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?

why isn't our place to judge? As far as I know, we are the only judges.

We see it differently, that's all. I don't get to judge who comes and sits down in God's house. I'm not the only judge; God is. That's a major part of what I believe.

The moment I start turning people out of God's house is the moment I'm turning away from my religion.

Of course your opinion is totally as valid as mine - you're entitled to judge whomever you want to. I'm just saying, I'm a religious person who's not offended by non religious people who come into the church - that's my stand point.

But my main point on this thread is that schools shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against children for any reason at all.

Not in a Muslim or Sikh or Jewish or Hindu or Brethren or Scientologist school

Unless Catholic school has changed a lot recently, I'm not convinced it is likely to be Muslim, Sikh, Jewish etc.

and where is the "good stuff"

Why don't you ask the people trying to get their children into a Catholic school.

Not all religious schools are Catholic - as per the discussion on the thread

The "good stuff" at a Catholic/religious school is motivated parents not God
because motivated parents exist

writtenguarantee sorry I wasn't clear, when I said 'we' I was referring specifically to regular churchgoers, most of whom presumably don't believe that 'we are the only judges' And as I said, if they were being rude about the church or openly telling their children that it was ok to lie then I would have a personal opinion on how they were acting. But I don't see it as being up to me to police who goes to church and why they do - for one thing I can't even know for sure, unless they actually say outright that that's the only reason.

And I don't know if I agree with any kind of school selection - I went to a single-sex grammar school and got a very good education there, so I feel hypocritical complaining about it, but I definitely see the argument that it disadvantages children in other schools. I take your point about ability-based selection being more acceptable in society than selection by faith, though. I just don't know really.

Hakluyt, I don't know if that was aimed at me in particular but I don't even have children let alone want to send them to a faith school so no axe to grind here!

TalkinPeace, I think 'segregation by gonads' (great phrase!) is pretty random too tbh. So what if it's based on the child, it's still something they have no control over. In the area I grew up in there was one good school, and it was single sex (girls) - nearly all the boys and everyone else I knew who didn't get in there had to travel almost an hour each way to the next school district to go to a decent school. How is that any fairer than having one decent school that's Catholic (say)?

FWIW (and speaking as a non-parent so I might change my mind) I wouldn't send my child to a faith school, unless all the others were really terrible - speaking from personal experience it's a lot harder for children to get used to the real world if they've only met one type of person at school, be it through faith, sex segregation, parents' income, academic ability etc. I just don't see why there's more of a fuss made around them than schools that select by other criteria that children/parents have no control over.

I don't think selecting by faith is any less fair than by ability or gender

Try "I don't think selecting by skin color is any less fair than by ability or gender"

Say it out loud and see how it sounds.

Oh and in other news items there are always some Christians claiming they are being discriminated against. It's usually not true, but maybe we can give them a stock answer that discriminating by faith isn't such a bad thing.

Selection by ability is de facto selection by family support. As is selection by faith.

"Primary intention of deceiving people that they are "proper" church-goers" - written

Well, they/we are going to church so we are "church-goers"

Looked at from a simple POV not necessarily any deception involved?

Like me people may also find they gain some genuine spiritual benefit from the experience, or at least they and their DC learn more about our christian heritage and tradition - which can be interesting

I just do not understand how making Parents who Care, put their children into a failing school will help the school or anyone else?

Selection by ability is de facto selection by family support

Family support is a good thing, and without the innate intelligence no child could pass and keep up in any selection schools. I have seen it in DD school, those with lots of parental input opposed to those who are natually bright and pick things up.

Rather than punish supportive caring parents, direct your ire to those families who do not value education and think about how to help them and their DC at school.

Stop forcing caring parents down and instead bring up children of non supportive families.

Faith schools perform well because they are selective. Nothing to do with their religious ethos.

Faith schools have been known to do well since my mother who was born in 1930 - was at school.

Back then there was no bun fight and hideous pressure and over crowding in schools.

So you couldnt argue back then, they were doing well because it segregated parents who care and those who do not.

Back then it truthfully segregated catholic and C of E.

So how come they have always had such a good rep? Probably something to do with the religious ethos.

Farewell YY to THIS: 'As to this business about needing to improve the 'bad schools', it's very difficult to do when so many get creamed off.

Sacred Heart in London has 1% of low attainers on entry, Oratory 0% - either religious people are inherently 'cleverer' or the admissions requirements are very efficiently filtering out the low attainers.' Yet BOTH of these schools (in W.London for anyone who doesn't know) are slap in the middle of the uber extremes of socioeconomic metrics, IE lots of HA estates and the private market confined to v v high earners ergo there will be a high % of FSM (or other socioeconomic markers) in area yet that doesn't translate to the statistical make-up of those 2 - excellent - schools, but it more than does to the pretty shitty comps in the area.

And then the whole thing just simply self-perpetuates and pays itself forward IE DC2 is at 'X College' Oxford and it is painfully clear that outside of those who were privately educated, the vast majority from the so-called 'state sector' actually come from the high-performing grammars and the likes of the Oratory and Sacred Heart - which bear NO fucking resemblance to the average, let alone the truly awful, state school.

Oh, and then this too - for me, the ultimate kicker in all of this is the truely grotesque behaviour from politicians Who remembers "Education, education, and education!!!" to a standing ovation from Blair devotees? And where did Blair's kids go? Yep, precisely the same two schools that Farewell used as examples.

