to think that schools admissions aren't fair

[picklepud]

This is different from saying that I wouldn't go through the system if my child's local school had religious criteria, but I am feeling a bit sad and up in arms for a friend today. Same old story, her local school (primary) is c of E VA. She's not, and chose not to get baptised or go to church twice monthly. So now she will have to drive to her allocated school. So incidentally will many of the people who got in on religious grounds from way away. I really really would go to church for my dd to get into my local school, so I'm not criticising those who do, but I just don't think it should be necessary. Or that religious commitment should give you priority in a state school. And particularly that the vicar should not pretend for a minute that he (as he said in a newspapaper article) say that this is a school in the heart of the community serving all the children of the community.
I know, I know, some people might genuinely change through exposure to the church but I don't think it's the way for a church to expand its membership. sorry. and sorry it's so long.

But they aren't all faith schools, Telling: though I am sorry for your situation. If they were all faith schools that would be dreadful. In fact I think two out of three is pretty bad.

ps if I were you I would do Option One. Church can be nice, it's not all tub thumping.

upandrunning, the other schools that I could apply to actually have better results than our local faith school. I don't want DS to go there particularly because

1. It's too far to walk
2. None of his friends go there

Standards are important, of course they are, but my child's happiness is more important. How very christian to force him away from his friends, simply because his mother is a dirty heathen

The schools are better because they have entry criteria. Because actually to attend church every Sunday morning at 10am with your family requires to be up and dressed and scrubbed and presentable. It requires parents not to be drunk and passed out on the sofa. It requires them to care enough about their child's education to make an effort.

I care about my child's education but I'm an atheist and I don't see why I should feign religion to have access to my nearest state school. But if I don't, my children will have to go to the school where all the kids of the parents who don't give a shit go.

How is that right?

I also have another issue with faith schools which is that, in a highly ethnically diverse area like where we are in inner London, I think it's dangerous to split children along religious lines. It's critical as a multicultural, multifaith society that we all learn to rub along together and share a respect for others faiths and beliefs. Faith schools mitigate against that and I think are likely to lead to greater division in our society. Much like in Northern Ireland ...

That's very hard for you. I do think there should be a school option within a half hour's walk for all children.

well try moving into area and find schooling for a y8 pupil thers no spaces at all could be looking at a 30 mile each way trip

2 out of 3 is not surprising in a borough where nearly 60% of schools are faith schools.

I can't help but keep repeating that stat as it goes some way to explaining why this is such a huge problem in this area.

upandrunning if i were interested in getting DD into the best school I would have rediscovered my RC roots and be attending ,ass with all my friends every sunday.

As it is I simply want DD to go to one of the nearby schools, 2 are cofe one is community. It shouldn't be too much to ask.

Interestingly I know that the borough are giving funding to enlarge a popular school and build a new massive one. The new massive one is jewish and the one getting lots of funding for extra intake is RC. In fairness there may be other community schools being enlarged but i have only heard of the RC one.

I'm sorry wading in having read only a few of the pages and not all 33. I totally understand the frustration of not being able to get your child into a decent school near your home which is what I think is the real issue. Correct me if I am wrong.

My point of view as a vicar's wife with a little one is that we are totally committed to the church, not just in a bread and butter but also in a faith way, yet we are going to have to compete with non-C of E families to get our child in a C of E school. In fact we are lucky in that being a vicar's child ds will have a better chance than non-vicar's kids whose parents are just as committed to the faith.

And don't get me started on those families who think we don't notice why they suddenly start coming, want their child baptised and then expect a letter of support for a school application, then drop out as soon as a place is obtained. I don't mind so much them doing it as the fact that they seem to think we are daft and won't notice.

So my point with the previous post was that the council with their funding choices are exacerbating the problem and making it miles worse. they should be explanding the community schools.

Is it legal for vicars child to be pushed up the list in front of other comitted religious families?

I don't think it is.

I'd keep quiet about that in RL if I were you willsurvive this.

(your username is sad I hope you are OK)

Well this is the problem. It's a dilemma. I think the education issue is the one where principles of equality, tolerance and sympathy are sorely tested. Everyone supports comprehensives until our children have to go to a bad one.

I don't know, Lady: I don't know how much a few parents can make a difference. One friend of mine did it: she chose the crappy nearby school over a better, more distant school. She became a governor and within about three years was in charge of appointing a new head. Of course that's unusual though.

willsurvivethis, that is what really gets my goat.

I was baptised, so was my DH but I haven't had my DS baptised.

