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?

Academic achievement is better, of course it is. It's much more fair. Meritocracy wins over theocracy every time.

Just because you believe in something I find ludicrous shouldn't give your children access to more choice of where they go for their state funded education.

I find it weird that anyone defends this privilege.

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.

The government has managed to find squillions of pounds in taxpayers' money to find premises for all those academies, so I really don't see why not.

But actually it doesn't have to. All it needs to do is to change the law so that it is no longer possible to have selection criteria based on faith. I suspect the relevant churches will still want to run their schools because they will still want to propagandise for their faith; but if they don't, they can close the schools down or, more likely, sell them off as free schools.

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.

Absolutely. But why should two wrongs make a right, Lentilstew?

^
Well I'll have to disagree with you there Jassy. Just because a family is Catholic and go on to have their children baptised doesn't neccesarily mean they are middle class. I'm most certainly from a working class background, as is my Dh yet both of our families (very large families) are all Catholic^

If I'd said that, you might have a point. However you're misrepresenting. What I said is that congregations are disproportionately middle class, according to both independent statistics and the faiths themselves.

Moreover, schools that select by faith are disproportionately well off, compared to their local area. They particularly exclude children from the most chaotic homes - who one assumes would most benefit from a 'better' education and would certainly benefit from a local one.

Academic achievement is better, of course it is. It's much more fair. Meritocracy wins over theocracy every time.

So clever children have more right to schools with excellent teaching staff and superb facilities that those who happen not to be as clever? I don't see that as fairer. The very word, meritocracy sticks in my teeth as it implies merit which implies worthiness.

And I say this as the mother of very high achieving children.

Technically you have to show faith at some point.

In what way, apart from turning up at a place of worship and going through the motions (which many non-believers do for school places)?

It need not involve buying back land with tax payers money. Land that arguably the church didn't aquire fairly in the first place. Just cross out the religious criteria from admissions policy. It would take minutes to do and cost nothing but a circular email
'Dear lea, please cross out all religious criteria from your admissions. Many thanks, DfE

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.

It probably does give you the right to rant at people who are happily defending things that objectively are clearly unfair, and who are taking advantage of them for their own personal gain.

I'm against faith schools too, Veritat. So no, I don't believe 2 wrongs make a right. I simply don't believe you can be anti state funded faith schools whilst supporting the idea of state funded grammar schools.

Eh? Lentil.

I'm saying out of the two a meritocracy is better.

(I say this as a mother of one average and three very academic children) does that my opinion more qualified?

I don't think any child should have more opportunity for a better education than anyone else, however making it on faith lines is discriminatory and therefore should be outlawed.

Jenga, you acknowledge it's unfair but unlikely to change - those complaining to you know they have to accept that, the flip side is you'll just have to accept people will complain. At least you have a wide choice of good local schools, small price to pay.

As an atheist I would not, could not, attend a church on a Sunday to get my kids into a school.
My children find "Faith" and prayers mind numbing and rather ridiculous, and so secondary schools which practice believing type practices were out of bounds.

I haven't failed to notice that no one has answered my earlier question. To the parents who object to faith schools, were most, dependent on area tend to be better schools, would you feel as strongly as you do if those schools weren't rated outstanding or good and instead were requires improvement and were bottom of the league tables? I presume that for most of you the answer would be no.

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. 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?

Oh, how Christians love their privilege
They probably take it for granted, being as how it's a Christian country.
I'm sure people who live in Islamic country's take their privilege for granted too.

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 ?

I'm against faith schools too, Veritat. So no, I don't believe 2 wrongs make a right. I simply don't believe you can be anti state funded faith schools whilst supporting the idea of state funded grammar schools

I'm with you all the way there, Lentil.

I haven't failed to notice that no one has answered my earlier question. To the parents who object to faith schools, were most, dependent on area tend to be better schools, would you feel as strongly as you do if those schools weren't rated outstanding or good and instead were requires improvement and were bottom of the league tables? I presume that for most of you the answer would be no.

And the issue here is?

An outstanding state school should be avoidable to people without discriminating policies upon what faith you have.

They particularly exclude children from the most chaotic homes - who one assumes would most benefit from a 'better' education and would certainly benefit from a local one

what evidence do you have of this? you realise that people who deal with school admissions are administrators and not social workers? that they don't have access to information about individual families when dealing with admissions?

I haven't failed to notice that no one has answered my earlier question. To the parents who object to faith schools, were most, dependent on area tend to be better schools, would you feel as strongly as you do if those schools weren't rated outstanding or good and instead were requires improvement and were bottom of the league tables? I presume that for most of you the answer would be no.

You presume wrong. Because it would still be the case that those faith schools would be being subsidised by the taxpayer - if anything, a "requires improvement" school is getting more subsidy because of the extra attention normally lavished on it to try to turn that round. And I would still object to the fact that those schools are reducing choice for everyone else.

Available.

Religious privilege is still privilege and therefore discriminating.

"They particularly exclude children from the most chaotic homes - who one assumes would most benefit from a 'better' education and would certainly benefit from a local one

what evidence do you have of this? you realise that people who deal with school admissions are administrators and not social workers? that they don't have access to information about individual families when dealing with admissions?"

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

So clever children have more right to schools with excellent teaching staff and superb facilities that those who happen not to be as clever? I don't see that as fairer.

All children should be able to attend schools with excellent teaching staff and superb facilities. It's perfectly possible for comprehensives to achieve this, for children at all levels.

However, that doesn't always happen and differentiation doesn't always happen when it should. So I think it's good when Grammars are available for the high achievers of any belief/unbelief or financial situation.

I'd much rather see selection on ability than on religion or money. If there were more Grammars then more state-educated people would eventually take top jobs and be influential in our country, rather than just the privately educated.