To find this unfair

[user1496701154]

to find religious schools applications unfair. Saying you have to be practicing that religion. I can respect it but you have to be practicing. To apply I find it to be discriminationing

*When you Practice a religion and are part of s community you should get preference over people who don't practice+

So pay for the privilege.

The idea of community is laughable. State schools do just the opposite - in fact they prioritise children of faith from out of catchment over children in catchment.

Have just had a topical thought. At the end of the day, religion is about belief. Just like brexit. So it would be like Jacob Rees-Mogg and co chucking some money into schools, with the rest of the money needed being funded by the state, and then saying only the children of those who voted leave can have a place.

FAITH SCHOOLS ARE NOT FULLY STATE FUNDED!

The only funding selective faith schools get is the teachers' salaries. That's it.

EVERYTHING else, right down to if the roof needs repairing, is funded by either the religious institution the school is attached to and fundraising.

My DC's school is Catholic. They are expected to raise 50% of all funds needed and apply to the Diocese for the other 50%.

Ergo, if faith schools didn't exist, there would be a significant increase in the amount of money paid out by the state towards education.

My friend went to a Roman Catholic faith school. There were also quite a few Muslim girls there, as it was female only. l'm not quite sure how that worked, or if it would work now.

katseyes7 why wouldn't it work out?

The only funding selective faith schools get is the teachers' salaries.

Not true. Possibly in very isolated case, but in many cases the church provides a very nominal sum to the school.

When you Practice a religion and are part of s community you should get preference over people who don't practice

What utter nonsense. What does your faith have to do with getting preferential treatment for compulsory education?

why should the non COE families have to send their child to a school where there will be religious worship?
I would see your point if it wasn't for the fact that religious education is part of the curriculum. Also NOBODY in that school has to go to church or worship if they do not want to. Faith schools have an added element of religion but they have to abide by the same rules as other schools.

FYI I am a non-believer and this was my nearest school.

no, what you want is access of a top school who has good results because of the faith of the people whilst imposing your own beliefs.

Absolute rubbish your faith doesn't improve results. If I started a state run golf academy which would require that prospective children played golf at least once a week for the previous two years I'd get great results. Likewise if I opened a school which would only admit children whose parents both had at least a masters degree I'd get even better results.

Whenever you use any manner of selection - the more complicated the better you'll get good results. Faith schools do not get better results for their cohort than non faith schools they just carefully select their cohort.

It is very obvious wildly unfair. It is also bad for society as a whole. Children need to mix with people from all manner of faiths. They also need to be exposed to all manner of view points. No one who is secure in their faith would feel the need to educate their child only in one particular faith.

The only funding selective faith schools get is the teachers' salaries. That's it

It's hard to know where to start with this ... it's so obviously and provably wrong that it's difficult to know why you posted it at all

derby.anglican.org/education/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/whats-the-difference-leaflet.pdf

I would see your point if it wasn't for the fact that religious education is part of the curriculum.

I think you're very confused. Religious education is not the same as religious worship. Of course children should be taught about the existence of religion and they should be taught equally about all the major religions.

I’m not really sure why you would want to send your DC to a faith school unless you follow the particular religion tbh. They will have to practice whatever religion it is in school.

For the sake of people not having to read through outside links - in a Volunatary aided school, the outside group (ie generally the church) is expected to pay 10% of the CAPITAL COSTS (eg spending on the building). Everything else is paid for by the taxpayer.

Faith schools do not get better results for their cohort than non faith schools they just carefully select their cohort.
based on ... their faith.

They don't use other criteria, or have access to previous school results. So they must be doing something right

No one who is secure in their faith would feel the need to educate their child only in one particular faith.
love the goady comment, but I think people can be confident enough to send kids to the school closest to their own values because they are the ones they are the most comfortable with.

You don't agree with them, don't apply.

Many faith schools accept children of any faith equally and won't discriminate between Christian, Muslim, and Rastafarians. Just against the non-religious.

