To think faith schools should be forced to change their application process?

[storminborehamwood]

Most people accept that you can't discriminate against someone for their religion. So why can faith schools do it when it comes to kids getting a place?

AIBU to think state-funded faith schools should be forced to remove religious criteria from applications?

I know state-funded faith schools get extra funding from religion and that supposedly justifies giving priority to kids with religious ties.

I just can't understand why it's illegal to mark someone down for a job application based on their religion, but it's okay to do it for a school application.

@flippertyop

But why would you want your child to go to a religious school when you are not religious ?

No choice. We live rurally.

Catchment school. 1.7 miles. CofE.
Next school. 5 miles. CofE.
Next.6 miles. Catholic.

The closest none religious school is more than 10 miles. Odds on getting into that school when its oversubscribed (it's in the local town) and all schools between us and it (rural schools) are undersubscribed? Zero.

Given the schools are under subscribed, faith is not a condition for entry.

The RE lessons are a little skewed. 'we believe this'. Followed by lots on Christianity. Then the occasional 'some people think this'.

Autumn, i think going to a catholic church and finding that the priest is anti-abortion, would not be such a rare circumstance.

@CayrolBaaaskin

Also just to be clear- my dds go to a religious school. I a progressive Jew and moved to a very specific area to ensure we were in catchment and that they could get the Jewish education I wanted. It’s something I want them educated on. It’s key for me that they learn about our religion that they learn Hebrew and that they celebrate our holidays and don’t grow up feeling weird or different.

I want that for other religions too. Of course I agree that there are basics that religious schools should comply with but there are standards in the Uk and inspections.

I think allowing people to practice and be educated in their own religions is just the basics of tolerance. I am absolutely supportive of it.

I did the same for my DC after sending them to what I thought was anon-denominational nursery where they spent all of a December learning about Christmas (with 1 afternoon on Divali and 1 on Hannukkah) and my DC came home asking if we were going to have ham for dinner. That was the end of that.

"Non denominational" turns out to be very denominational most of the time, with Christian prayers in the morning and everything about Christmas and Easter. Christians are the majority in this country so I'm not complaining but at the same time why on earth shouldn't my child be able to have the same experience - colouring in pics of his holidays and learning about his cultural traditions - just like yours do?

Sorry, my rhetorical question absolutely not directed at @CayrolBaaaskin but at the OP.

There are basically two directions you can look at any rights question. There is the idea that parents have the right to apply to any school they like. Or the idea that parents have the right to have their children receive a certain kind of education in line with their values, be it a Catholic, Muslim, Humanist, or Steiner type school.

Schools like this don't function if the parents aren't largely bought in. The only real alternate is a one size fits all approach where the state decides what the lowest common denominator is in terms of values and epistemic assumptions. Because as much as people might like to think there is such a thing as neutral, secular education, there isn't. All education presupposes a certain way of thinking about the material and moral world.

It's easy enough to be happy with the state making the decision when you are more or less happy with what the state decides about these things, and say everyone else should be on board with it as well. When all of a sudden someone finds a conflict with their views, though, they tend to be very quick to feel that as parents they should have a greater degree of input in their children's education. Even if they are not rich and able to fund it privately.

"Non denominational" turns out to be very denominational most of the time, with Christian prayers in the morning and everything about Christmas and Easter. Christians are the majority in this country so I'm not complaining but at the same time why on earth shouldn't my child be able to have the same experience - colouring in pics of his holidays and learning about his cultural traditions - just like yours do?

Almost always the term denomination means different types of Christianity, not different religions altogether. I think there is some fudging going on where it's presented as the latter.

The difficulty with religions with quite small numbers in one place is always going to be that you won't usually have enough people to run a school. I think it's a significant factor in why some families in that situation will choose to live in a larger city where there is more scope. I've been in the situation myself where the type of education I wanted for my kids simply wasn't available, so the options were finding the best available match or home education.

I t's not entirely dissimilar to other compromises made by living in a less populated area - worse emergency services, poor internet, fewer job options. All things we could say we should have equal access to, but practically we don't.

Hitler was an atheist vegetarian, I recall the Russian revolution lot etc were athiests too.

Have we learned nothing from the wars and conflicts around the world in the name of religion?

Non denominational is Christian but not specific to one of the denominations ie mixed Anglican and Catholic. Perhaps you should have looked into it more!!

It’s grammar schools that screw up the school system in my local area. Kids should just get the nearest school to their house

That would just mean that the well-off families access the naice school in the leafy area where they live, and the less well off in the deprived area get the 'rough' school with low aspirations. With grammars, while the system isn't perfect, some of the brightest but poorest children will have the chance of a place, so there's actually more social mobility.

@storminborehamwood

Most people accept that you can't discriminate against someone for their religion. So why can faith schools do it when it comes to kids getting a place?

AIBU to think state-funded faith schools should be forced to remove religious criteria from applications?

I know state-funded faith schools get extra funding from religion and that supposedly justifies giving priority to kids with religious ties.

I just can't understand why it's illegal to mark someone down for a job application based on their religion, but it's okay to do it for a school application.

The point of faith schools is to educate children in that faith. What on earth would be the point of them taking people from outside the faith at the same or higher rate than believers? There would literally be no point. They are there primarily to serve the children of that faith, so those children will have priority.

