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.

OK really long post coming up, but please read and tell me what you think.

Yes, head teachers set the ethos of a school, and a good one can do a lot to improve a school or vice versa. But ultimately the problem is this.

Some parents want their children to go to the best school possible. Others couldn't give a hoot. Whatever school they go to, kids of first type of parent will be well-behaved and do well, kids of second kind will be disruptive and underachieve.

Now that schools release league tables, all of the first type of parent see which school has best results and all try to get their child into it, avoiding the worst one at all costs. Result: best school oversubscribed and therefore able to select (by faith or by postcode) best children, worst school undersubscribed and therefore filled with kids whose parents couldn't be bothered to do their research, plus a few unfortunates who don't get in elsewhere. This is going to be a problem for as long as govt publishes league tables.

Add faith schools into the equation. They are not set up to be academically the best schools, but for people who want their child educated in their religion. Problem is that generally people of a faith will mostly be people who promote discipline and importance of learning, so their kids will do well. Therefore local faith school does better than other local schools filled with a mix of disciplined children and badly behaved ones. It looks like faith school is better, but really it just has a better proportion of the nicer kids.

And it's not really fair to say to religious people that they can't educate children in their religion anymore just cos the school is too good.

Hope that's not all too controversial, not intending to offend.

happysmiley. Don't know about my sisters school admissions.

But near me are three faith schools. Two have faith based criteria but one has mainly catchment based criteria and does better than the other two. Houses around it are very expensive. Don't really see how this is any fairer

up, thought about your comments about people only caring because they have lost out on the chance to send their children to a good school due to the current system, and to a degree, I think that's fair. people who have been disadvantaged do tend to be vocal.

But I don't think it's because they don't care about discrimination until they lose out. I think they start to care because they don't often know that discrimination exists until they try to tackle the system.

I also think it's quite reasonable to become more vocal about discrimination when you are directly affected.

Just to give a comparable example, in my 20s I would never have classed myself as a feminist. I had a successful career and never saw any sex discrimination (either against me or against my friends and colleagues) and so I didn't think sexism was really a problem any more. At the age of 30, and newly married, I suddenly found my career stagnated. Later I found out (directly through a former manager) that internal moves at that company hadn't been an option because the management thought I'd be pregant within months. I wouldn't have believed that this would ever happen except I'd been directly told, by someone who knew, that it was true. Now, I am much more vocal about sexism and much more aware that it exists, but I always thought it was wrong. Fundamentally my views are unchanged but I publicise them more.

I'd suggest that many parents are like this. They always thought discrimination based on faith was wrong but they become vocal when they realise it's a reality.

imgonnaliveforever/standanddeliver, if the schools you describe are undersubscribed then then the admissions criteria will not apply.

The issue in question is of VA schools selecting pupils by parental behaviour (and thereby leaving their neighbouring community schools to take a disproportionate number of children from the most deprived backgrounds). This only becomes an issue where the VA school school in question is oversubscribed, as undersubscribed schools are not in a position to select.

Having read all the fors and againsts on this thread, I still think the issue comes because all most (some don't give two hoots ) parents want to get a place in a good school close-ish to home.
Some parents would also like the choice of a school that supports their religion
Some parents would also like the choice of a totally secular school
Some aren't too fussed either way so long as it's a good school (For example what some might call the "cultural Christians" - these are the ones with "bums on pews" for a few years I think)

Some faith schools are good, some aren't so good. Some community schools are good, some arent' so good. Removing faith schools won't do anything about the aren't so good schools. All it will leave is a system where those who can afford to BUY a decent education (either privately or via expensive house in catchment of good school) it won't do anything to address the not so good schools that are left for the rest.

Surely as a society we should ensure that a good local school is available to ALL children? That's the real issue IMO.

FWIW in my town we have

1 RC (outstanding)
1 Cofe VC (satisfactory)
1 CofE VA (good)
1 community (in special measures)

All schools are within reasonable walking of anyone in town

RC is actually the nearest to me (about 30yds...) but you have to have been baptisted RC before you were born to get in there (no wish for DD to go there anyway)

I hope DD will go to the CofE VA, not because it's the "next best" but because it's the next closest & also the school associated with the church I attend. I'd also be okay if she went to the CofE VC (next closest after this) because it's ok and a faith school. I wouldn't want her to go to the community school partly because it's not a faith school, but mainly because it's a CRAP school

Bottom line is we all want a decent school for our kids, and in that none of us are being unreasonable

I would like to say this has been a fab thread, well debated, and mostly without it decending into a debate about stupid people believing in "superstitions" and "imaginary friends"

But faith schools aren't selecting by parental behaviour, they're selecting by faith. They can't help the fact that religious parents generally raise well-behaved children, while non-religious are more of a mixed bag, some well-behaved some not.

I think it makes no sense to be angry about religious people setting up a religious school. The problem is more the non-religious people pretending and going to church just to get kids in.

Just think, if all those people sent their kids to ordinary schools then the standards at those schools would be raised. Don't be annoyed at religious school for opting out of mainstream schools for the sake of a religious education. Be annoyed at non-religious people playing the system and leaving maintream schools worse off for it.

that was supposed to be

all

not

all

in my last post

imgonna, I have no issue with religious people setting up schools and those schools having religious assemblies etc. What I object to is those religious schools only allowing people in based on their faith.

I think that discrimination based on faith is just the same as racism at the end of the day and I think, on the whole, society agrees with me because we don't allow it in other areas of life.

