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.

It wont make it fairer, but nor will it make it less fair

but if you remove faith from admissions criteria that's the same as abolishing faith schools

Not the same at all, imgonna. VC faith schools manage OK with admissions criteria set by the LEA.

Indeed, as a lapsed Catholic I went to two faith schools myself - to a C of E primary, and a convent where about half the pupils were non-Catholic.

imgonna, do you also favour prioritising other public services by faith? Maybe Christians should go to the top of NHS waiting lists. The fire brigade could attend house fires for Hindus before agnostics. Perhaps the council could put on an extra rubbish collection for Muslim families.

Or does that all sound a bit silly?

Yes that does sound a bit silly, happysmiley.

Obviously if 10% of the capital costs were paid by the respective religious institutions, it would be completely fine though

Happysmiley - yes the absurdity of the situation is just mind-boggling.

So you turn up at A&E with your leg hanging off and the nurse wants to see your baptism certificate...

The purpose of a faith school is to teach religion to children of that religion, so that would change.

At the end of the day, there's two ways into a faith school: being a religious believer or pretending to be one.

If no one pretended then there'd be just a few genuine believers taking up the first few places, and plenty left for everyone else.

I understand that people are rightly annoyed that they did the honest thing and then saw other people get in by cheating the system. I think the way the world works is that lying, like other wrong behaviour, is often sadly rewarded, and you're right to be annoyed by it.

And sadly there is really no fair way of selecting pupils for a school

happy, of course that would be unfair. Believers and unbelievers benefit equally from NHS services. They do not benefit equally from a religious education

Interesting, imgonna - so do you think VC schools, or those VA schools that include non faith places are not real faith schools then?

Imgonna - sadly there is no really fair way, no.

But I say again, introducing religion into the criteria mix is only ever going to advantage SOME, not make it fairer for EVERYONE.

No they are still faith schools, but it's a bit pointless. What's the point in making a load of non-believers sit through religious instruction they dcon't believe, when there would be believers who would want to do that but don't get the opportunity in their school?

Oh good god, they are CHILDREN imgonna - they are not believers or non-believers. And you would hope that the religious instruction was broad enough to benefit all children regardless of their backgrounds. In my experience it usually is, but perhaps not in your school.

imgonna, the current system makes non-believers sit through religious instruction in which they don't believe (to play the system) while believers don't get the opportunity to go to their local church school.

Read further up the thread to see examples of people who wanted a religous education for their children (because they were religious) but missed out because they didn't meet the entrance criteria. See particularly the case of the vicar's wife that was worried that her kids wouldn't get into the CofE (although as she admits she's lucky in that she's likely to get priority as her husband is a vicar).

get into the CofE school of course, not the CofE

imgonna, if the surgeon always said a quick prayer before he operated would the Christian get greater benefit from the NHS service.

I'm not a religious person, but surely if you wish to send your child to a faith school then you should at least practice the faith?

You could of course, come and live where I do. Our local senior school has just been put into special measures for the second time in 3 years. We live in a rural area and so have no choice but to send our children to this school or hope we might get in to one of the other two comprehensives within a 10 mile radius. We now have to consider whether or not to move to a different area and all because we are being offered sub-standard education for our children.

Okay ? to turn it on its head again, imagine you live in an area where there are only two primaries within an hour?s drive (something you had only been very vaguely aware of before you had kids).

The first is a ?failing? one (for want of a better word) which is not at all popular with any parent who cares about their child?s education. Loads of places available there.

The second is also a state primary, one which has a good reputation, and as such is over-subscribed as it's the only other choice in the local area. The fact that it is the better of two choices means that, by default, its popularity has snowballed in recent years with middle-class parents.

The school?s land and buildings are owned by the family of local gentry who happen to be profound atheists. Although it is a state school, the atheist family get a say in who is selected for their school, and in order to get a guaranteed place, parents have to show up for a couple of years to their weekly atheism seminars and renounce all religion. They put up with doing this because it means their child attends the better school.

Do you see where I?m going with this?

I wonder if things would change if the league tables were adjusted to reflect the children attending - if oversubscribed Faith based schools could only submit the results of children who didn't get in on religious criteria, how would the tables change? Or if SEN children's results were held apart and released at a later date, or calculated differently. If the league tables accurately reflected the type of children being educated at the school, would those which are oversubscribed simply because they can be more picky about who they let in shine quite as hard?

A number of people here have already pointed out that the faith schools most often oversubscribed are the ones which are cherry-picking students. The faith schools which don't have such prescriptive criteria which allows the pushy parents to jump to the front would clearly be able to publish more results. It wouldn't fix the problem, no. Nothing will 'fix' the system to everyone's satisfaction, but it might make the quality of the schools a bit more transparent, and discourage unfair admissions policies which no one seems particularly in favour of; religious or not.

Admissions criteria only come into effect in the event the school is oversubscribed.

This only happens when there are either not enough places at good schools or not enough spaces full stop locally. Whatever criteria you use, some will miss out.

I know I keep going back to the same point, but the vast majority of folks wouldn't give two hoots about faith schools if every child was guaranteed a place at a good local school.

For those that say you can't fake catchment, you can with enough money. I remember seeing on the TV last year about a family who had rented a house in catchment & "moved" there for the required few months of the application period (leaving their own home stood empty) and then "moved" home again, because they were actually living there, had changed their council tax records etc, then legally it was fine (morally another question of course)

The more I think about it, my greater concern is how we get kids with disinterested parents engaged in the education system, and help them develop the aspirtations that their parents aren't. These are the kids that deserve the places at the best schools (whether faith or not) more than any - I don't know how write criteria for that though

imgonna - what choice does a child have over it's religion? None.

Parents may have a choice, but it seems that, in some instances, the choice is to lie or travel miles to another school.

I may not be a believer, but it seems my morals are more in touch with the christian ethos than those parents who attend church a couple of times simply to get a place at the school of their choice.

Cider - this is an excellent point. I have to say, I would not send my child to the school you describe. I would not be happy for my children to attend atheist seminars as part of their school day, as it is the opposite to what I believe. Therefore if I were in this situation I would either seek to move house or I would send them to the failing school and give them all the extra academic support they needed at home. To us genuine believers, the religious education really is that important.

WRT to league tables (if you believe such things, I don't) don't they use the CVA (contextual value added?) score to show how well the school is doing based on what you'd expect from that type of intake?

The same arguments apply to good community schools, they only let in the parents who can afford the nice posh expensive houses round the school, typically middle class professional people...

"Parents may have a choice, but it seems that, in some instances, the choice is to lie or travel miles to another school."

This is absolutely true. But is that the fault of the faith school for its admissions or the fault of the other schools for not being up to scratch?

imgonna, no, not in my case, the nearest school, the only one within walking distance, where all DS friends go is a faith school.

My preference has nothing to do with the other schools performance, their results are actually better. I do want DS to go to school with his friends and neighbours and I don't want to have to drive. It is precisely their admittance policy that makes that choice unlikely.