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.

Why can't it work like that. You decide whether you believe politicians, friends etc. Same with religion. Find out about it, and if you think it's true then you are a christian/muslim/buddhist. change your mind and you're not any more

Zepherine- because you don't actually have to beleive it to jump through the required hoops.

imgonna - that is such a depressingly cynical viewpoint. Parents don't just have to attend church, they have to make baptismal vows. I am amazed if you really think that parents who put the hours in "deserve" a place regardless of whether they have lied about their beliefs in the process.

Imgonnaliveforever - " That's not the same as saying that I think it's ok to pretend you've changed religion when you haven't."

How would you know?

Imgonna - I really don't want to get into a theological debate about this, but you can't "decide" to believe something regardless of whether you feel or know it to be true. Unless you are very very dim or very very cynical.

Mostly you don't have to make vows, you just have to show up. But no, I don't think it's great that people play the system like this, however 5 years is a long time, long enough to become a valued part of church life, and tbh most people wouldn't last 5 years unles they actually started believing in it

The thing that irritates me most is the insistence by some schools that you have to worship at the church associated with the school to qualify for a church place.

So if your school is linked to a happy clappy church and you are a more traditional anglican you are supposed to change to a church you like less to get your children in to a c of e school, or stick with the church you like and risk not getting an education for your child at a church school.

I think if schools are to continue to offer church places they should be for anyone who attends a christian church (whether it be another c of e church, methodist, quaker etc.). There should be a distance limit for church places to stop people driving for miles to take up church places thus denying local non churchgoers places.

Of course you have to make vows. What do you think a baptism is?

oojimaflip - not sure what you mean

mostly you don't have to get baptised, at least not round here. Admissions criteria mentions only attendance

imgonnaliveforever - "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.
"
I don't want to say that - I want to say they can't be educated in their religon at a cost to the state.

100% of children at all the RC schools in my borough are baptised Catholics.

(in fact you have to enclose a copy of the Baptism certificate with the application form, along with the letter from the priest)

Actually I am really amazed that anyone is still trying to defend these admissions policies.

maybe rc different. Anglican round here you just have to attend

Zeph/Imgonna - there is no objective way of distinguishing between parents who have actually changed religion and those who are pretending. So you shouldn't try. All you can base it on is behaviour - i.e showing up on Sunday/and other rituals that are required.

a faith school is just a state school that's said to the state "can we pay a bit of extra money and then focus on our own religion". Don't really see what's so wrong with that. Or why it's ok to select on academic ability (grammar schools), gender (single sex schools) but not faith. all discriminating in one way or another.

No oojamaflip - you shouldn't try to select children on this bizarre and divisive principle in the first place.

Imgonna - a VA faith school is one that has said to the state - "we want the state to pay for all our running costs and at least 90% of our capital costs, but we get to choose which children we educate."

I'm sorry I just don't get this. I teach my child about my religion at home. I want my child to be educated in my religion at school. Don't see how that does anyone else any harm.

every school chooses what children it educates, either by faith, ability, gender, wealth or catchment.

I'mgonna - it is wrong because the presence of that faith school, in that area, selecting who it chooses, is taking the place of (and resources from) a non-selective school which could otherwise be there in its place.

If you abolish faith schools, it won't make standards of other schools any better. And the school that was once a faith school will gradually become no better than the other schools anyway. Who wins? Nobody. Who loses out? People who wanted their child to be educated in their religion.

And yes, no selection criteria will be totally fair to everyone.

But that's not a case for also throwing religion into the selection criteria - how will that ever make it fairer?

I didn't realise we were discussing abolishing faith schools, imgonna. I thought we were discussing admission policies.