Betsyboop, have to disagree with you there. I am a teacher, husband is teacher, sister is teacher. I can assure you there are a lot of parents out there who think of school as a good form of day care but otherwise a waste of time. Sister has 9 yr old kids saying they don't need to to write essays just fill in a benefits form.

happy i agree discrimination is wrong. but faith schools don't discriminate (ie say absolutely no people of other religions) but prioritise (anyone can come to the school but first spaces go to followers of the religion)

imagonna

Had said higher up some parents don't give two hoots but you are right I should have said those parents who care all want a good local school.

I agree entirely there is another issue of the (lack of) aspirations in some kids, most often down to their parents

< counts herself lucky that my poor working class parents saw the value in education as a way to help me & my brother get on in life >

imgonna - sorry, that doesn't help.
So....
what if a school were to not discriminate based on race, but prioritise(anyone can come to the school but first spaces go to white middle class)

Goodness, I guess during the time of slavery in america, it's not really fair to say that Rosa Parks faced discrimination on the bus, just that the first spaces had to go to white people. It was all about prioritising

thanks upandrunning for the sympathy.
we decided, along with many other families to try and make the very best we could out of the school allocated to us.
The advantages are it does have some great teachers who are caring and inspirational. it does have many other families like us who have determined to make the best of things too.
The disadvantages are:
1: it also has a huge number of children/parents who don't give a toss.
2: it is hopelessly short of funds for everything, so is very run down looking and lacking in resources
3) it is almost 3 miles away, and has inadequate public transport nearby which means, as I don't drive, it is nigh on impossible for me to access PTA events to raise funds etc and to support the school. It also means ds can't attend events which take place outside of the school bus timetables

"But faith schools aren't selecting by parental behaviour, they're selecting by faith. They can't help the fact that religious parents generally raise well-behaved children, while non-religious are more of a mixed bag, some well-behaved some not.

I think it makes no sense to be angry about religious people setting up a religious school. The problem is more the non-religious people pretending and going to church just to get kids in."

Not angry about religious schools per se (as I and so many others have said repeatedly on this thread already). Angry about them using state funds but having special privileges to select children, thereby creating an extra layer of division within communities.

In my borough the RC schools have far lower proportions of children eligible for free school meals, children with SENs and children with English as a second language. Don't you think it would be better for the community at large if the children who fall into these groups, and who often need a lot of extra help were able to attend any of the local schools, rather than all being pushed into one or two? Why on earth should they be effectively excluded from any state funded school?

star - difference is race is something you're born with and can't change. Religion is something you choose and can change whenever you want.

Selecting by race is obviously wrong, which is why a Jewish school was recently prevented from refusing a child a place who was a believer but not ethnicly Jewish.

Trying to prevent religious schools selecting religious pupils would be more comparable to forcing the labour party to give equal priority to conservative and lib dems when forming a government

hmmmm, I can think of an answer to that, imgonna but I think it will cause another can of worms to be opened...

I see that religion is something you can change, but still don't see how "prioritising" based on your religious choice is any different than discriminating.

Problem is, it's mostly state funded. Your life choice/religious choice should not be a factor in where your child goes to school that is state funded.

Also, there are a lot of stereotypical views on children who are "non religious" or from a "certain area" on here

I agree with that Zeph. Statistically your average 1st or 2nd generation African family is more likely to attend church than your average white family. And a great many Catholics fall into lower socio-economic groups. I do not believe that any church school aims to keep out working class families or non-white families. They are just as welcome to join the race, and to have a go at meeting the admissions criteria by attending church as anyone else. The simple fact is they are much less likely to bother, because they are less likely to be concerned about the slightly below par reputations of alternative schools, or they are clearly of another faith (Muslim, Hindu etc) and therefore cannot pull off the 'I was lapsed/lost my way but now I'm found' trick.

imgonna - if religion is something you can "choose and can change whenever you want" then presumably you have no issue whatsoever with parents of no faith having their children baptised, and turning up regularly to church in time to get the admission form in". Or Muslim or Hindu parents converting for the same reason? Or Quakers or Methodists?

Is this really your position?

Sorry I've just realised that my last post may have read as 'non-white people are less likely to be concerned with below-par standards.' Not what I meant at all of course, but the sentence was somewhat clumsily constructed! Sorry!

Zephirine - not sure that makes sense. The point I was making is that people can change religion any time they like, so prioritising one religion over another is nothing like racism. That's not the same as saying that I think it's ok to pretend you've changed religion when you haven't.

Well could you explain to me how you just "change religion" genuinely and at will? You just decide to believe? That just isn't how it works. I should know. I've tried.

tbh tho, most faith schools round here are quite tough on that. You need a reference from vicar/minister. You need to attend most weeks for at least a year before first child attends, and if you stop attending after that then subsequent children won't get priority. If a non-believer is prepared to attend church every sunday for about 5 years to get their kids in the school then I think they've probably earned it

In any case religion has as much to do with culture as belief. It is nonsensical to say that a Muslim child, say, is not being discriminated against with regard to entry to an RC school because his or her parents could just "change their religion" if they wanted to.

TiggyR - in the area where I live I think it is actually more simple than that. It's not at all that the RC schools are stuffed full of white middle-class children. But there is a notable (and easily measurable through school meal, SEN and ESFL stats) absence of those children in the community who tend to need greater input from the school. So these children are squeezed into the remaining community schools.