Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that schools admissions aren't fair

729 replies

picklepud · 25/01/2010 18:58

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.

OP posts:
happysmiley · 27/01/2010 09:56

Come back to this again, this morning and still not clear why we are happy to discriminate against certain children but not adults and why segregating children by faith is acceptable to us as a society.

Star, no there are not any NHS clinics or hospitals that discriminate by faith (nor any other public service that I can think of) because generally in this country we think that's wrong. We make an exception for the children though.

ImSoNotTelling · 27/01/2010 09:59

expat i agree it is preposterous. It's one of those things that from the outside it's obviously mad, but as we have all grown up with it we accept it as normal.

Mind you I find the pledge of alliegance thing a bit odd, as an outsider

I don't think that any place is immune to oddities and quirks. Apart from maybe the scandinavians, and dutch. I always think of them as "sensible grown ups"

Peachy · 27/01/2010 10:01

Star I think it owuld be nice in that it would take peopletostand up against the status quo and battle for it, that kind of roleis the good work of a christian imo.

If you were at the beginning of the system I would absolutely agree with you.

ImSoNotTelling · 27/01/2010 10:03

happysmiley it's not acceptable IMO, at all. Any more than it would be to choose by colour, or nationality.

It is illegal in all other areas of life to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

However religious groups have an awful lot of wealth, power and influence, so there is an exception to the LAW at european and national level. Plus there is this historical thing going on which means everyone sees it as "normal". Even if we discuss it on here, most people would baulk at the idea of actually trying to stop it in reality - the land, the uproar, the arguments, the fighting, the upheaval. The daily mail . It would be horrendous.

ZephirineDrouhin · 27/01/2010 10:06

The ironic thing is that the church prides itself on being "the only society that exists for the benefit of its non-members".

Original poster
picklepud · 27/01/2010 10:10

Great point about hospitals etc. Imagine if they started discriminating on grounds of religion, whilst remaining largely NHS funded. And the more I think about it the less I understand why C of E schools only wnat their own. Unless of course it's not anything about faith and more to do with maintaining "standards" . And what would happen to the numbers of bottoms on seats in some churches if they changed the admissions policy? I have been at a christening (of a three year old who lives just outside the catchment ) and there were't many people at all who didn't have children just before school admissions age, but lots of those. A very strange experience, esp the bit where the register is taken. It was actually brought to me. I declined!

OP posts:
StarExpat · 27/01/2010 10:10

Oh no, please do not get me wrong... I'm not on a high horse about America at all. That's why I'm here and decided to not get up in arms about faith based schools. Was just stating some opinions.

Imsonotelling - the pledge of allegiance is indeed ridiculous. I've never taught in a school where the kids still did this - and certainly no one would be forced to do it if they didn't want to (I've taught in a few different schools in America, but I'm young )

My ds will not be going to a british or a CofE school as I'm a teacher at an international school and he'll go here with me when the time comes. So I don't even have a right to get upset about it, really. But I should be able to have an opinion if I'd like.

happysmiley · 27/01/2010 10:11

I'msonot, we used to see all kinds of things as normal. Rasicm and sexism were quite normal. If I were born only fifty years before I was, I would be unlikely to be given my job as a woman, certainly not if were a mother. My marriage (to someone of a different race) would be frowned on and our children would be openly discriminated against.

Thankfully, people saw that this was wrong (even though it was normal at the time) and tried to change it.

Generally, when we see something in our society that is so unfair, that is what we do, we try to change it. Not put it down to being "normal" and therefore ok.

backtolingle · 27/01/2010 10:11

right, let's get an Archbishop on mumsnet to tell us whether he's going to open the Church doors to those that.....erm.....Jesus would actually want him to be talking to........

MNHQ Attention please

oh, and then let's get Jesus in too to comment

Peachy · 27/01/2010 10:13

Can I just point out that Church does not necessarily equate with chistian?Many oplehave isues with the formalChurch,or are members of groups such as the Quakers (Society of Friends) with whom Icertainly identify withmore than the straight Church

happysmiley · 27/01/2010 10:13

Star, I think that you have the right to be upset about it. You live in a society that actively discriminates and segregates by religion. It does affect you.

StarExpat · 27/01/2010 10:14

oh, sorry, but I know there are some schools in america (particularly deep south I'm guessing/stereotyping ) who DO still say pledge of allegiance daily. I didn't growing up (in vermont, in the Northeast)

frogs · 27/01/2010 10:14

Faith schools don't say, "We will only accept people of X faith". Like any other school, they have admissions criteria which state how they will prioritise applications in the event of them being oversubscribed. Unlike health clinics or hospitals, schools have a fixed number of places and cannot reasonably be expected to take everybody who wants or needs the service.

