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?!

On Brooklyn, the NY Times’ podcast series ‘Nice White Parents’ is a shocking listen on school admissions and racial segregation in education in Brooklyn.

Schools are to educate, they should be teaching things that are known facts, and everything else as theory or debate

First, how much of what is taught at schools or universities really constitutes a 'fact'? Most of it is opinions, schools of thought, etc. Even most science is just the accepted body of knowledge at a certain point in time (as soon as new evidence emerges, the paradigm changes and previous 'facts' are no longer valid)

Second, how often is it made explicit by schools that something is just a 'theory' or 'up for debate'? Not that often I think

Also, what is the difference between religion and activism?

Both revolve around a system of beliefs/rhethoric
Both are disseminated through hierarchical organisations
Both desire to gain adepts
Both receive funding

Still, some think there's nothing wrong with activism (or should be praised even) but religion is evil. Why?

If anything, with religion I understand what my children will be taught but activism is usually more covert, so I would have no idea. I know which I would prefer

@turquoisewaters

Schools are to educate, they should be teaching things that are known facts, and everything else as theory or debate

First, how much of what is taught at schools or universities really constitutes a 'fact'? Most of it is opinions, schools of thought, etc. Even most science is just the accepted body of knowledge at a certain point in time (as soon as new evidence emerges, the paradigm changes and previous 'facts' are no longer valid)

Second, how often is it made explicit by schools that something is just a 'theory' or 'up for debate'? Not that often I think

School's do make it clear that science is based in theory. The same cannot be true of how religion is taught in religious schools. And in any case, it should not be a prerequisite of being in a state school.

@turquoisewaters

Also, what is the difference between religion and activism?

Both revolve around a system of beliefs/rhethoric
Both are disseminated through hierarchical organisations
Both desire to gain adepts
Both receive funding

Still, some think there's nothing wrong with activism (or should be praised even) but religion is evil. Why?

If anything, with religion I understand what my children will be taught but activism is usually more covert, so I would have no idea. I know which I would prefer

I don't think it's appropriate for schools to require you to subscribe to any kind of activism, either.

a home that teaches women's only value is in marrying well or a religious institution whose response to abuse is "shut up and pray for them, honour thy mother and father - and church leaders - so that it may go well with you all the days of your life

I don't agree with those concepts either. But I do require that the school is in alignment with the teachings that I want my children to incorporate. They are my children and I will and should have a prevalent say in how they are educated. Would you allow your MIL for instance or any random to instil beliefs in your children that you do not agree with because someone thinks it will be 'fairer' to them?

@turquoisewaters

a home that teaches women's only value is in marrying well or a religious institution whose response to abuse is "shut up and pray for them, honour thy mother and father - and church leaders - so that it may go well with you all the days of your life

I don't agree with those concepts either. But I do require that the school is in alignment with the teachings that I want my children to incorporate. They are my children and I will and should have a prevalent say in how they are educated. Would you allow your MIL for instance or any random to instil beliefs in your children that you do not agree with because someone thinks it will be 'fairer' to them?

Yes you absolutely should have a right on how your children receive their religious education but that should be via a church or place of worship not via a school.

A faith school will have a natural bias towards one particular religion. That bias should be taught in church not school.

Schools should have a neutral view when it comes to religion and be factual only ie these religions exist and this is what they believe in

And in any case, it should not be a prerequisite of being in a state school

I understand what you are trying to say and in an ideal world it would make sense.

However, in the real world, educational institutions that are completely impartial or devoid of any form of bias are very rare. There's always going to be some kind of indoctrination present (even if very subtle). I would rather my children were indoctrinated with beliefs I understand and agree with, that's all.

Schools should have a neutral view when it comes to religion

Yes, secular schools would have a neutral view regarding religion

But they are very unlikely to be completely neutral on other topics. Someone's voice will always permeate through the school (be it the head teacher, an influential group of parents or students, a donor, etc)

With a religious school, I'm familiar with the nature of the beast and the beliefs I'm exposing my children to. With a secular school, I have no idea (and it could potentially be much worse than 'religion' which some people seem to abhor so much)

@turquoisewaters

Schools should have a neutral view when it comes to religion

Yes, secular schools would have a neutral view regarding religion

But they are very unlikely to be completely neutral on other topics. Someone's voice will always permeate through the school (be it the head teacher, an influential group of parents or students, a donor, etc)

With a religious school, I'm familiar with the nature of the beast and the beliefs I'm exposing my children to. With a secular school, I have no idea (and it could potentially be much worse than 'religion' which some people seem to abhor so much)

Who's to say a religious school would only impose religious bias to your children? Yes, random teachers etc may expose children to their own personal bias, but they will also do this in religious schools in the same way, they will hold other biased views too. The point is there is no reason for one particular form of biased indoctrination to be allowed and an active part of the ethos, and even worse an actual criteria for admission.

