to wish that pushy parents would stop pretending to be religious in order to get a place for Lily at the faith school?

[Caroline1852]

If these schools are "better" it is because parents are clamouring for places, thereby artificially raising the standards. Left to their own, the number of faith schools would dwindle dramatically. There are nearly 5,000 C of E schools, most of them oversubscribed, yet bottoms on church pews are falling (save for a lot of red-faced couples and their 10 year olds). I have nothing against faith schools by the way.
Grrrr it's that time of year again!

"But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory."

Of course!

If any Science teacher actually needs to be told to do this, they are in the wrong job.

IMO.

''I can accept that you don't agree with the catholic moral views and don't want them for your children. But other people do, so catholic schools exist to meet that demand. If they didn't exist, and all faith schools were forced to be turned into non-faith, then those people would have no choice and I don't think that would be fair. ''

But the point is that this 'choice' is funded by the taxpayer but not open to all taxpayers. There seems to be an impression that Faith schools provide some sort of additional choice to standard state schools. They do not. The places at these schools are included in the available school places calculated by the LEA. So they can say that overall they have enough school places for all but in fact it is only those of 'faith' who have access to all the places. Other people can be left with no choice whatsoever.
Indeed, if you nearest schools are faith schools you could be forced to drive your children somewhere else and thus contributing to traffic congestion through no fault of your own.

bonitaMia - entirely agree that it is essential that schools provide a moral framework.

And in any case they are inescapable. Supposedly straightforward things like marking systems are a moral minefield.

wheresmysuntan - all kinds of things are funded by the taxpayer but not open to all taxpayers . There is nothing at all wrong about that.

But Anna - Education is one of the fundamentals provided by the state along with the NHS, Emergency services and police.None of the others have their provision allocated based on 'faith'.

I want to respond to the specific points on here, but we've reached the point where I'd just be quoting myself, so I won't. "See my previous answers" covers everything, basically.

The answer of course is to drag all schools out of the gutter. The current Ofsted regulations - where they warn in advacne and school subsequently gets dressed up like a Christmas tree and the kids and staff all briefed, is a joke.

Spot check them.. ALL of them!

And DS1 went to a really crap CofE school. I was a governor there.. really loyal to it at the time.. was only when we moved 250 miles away and he started a great secondary, I realised how they'd let him down. Fortunately he's quite an achiever now (Y11).. I used to think he was thick, thanks to his primary school!

I can't think of any other examples of services provided to meet a common need where provision is decided according to faith.

Many examples have been provided on this thread where the state will only teach your child to read in a local school (i.e. one that doesn't require a car or bus journey) if you are prepared to regularly profess your belief that among other things Christ died for our sins and rose again.

Many people I respect do believe this, but nobody has ever been able to explain to me what it has to do with jolly phonics.

The state applies all kinds of criteria to those wishing to use its services. Think a bit harder .

Faith is one of them. Why not? You might not like it, but others do. If you don't like it, run for government and try to change things democratically. Religion is very important to our culture and the Church of England is a particularly tolerant faith.

There is nothing fundamental about education or health care as state services. In the UK the state happens to provide a fairly high level of both education and health care out of taxation, but other advanced countries have systems different to that of the UK with lesser/greater state provision.

Nope Anna, have been thinking about this and can't think of a single other comparable example. Would be grateful if you could enlighten me.

I haven't read the entire thread but I have to add that someone I know converted to Catholicism to get her children into the local Catholic school and then her kids did not get places. This is someone who is a keep up with the Jones' type and wanted "the best" for her perfect children who are top of the class at everything so I did have to stifle a giggle when I heard they did not accept them. I know, I am horrible!

YANBU.
I went to catholic primary and then (eek) convent school. My two sons are not baptised and will go to a non-church related school. No way are they having all that rubbish shoved down their throats that I've spent 30 years trying to shake off.
Makes me laugh so many of my friends who have never been inside a church, getting children baptised and then saying 'oh we have to go to church for x years' to get them in a church school. I hear that the pushy parents elbow each out of the way to get to the front to sign the book each Sunday. One such friend is annoyed that 'church takes up all your Sunday morning'. er yes, well thats what sunday is about for the religious m'dear.

Anna - ''The state applies all kinds of criteria to those wishing to use its services. Think a bit harder .

Faith is one of them. Why not? You might not like it, but others do. If you don't like it, run for government and try to change things democratically. Religion is very important to our culture and the Church of England is a particularly tolerant faith. ''

I assume you are joking. As if we could run for government in a system dominated by the big two parties. Unless there is electoral reform ther is no chance. None of the parties want to address this issue as they all know that middle-classes latch on to the faith route because the majority of the country no longer has grammar schools - and they have no answers if that whiole can of worms gets opened.

