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.

Ah Pickle I like threads like this. Feel like a right saddo when I think about them during the day and want to come back asap. But they're so interesting. I never have these conversations in real life.

My daughter goes to a C of E VA school which is a 25 mi walk away from our house and outside the catchment area.

I have been a Christian for about 15 years and have regularly attended the local church attached to my DD's school for about 6 years. All my children we baptised there, I got married there and am active in church life.

I wanted my daughter to have access to Christian beliefs within the school system as part of her upbringing. She and my other young children go to Sunday School and I wanted her to expand on that when I applied for primary schools.

The criteria for entry is:

a. children in care
b. siblings
c. living in the catchment area
d. Being on the electoral role at the chruch.

My DD's school is in a wealthy area which we cannot afford. So almost all the children who get into the school live very locally in the area and most families have money.

The church attendance criteria is actually last but one on the list as the school serves the local parish first.

My daughter only got in due to my commitment to my faith. I am on the electoral role.

I regard parents who start attending church just to get their kids as wholly deceitful to themselves and attempting to take unfair advantage of those who do have a faith.

At our church it is so obvious when very occasionally we realise people are trying to attend for school entry and quite funny really. After a while they slacken off and don't return. Our vicar is very clued up on these parents and has now made it more difficult to apply for the school.

Going to church is about developing your faith. It is a big commitment, make no mistake. If there are a few parents who do discover their beliefs after attending for the wrong reasons then that's wonderful but I have to say I'm cynical.

But I dislike the way our school is run because it's so snobby and based on wealth. The school is highly successful because of the money available from rich local parents and donations. It has far less to do with the church itself which often takes a back seat.

After 10 years of teaching in a run down state secondary school most of the people I met there were far more down to earth, friendly and kind than the cliquey, stuck up women who stand at the gates of my daughter's school talking about their holidays, cars and nanny's. Most of the families who children attend the school never go near the church!

A lot of the whole church -school thing is all fur coat and no knickers- the parents don't have a faith, just money which is entirely wrong.

A faith school should be for those who have faith, not wealth.

Good for your vicar - if only the one round here was so principled. Great post. I still maintain that a school's admissions policy should have nothing to do with faith and it goes to show that as yet there is no fair system. Still, the catchment thing can't be faked and regrettably commitment to a church can be and is on a regular basis.

I realise that my OP should have been AIBU to think that schools admissions aren't honest

At our nearest Cof E high schoolyou have to earn as many points as possible.Points are available for child's church attendance, parents church attendance service to the church and community by parent ,service to the church and community by child,sibling in school and area you live in.Realistically , if you haven't got a sibling at school you need to attend church weekly for a minimum of 2 years (both parent and child) and both parent and child need 3 or 4 community/church voluntary roles.It is very very competitive.You have to be raelly committed to get in.

Admission at our local church school have recently changed. It used to be regular attendence (twice a month I think) but now it's a) looked after children b) children of those families at the heart of the church c) Children of those families who are committed to the church.

It is very oversubsribed but I am sure that many parents who are not Christians attend church just to get their children in. It will always happen. But I know many parents who used to go to church occasionally and because they wanted to go to that school started to attend church more often, and got more involved both in activities such as fund raising, also in prayer groups/bible studies. THeir faith really genuinely developped and grew and they became themselves much more spiritual. So as a Christian, I try not to judge people who attend church just to get their children in the school. I actually make an effort to talk to them and make them feel extra-welcome.

grenadine,

"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."

so no faith-based discrimination at all? If that's the case, I think that's much much better.

Presumably that school you refer to manages to thrive then despite all the heathens in it? Which makes the other faith schools' position all the more invidious?

How on earth do they define "at the heart of the church".

All of this leaves so much wriggle room for just dishing the places out to whoever they like, which is against the rules.

I am surprised that condition got past the LEA.

I'm going to have to step out of this debate soon - it's taking over. I'm really sorry to offend, but I have moved further towards the faith shouldn't give you priority view. The "points" system just makes it worse. So now you don't just attend church you have to clean it too? And I find it mildly patronising Blueberry that you try to be extra nice to those attending to get into the school. Perhaps I'll make an extra effort to be nice to you because you think that faith should get you a place in a school. I think it's a spurious view that God wants his people educated together. What about "in the world but not of it?" Sorry I'm tired and I should give up, I'm starting to be rude and that's the last thing I want to do. I respect your right to hold your view I just disagree very wholeheartedly.

I'm getting a bit tired too pickle

Has been a great debate so far, these trheads are always different depending on who turns up, some you just get people shouting that anyone who goes to church to get their child into school is the lowest form of scum, morally corrupt and a disgusting smear on the face of humanity. this debate has been very balanced overall I think.

I think it went better than some of these discussions because it was initiated by a Christian so it wasn't 'us versus them'. As the Accord Coalition shows, it doesn't have to be that way so I'm pleased too to have found it, Pickle

It's up to those of you who want faith schools to tell us why you need them.

It;s the blinkered attitude of the religious which means they can't see "beyond the next five minutes".

