To be sick of people slating Faith schools

[Jenga123]

Don't get me wrong I understand why some people may be against them but the negativity I've come across recently is, quite frankly ridiculous. I've been told by friends of friends, family etc that they pay for my dd's to attend their catholic primary and secondary schools and that tax payers that are paying towards these schools should not have to do so if their children can't attend these schools. Well let me just say the average amount of income tax each individual pays, that actually goes towards the upkeep of schools is minuscule, so they aren't in fact paying for them. Myself and the other parents of my dd's schools pay a considerable sum each year to the upkeep of the school and the school contributes 10% towards the costs of running their school and repairs etc.

I also come across animosity at the fact my children are getting a good education and people putting that down to them simply being baptised. But my point is if they feel that their own children are missing out by going to a less desirable school then I'm sure they could have them baptised therefor giving them a higher chance of securing a place at a faith school, and whilst I'm not advocating people pretending to be of the faith, I'm simply saying there are options.

As for my dd's schools like I said they are Catholic and are obviously places were parents of the same faith opt to send their children as they want them to be educated within that faith, and I can't see any problem with this to be honest so why am I hearing nothing but negativity from people?

How about parents who want their children educated in a faith based school pay for the privilege. Then the rest of us get science based schooling at a discount.

"Our local Church of England school is owned by the church, so the council don't have to pay for buildings and repairs. They have also removed baptism and being on the electoral roll from their admission criteria. It is still a church of England school, but is open to everyone. Is that any better ?"

What over subscription criteria do they have?

There are faith schools which exclude children on religious grounds. Grammar schools which exclude on intelligence/results. Private which exclude on grounds of children's parents wealth.

They're none of them 'fair' to all children. It's only those that exclude on faith reasons which people get hysterical over though. Which I find weird.

At the end of the day the school you get for your child is dependent upon a lot of things, ie your religion, were you live, if your child already has a sibling etc etc. You chose whether you want to baptise your children, you chose were you want to live, and if those choices ultimately mean that your child doesn't get into your school of choice, then that I'm afraid is down to you, no body else.

No, you don't choose whether to baptise your children into a faith you don't believe in, unless you are an extremely cynical hypocrite with no morals. And if that means you can't get your child into the nearest school because it's a faith school, it is absolutely not down to you, it is down to a system that allows faith schools to discriminate unfairly.

Doctortwo great idea!!

I think Scotland has a different set of issues, particularly in the west, and it's the separatism (on both sides) i have the strongest concerns about. I live in a city with a high percentage of privately educated children and it sometimes feels like there are similar divisions over state and private. Most of my colleagues children go to private school - much of the time they are privately educated themselves and often seem to have little understanding of state schools, every state school is Grange Hill.

strawberry Not true. Disingenuous. Most people who oppose religious privilege also disagree with economic and academic privilege when it comes to their kids education.

If you think Ofsted grading matters then you are spectacularly missing the point.

Whatever grading they have, they are still excluding based on faith. They could be graded RI yet be across the road from an atheist family who feel strongly that their child should attend the nearest school. They may like to visit and may even get a good feel for that school across the road. Yet that school across the road isn't open to them despite them contributing to its upkeep.

So stop being bitter and stop taking out your frustrations out on other parents who decide to plan ahead and either move to a decent area near to a decent school or due to their already established faith decided to baptise their children, ultimately ensuring their child an education in their school of choice. Life isn't fair, people will always get upset over something, but we aren't children, we should be able to deal with it shouldn't we?

Speaking personally, I'm not taking my frustrations out on other parents. But, Jenga, why on earth should we "be able to deal with" something that is blatantly unfair and discriminatory? If you were unable to attend your local school because your children were deemed to have the wrong colour skin, would you shrug your shoulders and say "Life isn't fair, I should be able to deal with it?"

People have very strong views on grammar schools, the threads go on very similar lines to this one.

How about parents who want their children educated in a faith based school pay for the privilege.

What if the only schools nearby are faith based and there aren't any other reasonable options?

"There are faith schools which exclude children on religious grounds. Grammar schools which exclude on intelligence/results. Private which exclude on grounds of children's parents wealth.

They're none of them 'fair' to all children. It's only those that exclude on faith reasons which people get hysterical over though. Which I find weird."

1. Nobody is getting hysterical- don't be offensive.
2. If you think people don't object to those other unfairnesses you must live a very sheltered life indeed!

Life isn't fair, people will always get upset over something, but we aren't children, we should be able to deal with it shouldn't we?

So we should just all sit back and accept things which are unfair without complaining or trying to change things for those people who lose out?

The kids from the most chaotic homes don't get as far as the admissions office

so...children from chaotic homes where parents don't complete the necessary school application paperwork are what...? how is that fecklessness the responsibility of the Catholic Church (or any other Church)? Are you suggesting that Church schools should be out there trying to actively pick up children who's parents can't be bothered to parent them properly to prove that they are 'doing good' and are not discriminating?

Strawberry I think the least fair of those is discrimination by money.

Life isn't fair, people will always get upset over something, but we aren't children, we should be able to deal with it shouldn't we?

We aren't children but it's our children who are being affected.

Money education doesn't require state money, aside from the charity status (don't get me started), and there's a big bag of shite with private, granted.

But privilege is privilege, religious privilege is wrong.

Life isn't fair, people will always get upset over something, but we aren't children, we should be able to deal with it shouldn't we?

Good job nobody said that to Ghandi or Mandela or Marin Luther King or Aung San Suu Kyi then eh?

Well on a purely practical note, it's never going to happen. This is because the vast majority of the schools are built on land owned by the church or the synagogue et cetera. This means that if the government abolished faith schools in the morning, they would have to find alternative educational provision for millions of children. The local school was started by the church, initially for poor children, and then by subsequent generations, for the educational provision of poor immigrant children.
Clearly, they are now funded, in the majority, by the government but they do not own the land on which the schools stand and so their abolition is never going to occur.

Clearly, they are now funded, in the majority, by the government but they do not own the land on which the schools stand and so their abolition is never going to occur.

I don't have a problem with them continuing to exist if they don't receive state funding. They'd just be private schools with a particular ethos.

OP - Can you imagine schools being able to discriminate on the basis of skin colour?

Local authorities divvying up their pot of money into '60% x-colour only', '60% y-colour only' schools?

Because allocating sections of a finite pot of money to schools which discriminate on the basis of people's religion isn't so far away from that.

Private education may not require state money. Yet it does detract from the state sector by removing the wealthiest, often very influential and engaged, parents from taking an interest in it and supporting it, as well as removing some of the brighter children with scholarships/bursaries/exceptional ability/talent.

Yes but where would all these children who couldn't afford to pay be educated? It would cost billions in alternative provision so it's not practical to whinge as it is never going to happen. They have an iron grip.

Life isn't fair but it's lazy to suggest the answer is "deal with it". Unfairness should be challenged and changed.

llhj, well if the government threatened to withdraw funding unless the school was open to all children wishing to attend then the churches would soon comply.

They could (if they must) say they are a Catholic school and their teachings and assemblies are rooted in the Catholic doctrine. Please understand this if you chose to apply. But then they must apply the same admission criteria as other community schools based firmly in catchment. That way, those who oppose the concept of religious teaching can still opt not to send their child there. However, the athiest parent across the road who wish their child to attend the nearest school now has that closed door open to them.