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.

I didn't have much of an opinion on many points discussed here before I joined the discussion, and I still haven't thought about it enough. My knowledge of the history and social implications of faith school isn't deep enough (I am not British and have emigrated here only 10 years ago). I think that you are right about the ability to select, but I still have faith that my kids will get a place because we are a Christian family and if we have the option to do so, we would like our children to go to a school that has a Christian ethos. However, I am saying that with the security that there are many good schools were I live and I would be pleased to send my children to my second or third school choice.

Blueberry, I really hope that your wee ones get into a school that you are happy with. That's all anyone wants, and what everyone deserves!

(But just in case check the criteria in now, because being a committed Christian isn't enough in a lot of places! Round here, your backside needs to be in the pew at least three times a month, for at least two years, before you can ask for a place, and the vicar will want to see you just to make sure you're kosher, so to speak. They have attendance sheets in my local church, and there is a scrum to sign up every week!)

How does the funding go. Presumably each child no matter what religion or faith (or lack of) is entitled to a certain amount of government funding. Then if you choose to send your child to a faith school ,you pay the extra cost involved.

My problem is that I can't understand why anyone would want to send their child to a faith school if they are not of that particular faith.

When I was at school, there was no government funding for church schools. No child of that faith was ever turned away even if they could not afford the fees involved.

Don't be fooled into thinking that all faith based schools have this caring attitude towards everyone, because they don't. My DD has taken her DD out of the faithbased school she herself went to because of the nastiness of other children and the lack of response to this nastiness from the school.

Her DD is now in year 2 just turned 7 and doing brilliantly at local state school. DS starts at same school today.

They have scripture once a week and are taken to Mass on a weekly basis by their parents, so they are not missing out on a religious education.

Gocha Gocha - agree with every word you have written.

And yes it's ironic isn't it re church bums on pews - it isn't even enough to be a Christian who truly believes, you also have to rock up, press the flesh and sign the register at the designated church to prove it.

Coralanne, the part of the funding that is not from the government comes from the faith organisations rather than the individuals. Historically, ie when I was at a C of E VA school , parents were asked for a voluntary contribution to top up. Whether this was a peculiarity of that school or general practice I don't know and whether this is allowed to go on now I don't know. It certainly was nothing to do with the admission of pupils as it only took effect once pupils were already in the school. These are state schools we are discussing, and (please give figures if you have them, they can be found further back in the thread) the funding from faith organisations makes up a small proportion of the total funding. I believe in the region of 10% of caprital funding? There are independent (private) faith schools but their funding is entirely from non government sources and not of relevance to this thread.

Which church schools do you speak of that demanded fees?
And the issue of why anyone would send children to a school if they aren't of the faith? I guess there are a number, stemming from lack of perceived or actual viable alternatives. The issue for this thread is how they would gain admission in the current situation in many (not all) VA faith schools (eg by church attendance or even baptism or other commitment ceremony), because people often do make that choice either because they see it as the best or only choice. Perhaps they believe in local education and their local school is a faith school. (This is why we have chosen dd's school - it is not VA and not topping the league tables. Ofsted have no problem with it but it's not "outstanding" (ie I'll be the judge of how outstanding it is when dd gets there, that "outstanding" is only what 3 "experts" say!) either. If we wanted that we would have had to move house.). To gain admission to the local VA school we would have had to change church, even though not religion and that felt uncomfortable.

I mean also have had to change church

BlueberryPancake, this thread is a huge journey for me too in terms of working out what I think on the issue and I am really grateful for all the contributions to the debate. Despite feeling passionate about it and sometimes too passionate, I'm not fixed and essentially want to reach the best conclusion I can. I am trying not to get too involved in the debate for its own sake although it is stimulating my grey matter at the same time!

Picklepud - thanks from me too for starting the debate on this thread, it's one of those subjects that has been niggling me for ages and I've learned a lot from the many posts here.

It is emotive for us all it seems, which makes the reasoned and thoughtful debate here all the more remarkable and valuable.

Phew! Just finished reading the whole thread. Very interesting stuff. I am very interested in the fairness aspect - and just wanted to put an alternative situation in the mix which has not come up for comment. Maily because the vast majority of the posts are about getting into faith schools not out of them. But my following point is as valid, i feel:

My named area school is a CofE VC school. My DH and I have agreed on the basis of our acute religious differences not to sent DC to any faith related school. (We are totally agreed on the why's and wherefore's,...so not an issue for us)

So.... we need to apply outside our area but because we live MILES from anywhere, we also ironically fail on living too far away from nearest non-fatih school and basically have to live with a policy that effectively says, in a nutshell:

"send DC to local faith related school

(and if you do not like that idea)

you do not live close enough to your nearest non-faith school (7 miles away)or any nearish ones

so,...off you toddle to a school EVEN further away (19.5miles), and toddle yourself without any public transport or school transport passing eight other non fith schools on the way"

Unfairness strikes twice because we are not of the correct persuasion and we are doubly penalsed for having the temerity to live a goodly distance from schooling!