Oversubscribed community schools prioritise applicants on the basis (generally) of proximity. Which is how you get 'outstanding' schools in m/c enclaves of million pound + houses. Fair, much?

Faith schools do it (generally) on the basis of prioritising applications from people who practise X faith, then people who don't practise much, then people who are of other faiths, and then all other comers, assuming there are places left. Obviously this is not ideal either.

There simply is no perfect system which will solve a situation in which some schools have 5 times as many applicants as they have places without leaving lots of people disappointed and feeling they have been unfairly treated.

happysmiley · 27/01/2010 10:18

Frogs, the NHS does have a fixed number of "places". It discriminates on the basis of clinical need and then prioritises on the basis of how long the patient has been waiting (the waiting lists). It doesn't prioritise on the basis of faith, because society things that is wrong.

Original poster
picklepud · 27/01/2010 10:20

frogs - If faith is anywhere in the criteria, above any non faith criteria and it's oversubscribed enough then inevitably only worshippers or those who profess to be will get in. The catchment thing isn't fair either but it is honest and you can't fake it and get away with it.
Also, hospitals prioritise on the basis of clinical need. If the same were true of faith schools, I'd guess that being faithless would make you a priority. By attending church regularly and daily prayer and bible reading I'd say you covered that need nicely and ruled yourself further away from needing to attend a church school.

OP posts:
happysmiley · 27/01/2010 10:22

I should add that some NHS services are allocated on the basis of locality to the user (GPs surgeries) but just because a GP works in a "nice" area, doesn't mean he's good, so we don't usually get upset about that.

Original poster
picklepud · 27/01/2010 10:22

Oh - what a great idea. A representative of the church of england on for a web chat. Can we? Please?

OP posts:
GrimmaTheNome · 27/01/2010 10:32

but as well as providing 10% of teh capital costs , often the school building was originally supplied by tghe church and their will be legal strings attached to that.

Only the minority provide that 10%.
And why did the church ever own anything in the first place? Because it had hundreds of years of taxing everyone and being gifted lands by the state.

StarExpat · 27/01/2010 10:33

why is catchment area not fair?

Original poster
picklepud · 27/01/2010 10:35

and the reason so many church schools exist is because the church was being socially aware in times when poor children got no education. Giving some of the gain back. Back then it seemed a bit more open admissions wise! Perhaps the long view might help on this one. Or open up a fresh can of worms

OP posts:
Peachy · 27/01/2010 10:36

Depends how catchment is done

Here the houses areput of the price rnage of many so there is stillnot equalchances of access

However,my oldschool had a system where at comp each school took one of the big esattes that amde up the twon,and a sahreof the surrounding villages; at 16 everyone went to acentral college which is stillregarded as a centre of excellence.

That system is as fair as it can get I think.

happysmiley · 27/01/2010 10:39

If the church had to pay all the running costs of church schools, I think it's fair to say, there would be less church schools.

Perhaps the church could sell the buildings it doesn't need to the State and the money earned would help pay the running costs of the schools it kept.

And the State could pay for those extra buildings with the money it saved on the running costs of the church schools.

I'm sure we'd work it all out somehow.

StarExpat · 27/01/2010 10:40

But certainly the location does not make a school "less good" no matter what the cost of houses are.
Are teachers who teach in more deprived areas not as good at teaching? I don't understand that.
My Dh teaches at a school in quite an economically poor catchment area. I don't think this makes it a "bad school". Ofsted reports (which mean pretty much nothing) have got everyone up in arms about scores...etc. and ratings of how "good" a school is...

Original poster
picklepud · 27/01/2010 10:41

and catchment is honest if sometimes slightly socially iniquitous. I know that won't always work as an argument but it was the original point

OP posts:
grenadine · 27/01/2010 10:42

peachy - Quakers are christians (apart from a few rebel ones) as far as I'm aware.

I'm not so telling - people shouldn't have to feel the need to move from one c of e church to another just to get a school place. If there are c of e places at a school they should be open to all members of the c of e (i.e. not specify a particular church). In my area there is one c of e aided school but 2 c of e churches..surprise surprise the church linked to the school has all the children and the other church doesn't have enough children to run a proper sunday school. It does not seem very christian to me for schools to tell people which c of e church they should attend.

I don't agree with all places at church schools being allocated to churchgoers. There should be a balance between people who live near and people who may not live so near but have church letters. In this way people who cannot afford to move next to a popular school have some chance of getting in through church attendence but the people who live right by will get in whether they go to church or not.