Priests just handing out School Admissions letters

[Marypoppins19]

I’m prickly about this, but friends who live closer to a school of our choice, but only go to church at Christmas, have still managed to get a church support form. We go weekly, always have. AIBU to think this is unfair and breaking the rules?
AIBU to consider saying this in an appeal?

It's just a way for people to get into a better school. I saw this in a catholic school, which was super strictly catholic only as long as easy to teach mc catholic kids were aplenty. Lots of catholic travellers moved near the school. It discovered its ecumenical spirit very quickly.

Perhaps it is unfair by the rules of your school, but the rules are unfair for everyone else who gets to pay equally for the religious schools, but can not access them. It is not possible to insist a school takes children from atheist families above all others, so why should Christian families be treated differently?

A full, true Catholic education is not being given in England's Catholic schools at the moment because they are being run in conjunction with the state ...

The church (any church) could of course offer this by refusing public money and going entirely private - it's not as if some religions couldn't afford it. But no; what they really want to do is push their faith using the public purse, which for many of us is totally unacceptable

FWIW I used to believe that religion should have a place in schools, on the basis that it's the only way some children would learn about it. Unfortunately, the way too many have behaved has completely altered my view on this

I don’t believe there should be any state religious schools. These are funded at taxpayers expense. If you want ayour Dc’s to have a religious education, teach them yourself.

I don’t believe there should be any state religious schools. These are funded at taxpayers expense. If you want ayour Dc’s to have a religious education, teach them yourself.

Just wondering where you think the money will come from to build the new schools needed and pay the wages of the teachers these new state schools will need. At the moment, the relevant churches own the schools and contribute towards their running costs. Can the country afford to ban them?

At the moment, the relevant churches own the schools and contribute towards their running costs

As a faith based education is SO important, I assume the churches would run the schools on a fee paying basis and the oh-so-religious parents would flock to pay. Especially when the non-faith state schools change their admission criteria to put them at the bottom of the heap. Or would they simply whinge about it being "unfair" that they are being discriminated against?

My son's school, used to be LEA is now part of a trust, as are all the schools round here now. The trust is run by the cathedral. But it is not a 'religious' school, has no selection criteria beyond the normal catchment etc, teaches all religions with equal weighting. Great. Not all schools that are part funded by churches need to have ridiculous selection criteria.

This discussion will just go round and round with the (usually) Christian people on one side and all the non-believers and other religions on the other.

DS went to a catholic primary and we also applied to the catholic secondary, although it wasn't his first choice and he doesn't go there.

What you've described isn't fair, but I think sometimes priests are unwilling to stand up to parents. For the secondary school, we had to attend a specific appointment with the priest that was only advertised in the church newsletter. We didn't see the reference he wrote, as Father handed them all over together.

I can see the issues with Faith schools, but what I don't understand is why those posters who are against them are happy with selection by wealth instead - and I say that as someone who could have afforded a private school if we wanted to do that.

The primary school DS went to was both ethnically and materially diverse as the main criteria was faith - very different to the other good schools in the borough which had a catchment premium on the houses in the surrounding roads.

At the moment, the relevant churches own the schools and contribute towards their running costs. Can the country afford to ban them?

Currently they pay very little towards running costs. They were originally supposed to meet 10% of the capital costs, but in practice that has dropped right down in recent years as the Department for Education is no longer requiring faith schools to make any contribution towards its school building improvement fund. If they don't need capital work they obviously don't pay anything at all.

So it sounds as if we could perfectly well afford to ban them. However, the easiest course is simply to say they can carry on but will no longer be able to discriminate on the basis of faith in relation to school admissions. They can then make their own decision whether they want to carry on on that basis.

At the moment, the relevant churches own the schools and contribute towards their running costs

Kazzy I'm not sure if you're genuinely unaware of the difference between Controlled and Aided schools? In the first the church has to make no contribution at all, and in the second it's a mere 10% (and then only for capital costs)

In all cases, where the school remains within the public sector, the staff costs are met by the state, so It's hard to see why you brought paying the teachers into it at all?

Granted that still leaves the point about the buildings' ownership, but should the state ever wish to buy them, I've no doubt they'd expect the price to reflect the decades of maintenance they've already paid for, including that needed to remedy the very poor condition many were in at the time of the 1944 Education Act

There's useful guide to the issue below: this one was produced by the Derby Diocese, but the principles remain the same elsewhere:
derby.anglican.org/education/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/whats-the-difference-leaflet.pdf

I can't comment on the DfE rules in general, but DS' school had to pay 10% to any building works, and most of the improvements were paid for by the PTA.