The problem is that, if you are "immersed" in religion you totally see nothing unusual in it. For vast swathes of the population for whom religion means nothing, it is an irrelevance.

UQD: the blinkered attitude of some religious, as pickle demonstrates.

Generalisations are odious (always!)

What is it that you dissagree with, Picklepud
All faith schools? God? People who have faith in a certain religion and would prefer to have their children educated in a school with a religious ethos? The admission criteria stating that you have to attend Church for your kids to be accepted in the school? People who have faith? People who don't have faith and suddenly discover God because they want to send their kids to a good faith school? All of the above? What do you do in your spare time?

(that was badly worded, obviously I meant Pickle demonstrates an unblinkered attitude - starting this thread precisely to throw light on the issue)

I am baffled as to why faith schools are state schools in this day and age. Indeed in some areas you only have faith schools, a hangover from Victorian times and the C of E's landgrab for state education. I think it should be up to the various religions to fund their own schools (presumably making them free to the children who attend them) and leave taxpayers' money for non-religious purposes, perhaps. Like France.

I guess we're in this position because the CofE has lots of school buildings and land but is otherwise pretty much stony broke.

I heartily agree with boffin

aye, me too

Blueberry, it's a long thread so to summarise, it's the admissions criteria to state schools that state faith or church attendance, and the attendance at a certain church that often follow to which I object. I have no objection to faith schools per se. I have no objection to God or people who have faith. I question whether it's biblical to exclude some from a church school on the basis of faith, I question whether it is what Jesus would do. But, as a few pages previously I stated, I also probably think He might not see it as his biggest concern either.
In my spare time I spend time with my family, knit, bake, read and help out with community events.

I posted it earlier on the thread but it's worth repeating - I live in inner London. In my borough's census, around 60% identify themselves as either Christian, Jewish or Muslim. 9 out of 10 of my nearest primary school are faith schools. Nine!!

I also want to be like France. Perhaps I should just move there

And I'm sorry Blueberry what I said in the earlier post was unfair. Anyone being kind to anyone else is a good thing and I sounded really sneery about it.

The difficulty is that in an ideal situation, communities would grow alongside housing estates - for every X number of houses built there would be a new primary school for every Y number a secondary school. This alongside doctors surgeries, dentists, local shops and parks, you get the idea. If the number of school places accurately reflected the number of children in a given area, the overcrowding would be lessened, and the children lost in the back row behind thrity to fourty others whose parents are pushier would have a better chance to have their needs assessed. SEN children logically don't cluster in an area, so catchments would hopefully 'distribute' them equally among the schools and stop some becoming what is effectively a dumping ground for the chilren currently left behind by the system. Smaller class sizes would mean that individual needs could be picked up on earlier and an higher proportion of LSAs and TAs could assist with those whose parents aren't interested. For those who have an unstable or chaotic household, schools could run study groups to help children who have too many younger siblings to get the attention they need, and children from abusive families would stand out more and hopefully be helped sooner. All this and more, in an ideal world.

Unfortunately, we're in a global recession. (Okay, so possibly pulling out now, but the effects will go on for years.) Funding is being cut, and this is in no way going to happen. We're stuck with what we've got, so we'd better make the best of it. I don't agree with faith schools particularly, because it's common sense that if you bring up a child with only one select group of contemporaries, they will find it difficult to relate to people outside that group. I went to an all girls school, and it took me a good few years after I left to work out that men weren't this alien race who were intimidating and unusual (then again, I had a restrictive childhood, so that's possibly just me, though the point stands). I'll leave aside my view on religion, because that's another, completely independent issue. But, like it or lump it, the fact is that if even 1% of faith schools provide 1% of the funding, that's less money for the government to provide, and so there is 0% incentive for them to change things with regards to their existence.

However. With the overcrowding that currently exists in this country, I think the government has to crack down on those schools which have stringent religious entry criteria. The fact that in some parts of the country people cannot get into their local school is appauling. It's all very well saying 'just drive across town to the other school'. What about the people who can't drive? (and there are plenty who can't drive for medical reasons - I'm not talking about a 'can't be bothered to learn' scenario) What about the people who are disabled, or work shifts and can't get their children to a school that far away, or can't afford the private school nearby as they are supported by the state? The 25% guidelines stated in that link earlier don't go far enough. That still leaves a large potential for children who are the victim of circumstances to be wantonly excluded for reasons they have no control over. If there wasn't overcrowding as it is I would mind a little less, though still disagree with the principle of religious segregation, for whatever reason. But as things stand, everyone has a responsibility to the next generation to not leave them behind just because the chips are down.

Oh and in our area, there are two VA C of E schools, I discover after a little more probing (I though one was VC but it's not). One is more popular than the other but both provide largely the same in terms of religious education, stated ethos and level of church activity. One is rated outstanding by ofsted (secular organisation), one isn't. Both rated highly by church inspection. Again, honesty about motives for choice please. I don't mind choice, I support choice. But be clear about what you have chosen a school for.

"But, like it or lump it, the fact is that if even 1% of faith schools provide 1% of the funding, that's less money for the government to provide, and so there is 0% incentive for them to change things with regards to their existence."

Spot on Tottwriter