Depressingly, it is my understanding that the Gvt is actively encouraging the formation of more Voluntary Aided schools, rather than abolishing them as remnants of an outmoded past....

Most of the pro argument here seems to be coming from one poster who seems to have a very superficial understanding of how education actually works.

Yes, faith schools select on the basis of faith. However, their results are not better than other schools because of the children's faith, or because of the superior teaching, or anything like that. They get better results, because the process of selection means they end up with a disproportionate number of affluent middle class pupils who would do well whichever school they were in.

From a study by LSE "We found, firstly, that the demographic profile of pupils at faith schools differs from that of pupils at non-faith schools. In particular, disadvantaged pupils are under-represented at faith schools, while those with high prior attainment are over-represented. The percentage of faith school pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM, a proxy for disadvantage) is below both the national average and the figure for non-faith schools; this is the case across faith schools as a whole and for almost all religious categories. The difference is particularly stark at primary level."

If the school was not a faith school, then probably it wouldn't have such high results because it's cohort wouldn't be clustered there, they would be spread out over a range of other schools.

Your OP has about as much sense as complaining that universities discriminate against thick children.

My DS goes to a state-funded catholic school. After my own catholic education I’d vowed not to touch the catholic school with a barge pole, so I sent him to the other local state-funded school - a CofE school. I don’t practice either religion, although I am baptised catholic and notionally Christian. We eventually took him out of the CofE school due to terrible teaching (and bullying by teachers) and he’s now in the catholic school. So what am I trying to say? I don’t think state funded schools should select on the basis of religion, and I don’t think schools should have religion as their main focus. Using the analogy someone else used on this thread - if you want to select based on a specific factor such as religion, golf, or whatever, you should be required to pay for it. Otherwise, if the school is stated funded it should be done on catchment area as the primary deciding factor.

Yes, it's discriminatory.

Child A - attends church - choice of three schools
Child B - doesn't attend church - choice of two schools.

The only difference is the religion and it places Child B at a disadvantage to Child A. Clear religious discrimination.

The issue is that the rules were (rightly) written to protect people the other way i.e. to protect people with a faith from being disadvantaged because of it, and because we're broadly talking Catholic and C of E in a country with still a large population of 'small c' Christians, there's been no real kick back (yet).

It's probably going to take a Muslim/Sikh/Jewish etc family living right next door to a Church school and attending a feeder primary not getting a place and then taking it to court before it will change though, because until then, there's going to be no incentive for the government to even think about taking action.

It's wrong - religions should play no part in state education, beyond a comprehensive overview of them as part of social studies - and the National Curriculum should be just that. National, and taught equally to every child. Every child should be able to have a full education, one not given biases or exclusions because of a set of beliefs they aren't old enough to understand or consent to.

Just to add, there were no state-funded secular schools within 10 miles of us - the nearest 15 or so schools are all church schools.

Absolutely what GinnyBag says -
‘It's wrong - religions should play no part in state education, beyond a comprehensive overview of them as part of social studies - and the National Curriculum should be just that. National, and taught equally to every child. Every child should be able to have a full education, one not given biases or exclusions because of a set of beliefs they aren't old enough to understand or consent to.‘

Over a 1/3 of schools are faith based and they receive state funding. Of course they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

They shouldn't be allowed to receive any funding. This is a rich country. Why cant we afford to educate our children without indoctrination?

waiting for the next course case about a girl discriminated because she is not allowed to attend a boy state school....

Anyone can apply to a faith school and the applications are prioritised based on practising faith as well as all the other criteria. Why is faith considered more discriminatory than being a looked after child, having a sibling in the school, or distance?

Try that with different wording and see whether the argument works.

"Anyone can apply to a (ethnic group) school and the applications are prioritised based on race as well as all the other criteria. Why is race considered more discriminatory than being a looked after child, having a sibling in the school, or distance?"