[quote Justajot]@Wondermule - you still haven't provided any evidence that it's the cheats that cause faith schools to have a different intake to other schools. Sure, anecdotally there are parents who attend church every week for a year to get their kids a place. But you'd need to demonstrate that a significant proportion of them are not of that faith to evidence your argument. And I don't think being of the faith, but not a regular attendee of services makes anyone a cheat.[/quote]
@Wondermule

You have repeatedly responded to people who have raised things that "aren't what are being discussed". But you haven't responded to my question which is exactly what is being discussed. Is that because it is too uncomfortable for your original premise?

@Justajot

Not at all, I became a bit bored with the thread though as it just turned into why Mumsnet hates religious schools (while simultaneously getting their kids baptised so they can go to them lol)

I’ve given a previous list of ways you could tell between the admissions cheats and people with waivering faith.

If it’s not the application cheats making the schools perform better, then Catholics must be of above average intelligence 😂😂 which isn’t true. What else could be the reason? If religious teaching is the baloney that numerous people on this thread have asserted, then surely a school heavily invested in it wouldn’t perform so well?

The point is there is no reason for one particular form of biased indoctrination to be allowed and an active part of the ethos

Yes, but this is more of an utopian desire that what one is likely to experience in the real world.

I think in religious schools there would be less scope for this as the belief system will be more defined from the start (not saying that they would be completely immune to this though)

while simultaneously getting their kids baptised so they can go to them

And to your point OP, yes, those who decide to cheat to get their kids into the school they prefer (because some don't have options, but others do) should have some decency and not try to destroy something that is good, is working and where people are making a huge effort to educate their children every day.

The Catholics who attend Catholic school may well have a higher average intelligence than the population average.

A couple of reasons spring to mind:

Perhaps the UK wide Catholic population is more able. There are a few mentions of immigrant populations in the thread - particularly of Polish Catholics. An immigrant population may not reflect the population it comes from - the migration may reflect skilled people moving for employment or a group that have different motivations to the average of those left behind.

The Catholic children who attend Catholic schools may not be representative of all Catholic children. Where there is an effort/time/cost required to get a school place, this discriminates against some Catholic children.

You've made a massive leap in ascribing the difference in school populations to cheats, and without any actual evidence.

The Catholic children who attend Catholic schools may not be representative of all Catholic children. Where there is an effort/time/cost required to get a school place, this discriminates against some Catholic children

I don't understand what you're trying to say here

@turquoisewaters

The point is there is no reason for one particular form of biased indoctrination to be allowed and an active part of the ethos

Yes, but this is more of an utopian desire that what one is likely to experience in the real world.

I think in religious schools there would be less scope for this as the belief system will be more defined from the start (not saying that they would be completely immune to this though)

I'm sorry but this just doesn't make any sense. Religious teachers will have just the same amount of unconscious bias they may pass on to students as all other people, the only topic on which their opinion is more defined to you is their standpoint on religion. What exactly are you afraid there is more of a risk of being taught outside the confines of a religious school?

It is really not utopian to say schools should be generally neutral, either.

Following

@turquoisewaters

Faith schools don't use faith to admit children, and then not teach them the beliefs of that faith; they are not using religion as a way of getting a cross-section of society, as you suggest, they are trying to keep the numbers of believers up

I'm being deliberately cynical here, but how is this different from any kind of ideological activism (in some cases partly funded with taxpayers money) that most people currently seem to tolerate?

Why are some belief systems worthier than others?

Sorry, but I don't quite understand - what other ideological activism is targeted at children?

Religious teachers will have just the same amount of unconscious bias they may pass on to students as all other people

Yes, but there's likely to be less scope for them to freely indulge in disseminating any random ideas, as the control over this will tend to be more robust and broad guidelines already established by the Church (generally speaking)

@turquoisewaters

Religious teachers will have just the same amount of unconscious bias they may pass on to students as all other people

Yes, but there's likely to be less scope for them to freely indulge in disseminating any random ideas, as the control over this will tend to be more robust and broad guidelines already established by the Church (generally speaking)

Again, are you just talking about students in secular schools somehow being subjected to bias towards other religions? Because I can't see what else would occur there that would not occur at a Christian school.

what other ideological activism is targeted at children

I've mentioned this example up thread (and again, I'm not negatively judging this specific school or its head teacher), just illustrating that secular doesn't always guarantee neutrality

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