To think faith schools are great and it’s only the admission cheats that make them unfair?

[Wondermule]

My second controversial post in a few days. I don’t need a hard hat at this point, I need a bunker and full ghillie suit. But here goes.

Inspired by a thread, where a poster happily shared that they lied about going to church to get their kids into a Catholic school, before denouncing the admission system as deeply unfair...

I would like to put to the good people of mumsnet that actually, admission by religion is a really good idea. And it is only the people that cheat the admission system that keep it unfair for others.

Religion is a great criteria for school admissions. It doesn’t indicate intelligence; it isn’t an indicator of wealth; it would keep sibling groups together; and the ethos and PSHE would be generally in keeping with the parents’ beliefs.

The reason why faith schools are ‘better’ are because of non-religious people with intelligent kids cheating the system to get their kids a place. This then perpetuates the cycle - the kids perform well, the school becomes more desirable, so more people cheat to get their kids in.

So aside from depriving genuine applicants of school places, they are contributing to a system that they denounce as unfair. Whereas if they stopped playing the system, schools would actually be more mixed in terms of demographics, more equal, and there wouldn’t a stampede for just a few of them.

Phew! Thoughts please?!

So if you have a school of 100 random Catholics, you would get a mix of intelligences. A school of 50 Catholics and 50 kids of pushy parents more likely to tutor and encourage them, not so much

Ah, ok, I see your point now.

@turquoisewaters

I'm in favour of parental beliefs being diluted rather than reinforced

Why? I would want school to support me in what I teach my children, not become an enemy and work against me

Because that posters didn’t really mean ‘diluted’, they meant what they want taught in schools.

I wasn’t comfy with the level of religious expectations because in my view it is for the child to decide what they believe

Many parents say this, but in my experience, a child is very unlikely to suddenly have a 'revelation' and start to believe spontaneously.

They need to be taught while little (and can of course decide what to believe by the time they are adults). If you don't provide children with any kind of religious education, you have to accept that you are setting them up for a life of atheism (I'm not saying this is good or bad per se, but it's going to be the most likely outcome)

Teach religion as a comparative subject, by all means, because the philosophies are interesting and it’s useful to understand where other people are coming from. That can be done without the indoctrination

I also think that people fail to realise that 'indoctrination' takes places in some schools on topics other than religion as well. Just something to bear in mind. The fact that a school is not religions does not mean that indoctrination absolutely cannot happen.

There was a thread the other day where a poster said her 6 year old boy was using gender neutral pronouns (where could this have come from if not from school?)

Teach religion as a comparative subject, by all means, because the philosophies are interesting and it’s useful to understand where other people are coming from. That can be done without the indoctrination

This is my own view, but I also recognise that it involves an awful lot of trust. All it needs is one teacher chasing brownie points from their own religious leader, and before you know it "RE" is being used for indoctrination

And yes, it's probably obvious that I had just such a teacher ...

I think that we should do away with with all faith schools

Doesn't the Catholic Church or the Vatican partly funds Catholic schools in the UK?

All it needs is one teacher chasing brownie points from their own religious leader

That's what I'm saying, 'brownie points' can be chased from any leader, not just the religious ones (could be political, ideological, etc)

www.catholiceducation.org.uk/about-us/faqs

Who funds Catholic schools

The school buildings and land of Catholic schools are owned by the Catholic Church. The Church provides these premises, at no charge, to enable the state to fulfil its obligation to provide education for the population. The day to day running costs of Catholic schools are funded by the state in the same way that all schools are funded (either through local authority or DfE funding agreements). The Church covers 10% of the capital costs for the maintenance of the premises in all voluntary aided schools

Through this arrangement the Catholic Church saves the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds a year

The Catholic Church partly funds Catholic Schools, so they absolutely should have a say in the admission criteria IMO

Churches own land , property and everything in between. They are loaded.

Doesn't the Catholic Church or the Vatican partly funds Catholic schools in the UK?

They may chip in voluntarily, but are only actually required to when the school is Voluntary Aided (and some are campaigning against even this). TBF most Catholic schools are VA - but even then it's only 10% towards infrastructure, with everything else picked up by the state including all teaching costs

It's usually around now that someone says "Ah, but they own the land and buildings". To which the obvious answer is to assess the value at the point the state started paying, deduct a suitable sum for the "church advertising" the premises have been used for and hand over the difference

Except there probably wouldn't be anything left to hand over ...

some are campaigning against even this

I think, why fix it if it ain't broken?

