to think that you shouldn't fake religion to get a school place?

[Carrierpenguin]

A friend of mine became catholic when she married her husband, then they split up. She hadnt been religious beforehand, but now she's chosen to go to church every week for the last year in order to get her ds into the local catholic school. She's told me that she doesn't believe in all that 'mumbo jumbo' but the church school gets the best results locally. I understand that everyone wants the best for their children, but this seems a bit disingenuous.

I suppose it's open to all - if you're willing to fake religion you can get into the best school, I suspect that the good results are due to parental influence as you have to be very keen to commit to two years of Sundays at church, presumably this filters out parents who don't care about education, whereas the secular schools cater to all.

I'm not against faith schools or the system, if it gets great results then why not I suppose? Aibu to think faking religion is not ethical though?

And if you're a working parent, who is collecting from after school care or childminder some distance from your home then having to fit in dinner, homework if not done and family time, I wonder how much time for extra-curricular activities during the week there will be.

How much helping out a friend by taking turns to pick up kids, how much being able to rely on the local networks you make through your kids. For many people, particularly in urban areas, they have no family to rely on and they create support networks in their local communities which are invaluable. And a hell of a lot easier if their child is educated within that community.

It give you as tiny bit of an advantage

you do know what we call that right? it's called religious discrimination. and it's not a small advantage. a person could live right beside the school and they will be taken only after all the other religious places were exhausted.

imagine a job ad that said that they have 5 positions open and only C of E people need apply unless all jobs are filled.

and you can judge me but will all the schools around me have 300 applicants for 60 places at reception, yes I will be hypocritical and give myself and my DS this small advantage.

as I said above, whenever you have an unfair system, the people who benefit support it, and those who don't benefit don't support it. So, nothing new here.

I know that MN is not exactly representative of society as a whole, but if you look at this thread, the vast majority of posters object to faith-based admissions (or discrimination as it's known as). Even those who are believers and those that have benefitted from it have their objections. I'm not going to go through the thread, but I'm guessing around 80% of posters do not agree with it.

How then that it perpetuates? That it's even increasing (for example the Catholic school in Richmond that has used a legal loophole to avoid even having to accept 50% of pupils on distance despite a desperate need for more places in the area)? Perhaps I'm naive but I really can't believe that this won't have to change. Please all support fair admissions campaign if you are one of those that would like this situation to end. I don't want faith schools, but I'd tolerate them if their admissions were at least open.

Dedicated parents. Ones that are willing to get up on a Sunday morning, for years, to get their child into a good school.

These are the attitudes that define what a school will be like. With active involved parents, a school has more of a chance of being a very good school.

I think it's fair admission.

If your options are go to church and go to the nearest school or not go to church and go to whatever random school has left over places, I think it is perfectly reasonable to do whatever it takes to go to the local school.

On the other hand, believing that this system is anything other than ridiculous is not reasonable.

Going to church, for a long period of time, may not engender faith in The story of Jesus as your saviour. but it does foster a sense of community. A sense of explicit shared values.

How then that it perpetuates?

Besides the support it gets from the roughly third of parents who benefit from this tilted system, one major logistical barrier is that some churches may not accept accepting all students and close their school. Some may do, and some won't. Frankly, I think the system is so unjust on principle that it is worth the risk trying.

as I said above, whenever you have an unfair system, the people who benefit support it, and those who don't benefit don't support it. So, nothing new here.

what do you mean by that?

do you think I took the decision lightly?!

Also your math is wrong: once the places for siblings and special needs kids are allocated the remaining places are split 50/50 between non-church goers and church goers.

I would love to have the same as in France where you go to the local school and that it. The government decide which is your local.

Going to church, for a long period of time, may not engender faith in The story of Jesus as your saviour. but it does foster a sense of community. A sense of explicit shared values.

Which has everything to do with going to church, and nothing whatsoever to do with going to school.

Absolutely Merrymouse.

Writtenguarantee, one of the main reasons that it perpetuates is as you say due to the parents who benefit from the tilted situation. It's very striking that Gove, Cameron, Blair & Clegg are of that number and not just any faith schools, but the most insanely oversubscribed and low fsm/poor attainment ones in the country. I'm all for politicians using state schools, but I just wish they wouldn't always opt for the loophole of the exclusive church ones.

Also your math is wrong: once the places for siblings and special needs kids are allocated the remaining places are split 50/50 between non-church goers and church goers.

no it's absolutely not. It very much depends on the school. Some schools reserve non-faith places and some don't. and the number of reserved non-faith places vary. Even if they have some places, it may not be anywhere close to 50%.

Furthermore, if even 1 seat is reserved for a faithful person, it's still wrong (as it would be if employers did the same). it's still discrimination.

what do you mean by that?

I am saying that it's not surprising that the people who benefit from an unfair system support it, and those that don't, don't support it. What's so controversial about that?

I think it's fair admission.

Too bad for the kids whose parents are disorganised or not committed. Too bad for the kids whose parents are organised and committed but of the 'wrong' faith. Too bad for the kids whose parents are organised and committed but for various entirely understandable reasons can't get to the 'right' church service. Too bad for the kids whose parents had to move around a lot to find work, or because they had a series of short-term rents, or because they had to move because of the bedroom tax, so they don't have an unblemished record of attendance at the 'right' church.

Saying it's fair admissions is a wee bit 'sins of the father', isn't it? Your parents are disorganised and your home life is chaotic, so you deserve to go to school with other children who come from challenging backgrounds, meaning the school population has disproportionate challenges. Children whose parents are engaged enough, early enough to 'play the system' and aren't forced to move around a lot, or work weekends, or whatever else 'deserve' to get an education at a more 'middle class' school.

French, you talked about how school places are allocated - very different from school where I am, which goes LAC/SEN, then siblings, then up to 30 (or whatever quota represents half) church kids, then whatever is left over distance. That's for schools that put a quota on church kids.

In reality, the schools often take no kids on distance as all the places are mopped up by siblings (often of kids who got in on the church criteria) and churchgoers.

I see the problems with Faith school admissions, but also the problems to do with sibling priority in Community Schools. Lack of school places for eldest or only children in high birth years. I don't think you can tinker with one area of the admissions to schools without looking at the other areas and the knock on effects.

I think sibling priority is unfair, but the Fair Admissions group don't mention this aspect of admissions. I also think it's unfair that some people can buy their way into a school by renting or buying in catchment.

It would be great to see a fairer system, but I don't know who I trust to make the changes.