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.

And people disliking because they can't get in, yes. Definitely. No I haven't got figures, but I think you're fantasising if you think there are armies of people out there who become vocally angry about a religious divide just by coincidence when their children hit four.

Is it true that you don't believe in an absolute Good? Is it a largely Utilitarian moral code?

define 'absolute good' and I might be able to tell you ... there isn't a written down 'moral code' so I'm a bit puzzled what you're driving at.

It's a little more complex than only becoming engaged when it affects you, or "because you can't get in." The system is wrong. It's totally ridiculous to divide schools according to which variety of sky-deity the parents happen to believe in. It may as well be football teams.

The only people who think it isn't wrong are those who think they are gaining some benefit from it.

Just looked at Accord and nearly cried. Thank you. Just plucking up the courage to join. I started this thread to debate and work out what I think because I can't have this debate in real life (Just wouldn't be a debate and might end very prematurely with a big falling out. Not opposed to falling out with people for principles, just have to be very sure where I stand first) Didn't expect there to be an actual national campaign for it. Great.

upandrunning, I'm not sure about the whole "people don't like them because they can't get in either". Maybe it's true in part, but parents with the foresight to read the entry criteria and the lack of moral sense to be willing to fake belief, probably can get in. Lots of people up this thread don't like it because it's socially devisive and because it encourages people to lie and honest people are being discrimated against.

I agree with UnquietDad Don't most of us, myself included, usually become engaged in a debate when it personally affects us? That doesn't mean the debate is less valid or a wrong position more right.

I mean, your moral guidelines.

For example a Christian has the Commandments, a Muslim has the Five Pillars. There isn't really room for a means to an end: breaking a commandment might increase the amount of happiness and peace in the world, but you're not supposed to because God has his plan and it's not for you to decide to do things differently.

Whereas by Utilitarian I mean a moral code guided by what maximises happiness: more expediency is allowed but the aim is to always improve the human condition.

I realise this is personal and I'm not trying to score points. I did think today that a child of parents like you going to a CE school would probably be A Good Thing, for the school and, if it was a really good school versus a really bad school, for the child, and in the end, with a good person getting a good education, for society. So this good end would allow the questionable means. However I understand if you think this is totally out of order, and your personal reluctance to "subject" your children to a religious based school. But really, am not trying to point score: have been thinking about it.

The sky-deity method of selection is a symptom: a crappy education system is the illness. Parents will find a way. Abolishing faith schools will lead to selection by property prices, income, cronyism, whatever.

If there were equally good communal and faith schools next door to each other everywhere, the debate would be a lot less vociferous.

ok I've got to say I'm trying to skim read to find the avalanche of comments about religious divide being the main motivator here

apart from the last two or three pages from a small number of posters I'm not having an awful lot of luck

so far it's all about "it's not fair on me"

Apologies UAR I think I'll come back to this when more time. Not reading people's posts carefully enough

"If there were equally good communal and faith schools next door to each other everywhere, the debate would be a lot less vociferous. "

totally agree

ooh thanks for posting that Betsyboop, I'm trying to read it but the fish fingers are burning.

What I'm picking up so far is that the church is scared of pissing off its pushy middle class parents... but maybe that's just the effect of the burning smells coming from the kitchen.....

check in later maybe.

grenadine - I'm ok with a church school that works on a distance only basis - are you saying there are some?

YANBU. I don't believe the state should fund religious schools at all. IMO it is very devisive (look at NI), much better for children to mix in school and to be educated in their own faith out of school as they wish. The system also descrimitates against minority faiths such as Baptists as they do not have their own schools.
I went to a C of E faith school, as it was the only one in the village- it was basically the village school & took everyone in catchment. The aim of the Church originally was to provide education for the poor. Nowadays it seems these schools are full of middle class kids, many of whose parents have religion of convenience. My local church secondary school has the least deprived intake of all the city schools (according to inspection report). If we take this to its logical conclusion , all religions-C of E, Catholic, Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc- will all be educated separately- what will that do for the cohesion of society?

You know what, if the problem isn't the admissions system into faith schools, then I'm not sure it's even as simple as a not great education system. Could it be a chicken and egg situation - which came first, social division or the problems in the education system? I'd like to see what could happen to schools if a fair admissions system could be found, and that's a huge if. Because many parents finding themselves stuck in the improvement phase when their children were going to school might vote with their children's feet and home ed or independent school, not helping the social division. And I blame no one for seking what they perceive to be best for their children (note perceive - we all have differing views on that)

Upandrunning: returning after an interlude od Real Life to our tangential discussion :

Yes, utilitarian. Actually, when I think about it, nearly everyone is in reality. People who believe in a Book may say it prescribes an Absolute Good, but take for example Thou Shalt Not Kill - well, sounds pretty good, something we can all sign up to but in reality most people (except maybe Jains) make utilitarian exclusions (self defence, national defence, the chance to take a pop at Hitler).