I have no problem with religion, I simply don't think I believe myself. For that reason, I cannot, in all honesty, stand up in church and swear an oath I do not believe in.

My idea is to allow DS to make his own decision regarding religion as he gets older, that seemed to me to be a reasonable thing to do.

However, my principles mean I am probably preventing my DS from being able to attend his local school with his friends

DH says 'just do it, lots of people do, it's the best for DS'. I know it would be best for DS but my morals tell me it is wrong.

So what do I choose, my principles or my child's happiness?

What sort of message am I sending out to my DS? I bring him up to be honest and fair, in fact all the christian values I myself was brought up with. How can I tally that message with the fact that his parents were prepared to lie in order to get what they want?

You know what, willsurvivethis? I agree with you. About the people who only come to church to get the school place and think you won't notice. It's terrible that a system exists where people feel they have to do this... isn't it? If schools were secular this would not be happening.

Can your DH go to church wubbly?

It's something we are considering, DH is cofe and believes.

Would leave your ethics intact IYSWIM

ImSoNotTelling, I don't feel particularly ashamed of it or in need of keeping it quiet. You should hear the tuttutting if we would send our child to a non-faith school, we'd never hear the end of it. Happened to friends of us who dared sending their kids to a catholic school (ffs) because it was a better school and actually accepted their kids when they arrived in August. Don't forget we get moved around a fair bit - we know we will move just before ds starts school but have absolutely no idea where we are going, so a little bit of flexibility is needed.

It's going round in circles again though, because of course I believe all committed church families should have the choice to put kids in faith schools if they wish.

And yes, my username has a reason, thanks for your concern, won't go into it here.

A lot of parents at sink schools or average performers DO CARE, they are often up against it. Some parents are disillusioned dont believe that they can make a difference or the school is tied by financial constraints/ no power to discipline problem children and parents etc. It is a vicious circle. It is not an even playing field. Trying to get momentum is much more difficult that maintaining momentum.

wubblybubbly hats of to you - it is a difficult choice, one we could be faced with in a different way.

For all those who think it's 'unfair' it's easier for us to get our child in, we are called to minister in deprived areas and will always be expected to put our child in a local school, even if it has a bad reputation. Anything else looks like 'the school is not good enough for the vicar' and now that IS bad for community cohesion.

Hold on, so the definitive and binding admissions criteria in my document from the borough isn't actually definitive and binding as there are different rules for members of the clergy.

I wonder what else they have forgotten to mention

It's all looking a tad less transparent again.

I have no intention of sounding disrespectful about schools in deprived areas - sorry if I came across that way.

I don't think it's unfair that you get precedence, I can see that it is entirely understandable.

What I do think is unfair is that these exceptions to the rules are not generally published in the defninitive rulebook.

Isn't one point of faith schools to convert the heathen? For my DS to go to the C of E faith school 0.7 miles from here, I'd have to take him to church. Reading the school's admissions policy I don't think he has to be baptised.

But I suppose the bet is that he will be exposed to Christian teachings for seven years and would hopefully get the bug. I also think that knowing about Christianity will help him put English literature and history in a historical context. So it's therefore not hypocrisy for me to take him. Worked for missionaries - and their missionary schools - across whole continents!

ImSo, it's not that black and white I think you know that. And you may find at most one or two clergy kids per SCHOOL. There's less and less of us and more and more older clergy. So we're not swamping the place.

ISNT, that is certainly worth considering.

It's not that I mind going to church even, I rather like the church, the hymns and so on and I think it's a great focal point for our community, it's just my darn principles get in the way!

I'm going to get onto DH to sort it out.

Thanks ISNT, you are brilliant!

No I didn't know that and honestly I am shocked. Do you know how many hours I have spent poring over the bloody admissions criteria only to be told tat actually they aren't right? They are supposed to be black and white, that is why they are written down and given to people.

If they make exceptions for clergy family then what about family of prominent churchgoing families? What about prominent local people (someone mentioned MPs kids mysteriously getting a place earlier)? What about people who give very generous bribes donations? Local businessmen who offer to pay for roof repairs? etc etc

My earlier link showed that faith schools were breaking the rules on admission criteria a couple of years back, the faith schools said they would clean up their acts. You can see that I have to wonder if that has actually happened.

I think it's real shame with these policies, particularly at secondary level, that the faith school is only interested in parents' attendance. The CofE secondary school near us demands 7 YEARS of parental church attendance. But has no interest in the child's beliefs/commitment or in people who might have come to the faith later. A child with faith would be excluded by way of the parents non attendance. While children need not attend church at all but as long as their parents do they get in. Not very welcoming and Christian, is it?