Under certain circumstances it is permissible to specify religion, gender etc on a job advert. Provided you can demonstrate that it’s essential and why, it doesn’t count as discrimination.

Like previous posters I agree that your anger is misplaced. We need to work out why religious schools tend to do better and are therefore more sought after by non-believers.

The local (outstanding) Hindu school is so oversubscribed with Hindus that they now require a letter from a priest saying the child and their family follow all Hindu traditions, speak an Indian language (excluding English), and follow a vegetarian diet at home. So it excludes most Hindus too.

@BubbleCoffee

It’s grammar schools that screw up the school system in my local area. Kids should just get the nearest school to their house

That would just mean that the well-off families access the naice school in the leafy area where they live, and the less well off in the deprived area get the 'rough' school with low aspirations. With grammars, while the system isn't perfect, some of the brightest but poorest children will have the chance of a place, so there's actually more social mobility.

In true grammars yes. But most of them are private selective schools using the grammar name.

@FightingtheFoo

Sorry, my rhetorical question absolutely not directed at *@CayrolBaaaskin* but at the OP.

""Non denominational" turns out to be very denominational most of the time, with Christian prayers in the morning and everything about Christmas and Easter. Christians are the majority in this country so I'm not complaining but at the same time why on earth shouldn't my child be able to have the same experience - colouring in pics of his holidays and learning about his cultural traditions - just like yours do?"

It isn't the purpose of my post, but I personally believe religious and cultural traditions are mainly the responsibility of a child's family to teach, not the state education system.

Children should learn a baseline amount about all religions in school so that they can function in a diverse and inclusive society - without judgement on what is best or right.

@BubbleCoffee

It’s grammar schools that screw up the school system in my local area. Kids should just get the nearest school to their house

That would just mean that the well-off families access the naice school in the leafy area where they live, and the less well off in the deprived area get the 'rough' school with low aspirations. With grammars, while the system isn't perfect, some of the brightest but poorest children will have the chance of a place, so there's actually more social mobility.

Agreed (except for 'naice', we're not all from Merseyside!).

Ozanj, there are surely not that many grammar schools in England anyway. There are maybe four in my area within a 'bus ride but that's fairly unusual. They are very good too - state schools - and nobody can blame parents for wanting their child to go there.

What needs to happen is for the government to put more money into state comprehensives. I'm old enough to remember how excellent the comps were when they were a 'new' thing.

Secular = impartial.
Religious = brainwashing.

That seems to be a lot of people's opinions, but it's simply not correct. DD in a secular school was indoctrinated with trans ideology to the extent that the teacher told her that her religion isn't important, it's what she's saying about LGBTQ that matters. That's not impartiality, that's a very strong bias.

DS goes to a non-denominational Christian school, and while there is an emphasis on Christmas and Easter services, they learn about different beliefs equally and DS is not forced to attend church.

What do people fear will happen to their children if they go to a CofE school or any other faith school? At the end of the day, children will question and make up their own minds when they get older.

The fact that the state funds all shows evidence of fairness. It's unfortunate if the school you want isn't on your doorstep, but that's a price we all have to pay for free education. It's not just about religion but a whole host of factors that may make one school more desirable to us than another. We just have to take our pick of the available options or go private.

Hitler was no atheist. He was raised a Catholic and confirmed. He declared himself a Christian in Mein Kampf and promoted the dejudified version of Christianity developed by the Nazis called 'Positive Christianity.'

Stalin attended an orthodox seminary and trained for the priesthood.

Stalin attended an orthodox seminary and trained for the priesthood

But then religion was 'banned' in Russia once the communists took over no?

Other religions were banned but the official state religion of personality-cult Communism was strictly enforced.

That seems to be a lot of people's opinions, but it's simply not correct. DD in a secular school was indoctrinated with trans ideology to the extent that the teacher told her that her religion isn't important, it's what she's saying about LGBTQ that matters. That's not impartiality, that's a very strong bias

^This

Why are some so against religion but gladly tolerate other forms of (quite obvious) indoctrination is beyond me. Not only regarding gender ideologies, political views and activism of all kinds is present in education. And if you think it doesn't happen in 'secular' schools you are being very naïve indeed. We see plenty of threads almost daily on MN in case anyone wants examples.

I would rather my children learn about religion (and my taxes spent on this) than being indoctrinated with ideas I will likely not agree with and will have to spend time undoing the damage done.

But then religion was 'banned' in Russia once the communists took over no?

In China they put communists in various positions and made a church that self identified as Catholic. Just as some self identified as being positive Christian etc.

That seems to be a lot of people's opinions, but it's simply not correct. DD in a secular school was indoctrinated with trans ideology to the extent that the teacher told her that her religion isn't important, it's what she's saying about LGBTQ that matters. That's not impartiality, that's a very strong bias.

Secular means independent of religion, LGBTQ issues have nothing to do with it.

If the relevant faiths fund the schools of course children if that faith should get priority!

Other religions were banned but the official state religion of personality-cult Communism was strictly enforced.

We all know what quazi state religions are being forced in secular UK schools now.

Well, if we’re talking about Jewish schools, what about Jacobites? They have the same belief system as Judaism but they have chosen to remain as gentiles because they do not believe in conversion. Do they get a place at the Jewish school, priority above non-religious or Christian children?