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?

What is the point of this thread? The OP admits the system isn't fair, that there is little extra religious input in the curriculum, that she would priortise local schooling over faith (wouldn't travel far to go to a faith school over a good local school). What is the argument - that the system is unlikely to change so everyone should just suck it up and stop moaning?

OK- one more time.

You are a tax payer. Your next door neighbor is a tax payer. Your child got into a state school that your neighbor did not have a chance of getting into, despite being a tax payer, because of something completely unrelated to education. You said you would not want your child to have to go to a school a long journey away, but your next door neighbour's child might have to because of Christian privilege.

Most catholic parents wouldn't consider themselves to have a greater choice of school as they'd ONLY consider the catholic schools. It's also not like being brainwashed - the odd prayer and some crucifixes. They teach about a variety of faiths and I was actively encouraged not to take anything in the bible at face value.

jenga the difference is that your millionaire neighbours aren't being subsidised in their choices by the taxpayer. If you want to send your kids to a fee paying religious school then I won't object. But while atheists and Christians pay thr same tax rates, but atheists have a lot smaller choice of schools, I will say that's unfair.

I'm also surprised that given your very humble, working class existence, you have a gated mini mansion so close to your home.

Attendance at a place of worship is no measure of the depth (or even existence) of the parents' faith. Faith school places tend to be offered on the basis of how often someone has attended their place of worship. So a devout family who attend fortnightly will have less chance of a place than an atheist family who attend each week.

I don't object to faith schools per se, but let them be open to everyone equally.

But living that is their choice to limit the schools they can apply to, that is different to having that choice limited for you.

living that would be their choice, but the schools' admission criteria don't actively discriminate against them.

Noone is expecting you to feel guilty Jenga, they are expecting you to recognise your privilege and the unjust criteria of faith schools.

Op my dd got into an independent with full fee remission based on her ability. I don't however consider it fair and just that the rest of my area is left with the choice of sink school or more rarely religion. And I certainly wouldn't expect my neighbours to pay my childs school fees between them, while sending their kids to the sink school. But it's apparently ok for them to do that if it's a religious school for someone else

"Most catholic parents wouldn't consider themselves to have a greater choice of school as they'd ONLY consider the catholic schools."

What, like the OP?

I'm actually really annoyed to discover there is little religious input at the school. So what's the point in having separate schools with religion in the admission criteria?

You could say the same about any school though. A high flying community school that's oversubscribed could have a catchment area of only 100m, so you could say that's not fair to local children who live just outside of that.

Every school has to have admission criteria because no school can undertake to take every single child that applies to it: that's just common sense. The point is that a distance-based criterion is one that people objectively accept is fair and logical, and basically the population will accept something that is both fair and logical, even if it disadvantages them.

However, a system which prioritises children of one particular faith over other children, where it gives privileged admission rights to a school heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, isn't either fair or logical. That is particularly the case where it means that families of that faith have more choice than their neighbours. Jenga, you seem to accept that the fact that you have a wider choice than others isn't fair, so I really have difficulty in seeing what point it is that you are making? Are you seriously saying that that's the way it is, and therefore your neighbour whose child has to spend 2 hours a day travelling to a non-faith school should just suck it up?

why should I be made to feel guilty for choosing a school that has been made available to me?

You shouldn't.

But to be fair, you started this thread. It is understandable that people of faith (and organised people of pretend faith) use that faith to select the best school they can for their child.

But that doesn't mean the system is right or fair, or shouldn't be changed

Vertitat, I think that's exactly what she is saying. It appears that she simply wants people to stop annoying her by commenting on it l (so starts a thread on MN on the subject but there you go).

So do you all propose the government finds taxpayers money to buy the land back from all of the Carholic schools? I dread to think how much that would cost.

*Catholic

My boys went to a very local junior c of e school in a very middle class area. Very little selection by religion, mostly on distance.

I would have preferred them to go to a non religious school. I chocked on my toast when I got the newsletter saying that they were doing an Easter garden competition where the kids were getting a prize for the best depiction of the garden of gestatamane (sp?).

Somehow I thought the whole religious thing was ridiculous, it made it difficult to take the school seriously. Kids are not stupid, they realise that their teachers are talking bollox.

So happy the boys are now in non religious secondary schools which have more holistic, modern ways of teaching.

a system which prioritises children of one particular faith over other children

Technically the priority goes to those who've attended a place of worship most regularly, which may have nothing to do with whether they have a faith. The system just encourages hypocrisy and there will be many people with a faith (as well of those without of course) who aren't offered places.

Just because something is expensive it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I've already said that i understand why some people may be against faith schools, but I'm against a number of things, that doesn't neccesarily give me the the right to rant at people, which I've had people do to me recently.

Veritat, it's the same principle for grammar schools though, is it not? State funded education that precludes 80% of the children who would like to go by virtue of their academic achievement on a given day. That's no fairer, surely.

I'm all for abolishing state funded faith schools but state funded grammar schools must go too, surely?

What's the problem with learning about the garden of Gethsemane Namehanger? It's just learning what Christians believe, not making anyone believe it themselves.

Technically you have to show faith at some point. As an atheist and anti theist, I'm always shocked when religion gets in my way. The fact it gets in my children's way makes me extremely angry.

And don't get me started on state funded Catholic grammar schools.

Not all faith schools have a religion clause in their admissions policy.

There are areas where the only outstanding schools are special schools. I don't see parents moaning about how unfair it is.

Some areas are spoilt for choice, with excellent schools, faith and non-faith, to choose from. Some areas have nothing but grades 3&4. Is that fair? That a child lives in a town where the best they can hope for is "Requires Improvement"?

And aren't you all placing a lot of emphasis on Ofsted inspections and the popularity of schools based on parental preference?
One of our local infant schools is currently the most desirable: parents desperate to gain a place. A few years ago, it was undersubscribed. Still got a "Good" rating, nothing much has changed, no better - and slightly worse, according to Ofsted - than all the other infant schools in the area.
Next year or two, it'll be another school they're all desperate to get into.