based on location, which seems to be a decent compromise.

So if I lived next door and wasn't Jewish I wouldn't get in?

"Celtic - we'll have to disagree on the teaching of religion in school - the point is that the costs are borne by the parents, not the taxpayer."

But the cost of the rest of the school is born by the tax payer, if I understand correctly?

Hackluyt - the rest of the school costs, are indeed paid by the taxpayer, but are no more than the costs if they went to a state school, so taxpayer is no worse off by virtue of it being a faith school.

But the children of non Jewish taxpayers can't use the school...

so taxpayer is no worse off by virtue of it being a faith school.

If you are a taxpayer and have a child who is of the 'wrong' faith for their nearest school(s), then it might well cost them time and money to transport their child to a school which is further away.

Even 50% faith/non faith admissions are hopelessly divisive and because the non-faith intake is so small after siblings that if it is am oversubscribed school there is a big impact on house prices very close to the school.

Siblings of children admitted under the religious criteria count under the quota for non-faith children so it isn't 50/50 as described. One of our nearest schools is nominally 50/50 but has taken no children on distance for the last three years - all the places are taken up by younger siblings, including siblings of those admitted under the faith quota. If you listen to gossip, it's mostly siblings of the church kids this year.

50% faith / non-faith is also not really a fair system because the children of no faith, or a different faith to the faith of the school, are subject to the religious worship aspects of the school which simply aren't relevant to them. I can imagine that this would lead to some pupils feeling like their school doesn't really exist 'for' them, only the 'faith' pupils.

so taxpayer is no worse off by virtue of it being a faith school

Of course they are worse off. If some state schools are faith schools, and admissions prioritise children of that faith, the result is that the non-faith taxpayer has fewer schools to send their child to. It may not be more expensive for the taxpayer, but they are still worse off, as they get less choice for their money.

Sam how would you feel if your local NHS hospital only admitted Catholics?

it's a Jewish school, and gives preference to Jewish kids. Lots of Jewish schools have non-Jewish pupils, though. The new free schools take 50% on the basis of religion and 50% based on location, which seems to be a decent compromise.

That's not a bad compromise. I guess you'd be happy with the compromise that it should only be 50% publicly funded then?

You don't seem to understand the problem. My children, by virtue of not being raised in a religious family, only have access to 65% of the schools. Why should C of E children get access to 95%? Why should Jews get access to 66%?

In parts of the country this isn't a problem but in London this is a real problem. When we were looking for a place to live there are a lot of places in London we couldn't live because the only nearby schools were faith schools and would likely not get into any local school.

You mentioned that if schools opened up the religious component would lose support. You are likely right and that's probably what would happen. Sorry, but that's just an argument by you that you should get what you want, not what's right. The fact of the matter is that faith schools can, uniquely in British society, discriminate and you are saying that should continue because you won't get the schools you want. Sorry, but how does that give support to the idea we should have them in the first place?

My ds goes to a Jewish school. However, the admissions policy is to take 50% of kids whose families practice Judaism and 50% of any relgion or no religion by distance to the school. They learn about all the other religions (quite extensively) and have done school trips to a mosque, Hindu temple and several churches. They do assemblies where they sing songs not associated with Judaism such as Little Donkey and Silent Night.

The only thing that is exclusively Jewish is that they are taught Hebrew and have an element of Jewish learning which is paid for from contributions from the parents. The teaching is good and they get very good results from Ofsted, either Outstanding or Good grades. I would say it's a pretty inclusive school and seeing as something like 20-30% of the kids are not Jewish and have not moved to the other schools nearby which are non-denominational but have good reputations, they must think it is ok too.

Writtenguarantee - I didn't say they'd lose support if they opened up. I'd be very pleased, as would many of the parents. It would be a bit miserable for the non-Jewish kids learning Hebrew and Jewish philosophy, though in Birmingham and Liverpool it seems that the non-Jews, mainly Muslims, as it happens, are quite happy with it.

I do understand the problem you mention, which as you know is historic because the C of E actually went and started some schools. It wouldn't worry me at all if Atheists set up atheist schools. As for the discrimination, is it worse that being priced out by not being able to afford a house in the catchment area? There is a much wider range of incomes at many faith schools than there would be if selection was geographic.

It's very easy to propose to ban anything (private schools, faith schools, special schools), but I'm not convinced a ban would have the effect you desire.

I do wonder why this seems to be so difficult for people to see. If any places in a school are reserved for followers of a particular faith, then those places are by definition not available to people who may live close to the school but who do not follow that faith. And when those places are tax payer funded that is fundamentally unjust.

I am also interested that people constantly dodge the hospital question. Please will the supporters of faith schools confirm that they would be prepared to support faith hospitals, where priority would be given to patients of a particular faith.

Nobody is talking about atheist schools- we're talking about secular schools. Which anyone, including your children, could go to.

But I suspect that, although you wouldn't actually say it, that you are happy with the status quo. Why would you rock the boat when it suits you so well?

Hakluyt - you're considering living close by to be the only important factor. That will still maintain a ghetto environment, because people who live in posh areas will ensure their kids go to school only with other posh kids. How is that better than selecting by faith?

The hospital situation is different because it is a distress purchase (or would be if it cost anything). The relationship you have with your school is I hope somewhat different from that with a local hospital, though DS has a friend who spends almost as much time in A + E as in school.

I am happy with the status quo, but then I'm quite stoical. If all schools suddenly became secular, I'd also have no objection, but I mean properly secular - no nativity plays, Xmas trees or hymns.

"The hospital situation is different because it is a distress purchase (or would be if it cost anything)

Is it? What if you were on the waiting list to get your bunions done, and you kept getting bumped down the list because you're Jewish and it's a CofE hospital?

People will work the system. I agree that we should be finding ways of stopping them.

But what we are talking about is institutional, state funded discrimination. Can you really not see the difference?

If all schools suddenly became secular, I'd also have no objection

Well, that's easy for you to say, as it's unlikely ever to happen.

There is a much wider range of incomes at many faith schools than there would be if selection was geographic.

This myth has been debunked numerous times upthread. There is nothing to support this and plenty to dispute it.

Distance-based criteria are not the only non-faith-based criteria for admissions. Why don't people read the thread properly?

I didn't say they'd lose support if they opened up. I'd be very pleased, as would many of the parents. It would be a bit miserable for the non-Jewish kids learning Hebrew and Jewish philosophy, though in Birmingham and Liverpool it seems that the non-Jews, mainly Muslims, as it happens, are quite happy with it.

I wouldn't object to children (even mine) being taught either hebrew or jewish philosophy. the two things I object to is enforced worship of any kind and the discrimination.

It wouldn't worry me at all if Atheists set up atheist schools. As for the discrimination, is it worse that being priced out by not being able to afford a house in the catchment area? There is a much wider range of incomes at many faith schools than there would be if selection was geographic.

I don't know about other atheists, but I don't want atheists schools; I want secular ones. that doesn't mean atheism gets pushed, but all religions, including lack of faith, or on an equal footing (in RE).

Of course housing, house prices and catchment areas are a problem. But now we have two problems to solve instead of one.

To talk of 'atheist schools' is nonsense. What would be the point of a school which holds an assembly every day with the sole purpose of convincing 5-11 year olds that god doesn't exist?

I would hope that most people would appreciate that that would be a complete waste of educational resources and public funds.

Schools should educate its pupils to become responsible citizens of the world they inhabit.