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?

100% of running costs and 90% of building costs for VA faith schools is provided by the local authority. That rises to 100% for VC faith schools and "foundation" faith schools.

Faith-based academies and free schools are more complicated but, in the main, the vast majority (and often all) of running and building costs for these come from central government.

Can I just ask those who are calling for the compulsory purchase of land legally owned by the church- What grounds would the gvt have for a CPO to force the sale of the land? My understanding is that there has to be a valid reason for compulsory purchase, not just because the gvt wants the land?

Also, the argument comparing faith schools to NHS hospitals is not valid as the churches don't own the land used for hospitals or part-subsidise the running of them.

I'd love to see a system by which those schools practising discriminatory selection get half the funding of those who use normal criteria.

Howard, that isn't true for all schools. I know of at least one locally that has funded entirely through funds raised by the school and the church an entire large new block. The school takes a large number of students not from its faith (because there aren't enough students in its faith to anywhere near fill the places.) The church has actually paid for not only the land but all of the buildings on that land. This is the case for very many VA schools. 10% contribution is the minimum not the maximum.

Rubadubstylee "It is ridiculous that any school can discrminate on religion - and also by gender. How is it legal? Imagine if I owned a company and advertised for only Catholic staff - that would rightly be slated. So how can a publicly funded facility get awy with it?"

Under some circumstances it's legal.

Howard that's no

Try again:

Howard that's not right. And that also doesn't take into account

I do agree with faith schools but I think that all schools should take a % of their intake from the surrounding area regardless of faith. For instance 25% on distance criteria regardless of faith. It seems a little ridiculous to live next to a school and not have the choice of sending your child there.

People choosing to send their children there though would have to accept that it is a faith school.

It would be interesting to know how exactly the churches gained the wealth to own all this property in the first place?

I'm not sure, but I imagine that it would have been raised directly from contributions from the parishioners, who in times past, would not really have had much religious choice. So in a way, was it not like taxpayers money in the first place?

I am against faith schools in any context. Discriminatory, divisive, unfair.

If you wish to have your children taught holistically under a faith system, you pay for that pleasure yourselves.

I cannot fathom how the atheists at number 26 and the Christians at number 28 can both pay the same in tax for the schooling of their children, yet the Christians have greater choice and a greater right to go to the school at the end of the road.

Yanbu.

Religion education is valid but otherwise religion and worship has no place at schools or indeed the very vast majority of work places.

It is fundamentally flawed to think that schools should only serve "their local community". Communities are not only geographic. There are all sorts of communities and constituencies on this planet and we need schools that serve all of them.

There are all sorts of communities and constituencies on this planet and we need schools that serve all of them.

Really - state schools that serve ALL of them? That simply isn't practical or affordable.

And to those saying parking is a non-issue, of course traffic and parking will be massively affected if Religion A are all driving way across town to get to their school, and Religion B are all being driven in the opposite direction to theirs. It's madness.

" There are all sorts of communities and constituencies on this planet and we need schools that serve all of them."

Really? How would that work, then?

Because I belong to one of the biggest groups in the UK, that is, people with no religion. And there are no state schools that serve me.

the churches swelled their coffers with compulsory tithes - they could take you to court and bankrupt you if you refused to pay. The legislation allowing this wasn't completely repealed in the UK until 1977.

Thank you, I suspected something along those lines. They were effectively a self-interested, unelected form of social control / government.

The parking issue is a non starter. People park on double yellows and zigzags etc because they are lazy thoughtless twats, not because they happen to be religious.

So far all the criticism has been aimed at Christian schools (same old, same old). Do the haters also want Jewish and Muslim schools closed? There are loads of Jewish state schools round my way. What about Steiner schools ?

No child in the uk should have religion forced on them at school.

HouseofBamboo - that's the Anglican Church.

The Catholic Church lost ALL its land holdings a few hundred years earlier (it was all very dramatic!) and now what it holds has been bought or inherited.

It's not about inconsiderate parking (though that obviously will increase where there isn't enough space for the traffic).

It's about the unnecessary journeys - if more people lived within walking distance of their school, then more people would walk. Not everyone, for various reasons, but MORE people would walk and LESS people would drive.

Selection criteria based on anything but distance from school will mean that people will end up having to travel further - surely that's obvious?

• FEWER (!)

Where did/does the Catholic Church's money come from?