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.

aren't Christians

I also agree with Tiggy R although I don't think most parents, good friends of mine included, are doing this in a cynical way, but because the system allows it and they are doing what they genuinely believe to be the best for their child. The system is wrong, not the people who play by it.

picklepud - so what fair system are you proposing?

I live opposite a catholic school which my kids wont be eligible for. I see buses bringing in kids from miles away. And we will have to drive 2 miles to our next nearest school!

It is very bad for the environment - I think that should be a factor these days - one could argue it is more important that religious views. It is a very old-fashioned way to organise things.

Quite so, newgirl - if none of the main parties will do anything, maybe the Greens ought to be championing local schools.

newgirl - completely agree on your environmental point. Although the goverment's system of lotteries for secondary schools is even worse in environmental terms.

In environmental terms it would be best for everyone to go to their nearest school but then if people don't like their nearest school they will say they want to choose a school.

I can't think of an ideal solution other than that if all state schools were of a very high standard people would not see the need to drive to a school further away.

Oh I am feeling pretty depressed having read all this. We are in the same position as so many others - the 'system' is ridiculous. We are pretty much non-religious, and I have to say I think most people I know are in this day and age. However, we were pleased to get out DD into the local Catholic school as there were a few places going spare and it is the only half decent school in the area. Now they won't let DS in as his year is a high birthrate and they have no sibling rule.

Having said that I've found DD is feeling a bit uncomfortable being a non-Catholic in a Catholic school. She wanted to know what we were 'called' if we weren't Catholic and I know she is really confused about religion. A couple of friends are converting to Catholicism in the name of getting their kids in but I can't stomach it.

So we are looking at moving. Unfortunately we have to be in commutable distance of the city and it seems all good schools in the commuter belt are mobbed. We found a house outside Reading with 2 fab grade 2 schools nearby with lots of places and no religious requirements but the commute was just too long.

Sometimes I feel like becoming the Emily Pankhurst of school reform. The government needs to do something about this ridiculous state of affairs...

Grenadine, I don't think I can propose a fair system. I am most opposed to a system that encourages dishonesty and this is what we have. I can only put forward a system that encourages commitment to a school, by volunteering to help, which you can't really do dishonestly, to replace commitment to a church, which encourages people to be dishonest about the level of commitment. The baptism service requires people to say things like "I turn to Christ" and in most Anglican (C of E) services there is a section where people recite the creed, where they say what they believe e.g. "I believe in God the Father". So unless you attend church and deliberately hum in the hymns and stay quiet in the creed, I don't see how it can be honest. Fair is another issue. I do believe in children going to their local school. And yes, I know that that puts some schools out of reach because of house prices. But you can't fake location. So I can't help with fair, only perhaps more transparent.

The no sibling rule is very wrong. Our local catholic school is the same. It appears some catholic schools are the worst offenders in terms of allocating almost all places to those of the faith. They are happy to take a few non catholics in the low birth years only it would appear.

I know this is very contentious, but I think to some extent religious schools use their religious status in an ethnic cleansing capacity. In our area they are the ones that are 95% white British, whereas the local area is about 50/50 white/Asian.

The RC in our area are also the worst for not prioritising 'looked after' children unless they were also catholic. (though quite how that can be defined for such kids puzzles me). The CofE ones at least seem to have the same common decency as the non-faith schools and put them top of the list regardless.

Minko, I'm pretty sure that the churches actually regret this, but unfortunately this is the effect I've noticed.

On the other hand, when they were originally set up its probably true to say that there was deliberate Protestant/catholic discrimination. The catholics couldn't get into the 'state religion' churches and had enough money to set up their own.

Non catholic children in the care of the local authority come in at number 6 on the eligibility criteria of our nearest catholic primary school How very compassionate.

All of the over-subscribed Catholic schools in our area have a disproportionately low number of children on free school meals - a good indicator of social need.

Just like other popular schools, their admissions policies favour better off families who know how to 'work the system'.

Theres a thought. How about if all schools had to give priority to (a) looked after children (b) those eligible for free school meals.

I wouldn't object to that - my DD has plenty of compensating advantages

backtolingle - could you explain how a c of e voluntrary controlled school whose places are filled by the council by distance to school could be described as non christian in its ethos.

no grenadine. why? I'm not talking about such schools.

Grimma you're probably in the minority there but it's a damned good idea!

okay, cards on the table I am a Christian and someone (daren't go back to find out who sorry, just lost a long post!) asked the Christian perspective.

This is difficult to answer as I can't speak for everyone. After thinking and praying about it (while feeding ds - multitasking!) For the second time I have just deleted a long post because I couldn't find the right words and it became too long.

Actually it was quite challenging reading what the Gospels have to say because everything seems to point to the fact that there are bigger issues afoot than schools admissions. Everything I write on what Jesus would think about school's admissions seems to be wiped out by arguments about what he'd think about wider issues, like poverty and injustice. It makes me feel as if I'm being a bit petty having started the debate. So I still maintain that a system which is encouraging people to be dishonest can't be right, but I believe that God has the overview and I'm only looking at a tiny corner of the world and its problems.

In other words, It's not so much what is the Christian view of this issue but whether it's as important as all that in the long run. Feels like it at the moment though! I think I need a !

That said I also believe that God is interested in all of our concerns however small. Gosh, I just don't know. But I know I'll carry on with the debate, maybe not because I'm Christian though just as a mum who thinks there's an unfair system afoot. And sell some stuff to raise money for Haiti?

Unedited and from the heart going to post now...

I do think the church has a duty to address social need. Does this fit with religious selection? Not sure

V interesting.

Until something is done to reduce the importance of motivated parents in education anything they do about faith schools is a sticking plaster.

Education is supposed to be an engine of social mobility. Now parents are expected to be involved in so much of the basics, the reading, the times tables, and stupid homework and so on, that their attitude has a disproportionate effect. If you have motivated parents you'll get on: if you don't, you can so easily stay at a low level or slide. It's a system that could have been engineered to ensure social stasis.

I have no problem with faith schools but their importance and quality and the debate that rages around them is a symptom of the poverty of the whole system. Wubbly's idea of walking distance catchment areas are great but would end up equally discriminatory. Parents will always, always, find a way to avoid the bad schools if they can. If it's not faith, it will be something else. You will still get the all-white/all-ethnic breakdown.

As well as the great faith school, there should be an equally great regular school. But it won't happen until the schools can do a great job on their own without the parents.

Pickle, its encouraging to see a Christian expressing such thoughts and honesty. You're not alone in this; you might find The Accord Coalition of interest.

ooh thanks Grimmathenome,

I've just signed up at www.accordcoalition.org.uk

sounds fab.

No Christians have attempted theological justification yet (Picklepud, you sound lovely btw).

An earlier poster did suggest that there could be an increase in social divide if the Church schools abandoned their discriminatory policies, but does the evidence back that up? And even if that poster was right, surely the Bishops would then be obliged to sell off some Church assets to fund the establishment of new Church Schools in the poorests districts in the country?

A compromise: faith schools could perhaps still be allowed to prioritise children whose parents were prepared to give permission for the children to receive the school's religious instruction?

backtolingle - you are continuing to refer to "church schools" when I think you mean "church voluntary aided schools". Many church schools do not control their admissions they are controlled by the LEA.

The latter can not be referred to as discriminatory as the church does not have any say in who is admitted.

The social divide is not caused by faith schools. If they are abandoned, another route will be found by parents. Until all schools can manage a cohesive and decent level of education unaffected by the morees of their parents then nothing will change.

You are blaming faith schools for being great schools.