I loathe the reptilian that is George Osborne but I admire the fact that he is at least bloody honest about sending his kids to private school by fact & cold, hard, ££££. It beats the shit out of the likes of Blair and Cameron who are by stealth accessing what is to all intents & purposes a 'private' school (& that 99.9% of ordinary folks could not get their kids into) then use that access to further propegate their claim to be supporters of 'state' - gives me the rage

I live in West London, have done all my life. In a HA flat. We are by no means well off (my mum secured a flat through the Notting Hill Housing Trust before the place became affluent and we have lived there nearly 40 years).

I went to Sacred Heart. My brother went to the Oratory.

I would like my son to attend either the Cardinal Vaughan or the Oratory because they are excellent schools.

If my son doesn't get into a Catholic primary school, he will not be able to get into one of these secondary schools.

It is depressing.

ARGH 'If my son doesn't get into a Catholic primary school, he will not be able to get into one of these secondary schools.' So his entire educational future rests on what happens in this nuts system at age 4.

It is fucking disgraceful IMO that Cardinal Vaughn and the Oratory, yep bloody great schools, will be off limits to you if he doesn't get into the Catholic primary Which brings it right back to the OP's Q, in your shoes what would I do - given aforementioned consequences - to get my son into that school? Answer, bloody everything I possibly could (including 'faking' religion) It's the system that is fucked, not the parents who have no choice but to play it as best they can. Feel and I'm not even in your shoes!

I spent a lot of time fuming about the situation. FUMING.

But I am now resigned to the fact I can do nothing about it except 'play the game'. My anger about it was very draining and I was going around ranting and raving about it to my family and friends. Boring for them.

So I have had to just get on with it and try and put my anger to one side. I have taken the positives from it (what else can I do) - I am now in touch with old friends through the Church. Going to mass on a Sunday is actually quite nice.

My DP is so disgusted by the whole thing that I am basically doing it by myself - he refuses to take part in the 'charade'. He is not from London though and I know it sounds bad but he really doesn't grasp the whole situation. He thinks I am making it up.

But I don't care. I have to do this for my son. And I am not ashamed either.

So how come they have always had such a good rep? Probably something to do with the religious ethos.

Perhaps it is having structure and work ethic, perhaps it is a professed interest in adherence to order/a moral code within the school walls (either for the good example, or the safety), and perhaps it is instilling positive moral values in your children. These things will vary on a case by case basis, I guess.

In any case, it's probably good to surround your children in the religious environment (or lack thereof) you consider best, one thing people forget is that not everybody who wants their children to grow up culturally Christian and then freely make up their own mind when they grow up (as they did) is even religious themselves.

They are usually worse than academic private schools.
Also it's pretty regional. Go to rural Cornwall or northumberland and the local C of E primary is not always that go. Go to the rougher areas of Newcastle where my mother taught in state RC primaries and those are not necessarily good schools. She had large numbers of children's fathers in prison and the like. Also in those schools although in theory it is Roman Catholic they take lots who aren't as they are trying to fill the places. That of course is totally different at say the Kensington C of E primary the Cameron girl goes to.

Any selective school is going to be "better" in terms of academics than a non selective school. Regardless of the selection criteria.

The thing is a lot of people going to church for a school place will find that they become part of a really lovely church community which opens up even further once their DC get a place at the faith school. So it can be a win win for the church and the congregation. Some churches are very active in the community and members who may not be overly religious enjoy the services very much with the right Vicar esp if he / she is reasonably young and modern and will carry on going long after their DC have left school or once they have secured a place. It is of course not for everyone but lots of people are surprised at how much they get from the experience.

Norfolk - yes, I found this. After I made my decision to go back to the Church for the sake of my DS, I was still fuming. But once I stepped foot into the Church, after so many years of being away, I felt at peace. The familiar, friendly faces. The children running around playing outside before and after the service. The calmness of it when DS isn't running around like a loon embarrassing me

I was taken aback by how my attitude changed once I bit the bullet and began to attend again.

Try "I don't think selecting by skin color is any less fair than by ability or gender"

Say it out loud and see how it sounds.

Out of faith, ability and gender (I meant sex btw, sorry), I would have thought the latter would be closest to skin colour - you're born with it, you can't change it (well you can, but only with great difficulty and not before school age) and one group is generally speaking better off in our society. Most people are ok with single-sex schools existing though, even though (as with faith) you wouldn't be able to discriminate based on sex for university places, job offers, business services or just about anything else.

As I said above, I wouldn't send my own (hypothetical) children to a faith school and think it would probably be better for everyone if schools didn't have any kind of selection criteria. But given that schools do have these criteria in the current system, I don't see why it makes more sense to complain about one sort than another.

I should have added 'parental income' to the list as well.

Out of faith, ability and gender (I meant sex btw, sorry), I would have thought the latter would be closest to skin colour - you're born with it, you can't change it (well you can, but only with great difficulty and not before school age) and one group is generally speaking better off in our society. Most people are ok with single-sex schools existing though, even though (as with faith) you wouldn't be able to discriminate based on sex for university places, job offers, business services or just about anything else.

while you are right, you can't change gender, being of one gender does not put you at a disadvantage to being the other. AFAIK, there are about the same number of gender based schools across the country. Also, everyone is one or the other.

Religious selection doesn't have that basic dichotomy. There are far more C of E schools than Buddhist, Jewish or atheist schools, so some people have far more selection than others.

I really do not understand why people do this. I am the total opposite, I attend Church but am sending ds to a non-faith school as I want him to mix with a more ethnically diverse group. I went to a faith school and we even opted out the standard RE GCSE syllabus as the teachers did not want to teach about other faiths. We did Christianity and the Bible only.