And irrespective of that, the church owns the actual buildings, so how does the country afford to buy them - or do we just shut them down and try and fit the children in elsewhere?

I’m prickly about this, but friends who live closer to a school of our choice,

It's awful that you feel your friend who lives closer than you to a school funded by her taxes should be further down the list than you because you happen to visit a building more than her.

They were originally supposed to meet 10% of the capital costs, but in practice that has dropped right down in recent years as the Department for Education is no longer requiring faith schools to make any contribution towards its school building improvement fund

WHAT??!!! I hadn't realised that ...

AnneElliott FWIW I have some issues with "selection by wealth" too, but at least parents who choose private education have already paid towards state provision; some even argue that they're effectively subbing the sector by not using it

In the end, we can't dictate what folk do with their own money as long as it's legal - but we can certainly control what's done on the public's tab

The 10% entirely depends on whether they are voluntary controlled, voluntary aided or free schools. All have different statutory funding arrangements.

Catholic schools do not, statistically have a wealthy intake. They have a high BME intake compared to national average and higher numbers of children eligible for FSM.

There are four state secondary schools in our town. In terms of performance, the Catholic school probably ranks around 3rd.

Most people, religious or otherwise, try to get their kids into one of the two best schools. However, I know many families who have been unable to get their kids into one of these schools, which are both massively oversubscribed, and because they are not religious, they are left with only the fourth option (in special measures) or going private if they can afford it. Meanwhile, kids from religious families who don't get into the better schools are able to get into the Catholic school because of their parents' religious beliefs, alongside quite a few children from religious families who live outside the town.

Applications from Catholic children are prioritised by the Catholic school. Christians of other denominations come next, followed by followers of any other faith. The children of atheists come at the bottom of the list. I wonder if those in favour of faith schools would be happy to give the children of atheists priority admission to the two better schools in town? Perhaps followed by children of other faiths, then non-Catholic Christians and then Catholics at the bottom of the heap? No? I thought not....

Of course, there are other disparities that need to be addressed. Thankfully we don't have academic selection here, but people can still buy their way into the better catchment areas if they can afford to do so. Personally, I'd like to see a better system with some sort of lottery for school places - it's the only fair way.

Catholic schools do not, statistically have a wealthy intake

Maybe not, but like several others the church itself holds colossal wealth. Perhaps, if tutoring children in the faith is of such importance, it might be asked why they shouldn't use some of it for this purpose?

But selection by wealth is not just paying for a private school, it's people buying an expensive house in the very small catchment if an outstanding school - which only a few families will be able to afford to do. Why is that better than selecting by faith?

But selection by wealth is not just paying for a private school, it's people buying an expensive house in the very small catchment if an outstanding school

You're quite right, but isn't that back to "we can't tell folk what to do with their money"? Let's face it, there'll always be those with more money than others and money means choice - whether that's a lovely restaurant for lunch rather than a greasy spoon, first instead of cattle class when flying or a big house in a nice area (with school to match) in place of a grotty home in a crime ridden area

And at least none of those involve laying kids open to (possibly poisonous) religious teaching, while expecting the state to pay

I know I'm unusual, but I'd be happier for children to be "exposed" to religious teaching that ISN'T their home tradition - i.e. for faith schools to be open to all.
That way, if it's a good faith school, everyone has an equal chance of going there, and families can teach their children their own family beliefs as well.

I wouldn't want anything that a priest was handing out and I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near them.

And irrespective of that, the church owns the actual buildings, so how does the country afford to buy them - or do we just shut them down and try and fit the children in elsewhere?

No, we simply change the law that allows them to select on the basis of faith. They then have a choice whether they want to continue or not: I strongly suspect the vast majority of them would, and the cost of taking over the premises for the few that closed wouldn't be vast. Realistically, it would fit right in with the academisation programme.

Sometimes people exaggerate. A friend of mine was going to the early shorter church service before the main service for ages without telling anyone and her DC got places at the CofE School. I went to church for years without telling some of my closest friends and both my DC got into the same CofE School.

If you mention this OP you will just look like a spiteful, unchristian uncharitable person who the School may not want to accommodate.

Your friends live closer to the School and you don't which must be very frustrating for you but thats just how it is when it comes to School places.

• what I mean is your friend could have been exaggerating saying she only went once a year at Christmas.

This enrages me.

Priests deciding who gets a state funded education.