If you don't believe in a deity then there's no-one to say what the 'Absolute Good' is.

On the question of when we become engaged in a debate: I for one simply had no idea about admissions criteria until I had a child. I was frankly incredulous at some of the criteria in my area, I wouldn't have imagined them. I think its changed now, but at the time we first came across them, there was a policy on secondary school admissions in our LEA whereby an RC baptised child attending an RC primary was awarded lowest priority to any secondary other than RC...well, we aren't christians of any sort but that struck us as totally outrageous.

Even though we're now at the stage where DD will definitely be going to a non-faith school, its an issue that we will remain engaged in. Actually, I think we'll will become increasingly vocal now that we are clearly disinterested parties.

Pickelpud, you are soooooo nice!

Thanks Grimma, also for not minding the question. I nearly used the Hitler analogy myself! Many Christians now are largely Utilitarian I feel sometimes: apart from the very evangelical branch. I don't know if you can believe in an Absolute Good if you don't believe in God. My question was based on the assumption that you can't, because then it's easier to define the differences between us.

Pickle I do believe that schools have the most key, the most essential role in removing social division. But schools as they are set up now, the curriculum, the methodology, it's not going to happen, and abolishing faith schools would not achieve it, or even start to.

In my ideal world, there would be the equally good faith and communal schools next door to each other. And the parents would choose the school, not the other way round. So there would be selection by the parent purely on the basis of religion: and not academic aspiration, as we have at the moment: with the parents desperate and the school doing the selecting.

Just by the by: my v good friend at school was involved in a mahoosive fight involving councils and courts over a faith school. Back then, having gone to an RC feeder, she had to go to the RC secondary, and her parents didn't want to her to. She won -- a grand battle to go to our local comp. How times change.

Wow, I had no idea that it works the other way too sometimes. You'd have to think very carefully about how committed to a religious education you were. Do you think that could be why it's there? Still wrong - what suits when a child is four could change dramatically by eleven. That woul either work in our area to make parents think twice about the popular CE primary, or would up the ratings of the secondary. Either way, still wrong because religion shouldn't be the criteria for any school.

Actually I think abolishing faith schools would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education provision.

Like I said earlier, at least they are open to any one of any social standing who can do the church/mosque thing. Much better than property, wealth, power and influence, which is what would be the consequence of getting rid of them.

backtolingle
yes - in my area there is a c of e voluntary controlled school and 100% of the places are offered by the LEA not the school. I think priority order is looked after children, siblings, those for whom it is the nearest school.

That was my concern about this thread that faith schools are all being accused of selecting pupils when some don't select their pupils. Of those that control their admissions some are are lot more reasonable than others.

The worst case in my area is the catholic school which has about 10 categories of catholic followed by living near and no sibling places. So sometimes non catholic people get one child in and then can't send the sibling to the same school.

If faith schools didn't exist, they'd be seen as just another lunatic fringe idea to be dismissed.

Unfortunately, they do, and so it's those of us who want a level playing field who are seen as the aggressors, because we are forced to be on the backfoot and argue why they shouldn't be there.

This enables the other side to use emotive vocabulary like "abolish".

It should be the other way around - the argument for faith schools needs to be heard, and only if that argument is strong enough should they exist.

upandrunning (and all) so enjoying the exchange of views on this thread. I don't think I'm the ideal debater - it takes me a while to remember that people here aren't necessarily taking it personally if you disagree with them and then I want to apologise if I've offended!! Very refreshing. I can't believe how far I've come in my views - god willing I can live by them. Perhaps not living anywhere near a school with a religious admissions policy helps! Bit like not having a credit card if you're rubbish with money

UQD, I think your strongly held views get in the way of seeing beyond the next five minutes. The aim is excellence in education for all. We have excellence in education for a few. Abolishing faith schools would not redress this. Abolishing faith schools would probably be a regressive act in terms of quality. I thought atheists were supposed to be heavily pragmatic. If the energy that went into the campaign to abolish went into changing the methodology of all state education it would be a good thing.

Ahem imo.

"I'm ok with a church school that works on a distance only basis - are you saying there are some? "

About 50% of CofE schools are "voluntary controlled" by the local LEA, and have no religious requirements, admissions are based on exactly the same criteria as community schools. Only the "voluntary aided" schools control their own admissions & use "faith" criteria.

I posted the stats for 2008 further down the thread, but from memory the percentage of pupils is something like

non-faith 71%
RC 10%
CofE VA 9%
CofE VC 9%
(1% for the remaining faith schools)

(those stats are for primary in England, a lot less faith schools at secondary level)