I know it is a highly personal situation but I wanted to say that to be true to our beliefs and decisions and retain our agricultural livlihood we find ourselves excluded from any sort of workable school routine.

I think that catchment areas need to be widened to incorporate both faith and non faith schools. And I say that as a Christian

LittlePushka, I feel for you. We had no realistic choices because we don't go to church, and you have restricted choice because you do! So much for faith schools 'offering parents a choice.' Pah!

It's kind of ironic, isn't it, that those with a real faith are the ones that are often worst served by the system of faith schools?

DH is a committed atheist and I call myself third generation 'unchurched'. No feelings either way. He doesn't like kids being (his words) 'indoctrinated' and wants our kids to be free to explore their spirituality without one faith being favoured. But neither of us is worried much by school RE lessons -- he thinks RE 'inoculated' him. We agnostics and atheists don't mind the soft CofE hymn singing at DS1&2's 'broadly Christian school' but I know that the Jews, Muslims and Hindus among us are less relaxed, in inverse relation to their own religiosity and attachment to their intermingled religious/cultural/ethnic identity (but what choice do they have?).

My objection on their behalf is this: We don't get to choose whether to send our kids to school; it's a legal requirement. Therefore I believe the state has a duty to make sure that our rights to freedom of conscience should be respected.

I believe strongly in secularism -- leaving the public sphere open for people with any faith, and none, to believe and not believe as they wish, and mix freely and equally as citizens, with their beliefs equally respected.

this has been a fab thread

I think I can summarise my thoughts now as follows

I think whatever criteria you use you use then is always unfair on those who just miss out, whether it be by not having their bum on a pew often enough, not being able to afford an expensive house or whatever. The most motivated parents will always buck the system, and the most advantaged can always buy their way out via a private school if all else fails.

In theory different types of school and parental choice is a good thing, but not if exercising that choice is at the cost of disadvantaging others. If all parents had a wide range of good schools to choose from then it wouldn't be an issue, we could all choose the best option for our kids.

What I feel most strongly about is those kids whose parents don't give a toss, they virtually always end up in the worst schools, and so the cycle perpetuates. For their sake at least, we need good schools everywhere. As a society we just shouldn't accept there being any bad schools.

Here, here BetsyBoop!

Faith schools are a part of that problem -- though the threat they pose to religious equality, tolerance, and freedom of conscience is an separate issue in its own right.

BTW somewhere else on this thread it was suggested people with the 'wrong' faith school available should have known about the religious schools and chosen their homes accordingly.

So -- segregated CoE and RC villages, anyone?

Good for your friend, not sure why you should feel sad for her. I suppose it is a bit of a hassle that she has to drive to the school but she has chosen not to be a hypocrite. I went to the supposedly "worst" school in my village as the C of E school wouldn't let me in as a catholic and did very well. It was a fab school, fizzing with energy. It is for everyone to make their own choices.

We didn't even know we'd be starting a family when we moved here, and it never occured to us as an issue, having no idea how overloaded with faith schools our area was.

Pushka, have you tried applying for a travel grant? It is possible for religious people to get LEA travel grants if there isn't a nearby religious school, but I'm not sure if the matter described below has been resolved. This comes from evidence submitted by the BHA to a House of Commons select committe (full details here. As this dates from 2004 hopefully the LEAs will by now realise that it is discriminatory to not provide travel grants if there is no non-religious school available nearby for those who need it. Are your kids already in school? - if not, if you make your case carefully in the light of this, you might find that they mysteriously manage to find places at a closer school.

1. The Act requires (section 6) that public authorities should not discriminate between religions and beliefs, including Humanism and simple unbelief, which both current law and practice do; but it also requires (section 3) that current law be interpreted so as to avoid such discrimination, which in this case would be easy. It is in our view incumbent on the DfES to draw the attention of local education authorities to the implications of the Act rather than leave them to discover and take action on the Act by themselves. References to the Human Rights Act in the circular about pilot schemes under the draft Bill are not enough: the need, and for many years yet, is to avoid unlawful discrimination in the administration of the current law. (For a fuller exposition of the law, see our letter of 17 October 2003.)