Of course I'm not joking. I wasn't suggesting that you create a political party (that would be pointless, unless you have an awful lot of money, and even then...).

I do think that this faith school business is a whole lot of fuss about nothing. If faith schools have better results that non-faith schools - well, fantastic, and if parents are prepared to put in the extra effort to get their children into those schools and thereby guaranteed them a better education - good for them. That's what being a parent ought to be about - using the resources at your disposition as efficiently as possible to get the best possible outcomes for your child.

still drawing a blank on comparable examples. Would genuinely like one - trying to understand your point of view.

Anna8888 "using the resources at your disposition as efficiently as possible to get the best possible outcomes for your child."
Er, does that include lying?

It is of course perfectly possible for a (genuinely) devout Christian to live somewhere where there is no faith school and they then have to "put up with" a non-faith school. If you were not religious you would NEVER have to "put up with" a faith school, you would always be offered a viable (though not necessarily convenient or good) alternative. I don't think it is desirable for the majority to always legislate for the minority. Look what happened with fox-hunting - it was not banned because it was cruel to foxes.

Madame Platypus - I don't know what you mean by comparable. I can't reply.

I suppose it depends on your definition of viable. I think that unless the state provides a school bus, it should be possible for your primary school age child to walk to school. I do not think it is reasonable to have to transport your child across the borough so that they can learn to read.

"The state applies all kinds of criteria to those wishing to use its services. Think a bit harder"

Please give some examples

Caroline - well, from my point of view, anyone who professes to believe in God is lying .

Examples of criteria that restrict a person's ability to avail themselves of (fully or partially) state-funded services:

• age (eg for schooling, for certain medical treatments, for retirement pensions)
• gender (eg for maternity care)
• disability (eg services that help people with SN lead fuller lives in the community)
• intelligence (eg for selective schooling, higher education)
• ability (eg passing driving licence allows you to use road infrastructure)

Anna, young people don't need pensions, men don't need maternity care, people without SN are in the very, very lucky position of not needing the kind of support required by people with SN, and everybody is able to take a driving test should they wish. University selection procedures might be contentious, but theoretically anybody is welcome to apply and be selected on the basis of merit. As far as possible, these services are provided on the basis of need. Only schools have this strange practice of having a hierarchy of provision depending on your faith.

I sympathise with parents who feel they will do what needs to be done to get their children an education, but why should they have to?

This seems to have moved on a bit, so maybe I can come back in now without repeating myself. We'll see.

I agree with those people who say that the real issue is to push up standards across all schools - that is another debate. And yet another debate is how realistic it is to do so (all this highly suspect "excellence" we are seeing spoken of in some councils' literature clearly indicates, in the face of the evidence to the contrary, that they feel they are already doing so). What frustrates some teachers is that they work their socks off and their school is still flagged by Ofsted as being "below average" - because someone, by definition, has to be.

The faith thing is seen by some as a way of short-circuiting the path to a "good" school. A lot of people will have no interest in raising standards across the board as long as this remains available as an easy option - in their eyes, why should they?

The question of tax and funding is one on which people often seem to miss the point. My local council's services are, in theory, available to everyone. Yes, even maternity care - I don't feel it excluded me by gender, as it included our family through DW. (I'm surprised, especially on here, to see it implied that maternity care is something men should not feel a part of.) Should I have an accident or a disability in the future, or have a child who has one, I know that there is provision there. I'm a non-driver, but I feel I have a stake in the road system - I'm a cyclist and a pedestrian, after all, and I travel in other people's cars from time to time. And arguing that lack of "intelligence" means some people are excluded from the availability of further and higher education provision is daft - you may as well argue that the existence of excellent bricklaying courses at the local FE college excludes me as I have neither the talent nor the inclination to become a bricklayer. But if one of my children does, I'll know where to send them.

None of this is in any way, shape or form comparable with assigning real or putative "faith" criteria to school admission policies, for all the reasons I have outlined before. If my local primary school was a faith school - which is the postion a lot of people are in - the only way I could send my child there would be to lie, or somehow acquire the services of a nebulous, unproveable thing called "God" which I have no desire or need to believe in. My taxes fund these schools, as do the taxes of the religious. This situation therefore limits choice for vast swathes of the population, and in some areas offers it only on the basis of a thing which can neither be proved, tested nor demonstrated to be relevant.

There. Not so difficult, is it?

Some parents need a faith school. Your perception of their need might be that it is unjustified, but that is not theirs.

I think all schools ought to select and parents/children ought to compete for places. I don't like non-selective schools. So I wouldn't abolish faith schools - that's the way to go.