Also, what's the situation with Jewish schools in the UK? I'm asking because I don't know how it works in this case.

Are people campaigning also against abolishing RE in Jewish schools?

My mums relatives were Catholics and were always handing over money to the church.
They are rich , there isn't any arguments about this surely?
People leave the church thousands.

@the80sweregreat

Churches own land , property and everything in between. They are loaded.

Largely through centuries of scaring people into leaving their estates to them to get a spot in the afterlife and centuries of being exempt from paying taxes.

Nice gig if you can get it.

It is a con really, but people like leaving the church money. They like taking it off them too.

Howden Junior School has replaced its house names honouring national heroes with ultra woke icons after a plea from an ex-pupil

Head Lee Hill dropped Admiral Nelson, Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh

www.thesun.co.uk/news/14118543/woke-headmaster-ditches-national-heroes/

The above illustrates that children can be subject to indoctrination in a non-religious school as well.

I'm not criticising this school or this particular head teacher, what I'm saying is that it can happen in a secular context too.

Quote from catholiceducation.co.uk: "The Church covers 10% of the capital costs for the maintenance of the premises in all voluntary aided schools"

An outright lie I'm afraid, but only what I'd expect given the self-interest involved in the source ... look up the Priority School Building Programme and further information here: www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/faith-schools-funding-money-religion-voluntary-aided-accord-coalition-a9192296.html

So your argument is that faith provides a cross-section of society? But we know that isn’t true. Faith is negatively correlated with educational attainment and income. It doesn’t provide an unbiased cross section.

@MixedUpFiles

So your argument is that faith provides a cross-section of society? But we know that isn’t true. Faith is negatively correlated with educational attainment and income. It doesn’t provide an unbiased cross section.

Not perfectly, but better than filtering by location/entrance exams.

Faith is negatively correlated with educational attainment and income

Every faith? That's a very broad generalisation, not necessarily correct

There is a non-catchment school in my area that requires a test (not SATs, its own that pupils are invited to after requesting a place and parents/children never see) and then is meant to pick proportionally from the bell curve. It's highly sought after and has good results, but it's also known locally for questionable pastoral care and rumours of off-rolling so I'm not sure how much those results can be trusted to be fully representational of the education on offer for all students.

I don't see how selecting 100 random Catholics (who live within a specific area and in many cases have to prove they've been attending a particular church regularly enough) is any more likely to be "fair" or demographically diverse in all other areas (other than religion). Personally, if you think the concern is 'middle class people' (like there are no religious leaders who actively pursue having a middle class congregation), have a school pick 100 random pupils who are eligible for Pupil Premium. That seems harder to fake than a faith or a postcode.

Even without catchments and distance as the last priority/the 'tie-breaker' qualifier, there will still be limits to travel so having to live in a particular area and even without faith in the admissions, a school can have visibly religious ethos which attract religious people. There really isn't much benefit to making faith an official part of the admission criteria beyond wanting that control. There is an argument for them having it, but it really isn't an argument to what is most fair for children who've no say in this.

Are people campaigning also against abolishing RE in Jewish schools?

People have campaigned against restrictive teaching in Jewish schools, just as they have in schools of other religions where it comes out of RE and into other areas of the curriculum or where communities create their own qualifications that mean nothing outside of it which highly restricts what someone can do when they leave school if they want to leave the community, but it's a difficult issue legally.

So your argument is that faith provides a cross-section of society

Also OP, you are starting from the premise that having their children exposed to a cross-section of society is a priority shared by every parent.

But this is also not true, some parents do consider this is important but prioritise other aspects of education.

I simply don’t understand how it’s allowed. Can’t tell you about England but in Scotland I know teachers who have been rejected from jobs in Catholic schools because they aren’t practicing Catholics. Can someone please explain to me how on Earth this is allowed?!

@turquoisewaters

So your argument is that faith provides a cross-section of society

Also OP, you are starting from the premise that having their children exposed to a cross-section of society is a priority shared by every parent.

But this is also not true, some parents do consider this is important but prioritise other aspects of education.

I’m not saying it’s what the parents prioritise. I’m saying it would be a relatively fair way of sorting admissions, if only the cheats would stop cheating.

There really isn't much benefit to making faith an official part of the admission criteria beyond wanting that control. There is an argument for them having it, but it really isn't an argument to what is most fair for children who've no say in this

But who gets to decide what's fair for the children

Again, if I send my children to a certain school, I would expect the school to reinforce what I teach my children at home (e.g. religion), not completely opposite values because someone has decided it's 'fairer for them'