9. This is not a theoretical concern.
   A survey we conducted?sent to the Department with our letter of 21 August 2003?showed that two out of three LEAs that responded to a simple questionnaire were arguably in breach of the Human Rights Act, and one in three were definitely discriminating against humanists and conscientious unbelievers by refusing to pay for transport for their children to go to a community school chosen on grounds of conscience and belief in circumstances where they would certainly pay for children of a religious believer to go to a faith school. Evidence given to the Education and Skills Committee on 12 May 2004 by the BHA's Education Officer and the General Secretary of the National Secular Society bore out this contention, and Mr Ian Abbott, a parent, described his personal experience (not yet resolved despite some concessions by Lancashire LEA), which is similar to that of many of the parents who contact the BHA for advice. Evidence by LEAs to the Education Committee for its enquiry on school admissions policy provides further proof of how widespread unlawful practice is.

10. We remain firmly of the view that the DfES should recognise the obligation to issue guidance to LEAs on the interpretation of their obligations to provide school transport in the light of the Human Rights Act. Current practice plainly discriminates against humanists and all who conscientiously reject religious beliefs.

I can't believe people are "entitled" to religious education at a "religious school" under law.... wow.

What does RC stand for? CofE is church of England I assume. Sorry for not knowing as I've said before, I'm coming at this from an outside view.

I can't believe people are "entitled" to religious education at a "religious school" under law.... wow.

Yes, weird isn't it.

RC is Roman Catholic CofE (sometimes CE) as you've deduced.

So, CofE are protestant and RC are catholic
or both are for all christians? (do they care if protestant or catholic/does it matter?)

So, CofE are protestant and RC are catholic
yes
or both are for all christians? (do they care if protestant or catholic/does it matter?)

Each individual school has its own criteria. Typically RC is for RCs, CofE will prioritise CofE families, followed by certain other protestant denominations.

Our nearest primary (walking distance) is not nearest "as the crow flies". So the one the local council see as nearest would be a good 40 minute walk with a 4-year-old. When questioned they said "there must be a footpath through that large field!" The large field they referred to is an airfield for helicopter testing with large security fences! Arrrgh.

Also, surely most UK schools should be C of E as that is our country's religion (I don't mean this in a right wing kind of way). Schools can teach C of E values, hymns in assemblies, and morals, while also teaching other religions and acceptance. Our three nearest schools are all C of E, it hadn't occured to me that this means they wouldn't accomodate those with other religions. Barmy, I think my daughter will have her mind opened by mixing with people with other beliefs.

cider,

your "atheist school" alternative doesn't make sense.

Religious kids who don't get into faith schools will go to state schools that still preach Christianity. That's the law of the land.

My son's at a non-faith school and yup at 6 he still came home announcing that he's a Christian now and prays to Jesus every night. I had absolutely no choice in the matter and trust me it didn't come from me.

Christianity is still privileged by law everywhere in the country so no Christian is every going to be denied a place at a school where they at least pay their statutory lip-service to Christianity. There aren't humanist schools dotting the landscape.

Non-believers have a choice between a hell-fire-and-damnation religious school, a moderate religious school or a watered-down liberal religious school. Sometimes the perceived class benefits outweigh the shift from watered-down to moderate or even to hell-fire. But we're already stuck in your Christian system. I don't share the values of those who lie without being troubled about it but I don't think they are the culprits here.

Christianity is the law of the land?

state schools preach christianity?

Now that DOES seem wrong. I like the way that the curriculum here (even though it being national is a bit to me, still) focuses on teaching about all different cultures and religions. "Preaching" of one in state schools seems quite wrong to me... am I totally off base here? I thought that would be odd, considering some families may be of other faiths or have other strong religious or non religious views... I thought that was something that was not "preached" or "taught" in a state funded school?
I certainly was under strict orders to not even touch religion in a "right/wrong" sort of way or even assume one as mainstream when I taught in the US... but that's a different place.

backtolingle, I think ciders 'atheist school' was totally hypothetical, to try to get religious people to see how vociferously they'd react if that was their only option, and how unfair they'd find it.

As you say though, such a thing doesn't exist. ITA that non-faith state schools ought to be properly secular and merely teach comparitive religion, not be obliged to perform 'collective acts of worship'. But that is a whole different debate which we haven't aired for while - maybe you'd like to start a new thread (I can't find the one seeker started where a huge majority supported secularisation).

Expat - as I said, a different debate, but in short, all state schools are under the requirement to a daily collective act of worship,
wholly or mainly Christian in character

Exceptions are made where the majority of the pupils are of some religion other than christian, I think.

What this amounts to in practice varies from school to school - many will have a nice class assembly with a hymn and prayer tacked on, some will get in the local vicar.

Yes, I know I know, its a bizarre anachronism.

"all state schools are under the requirement to a daily collective act of worship,
wholly or mainly Christian in character"