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.

agree that admissions policy is a mess; but surely its best for children to attend a school that fits their requirements - so if you are religeous you might want a religeous school. My children are very sporty and useless at art - so its sensible for them to attend the local sports specialist school rather than the art one - its unfortunate that their admissions policy doesn't take this into account though.

">Anybody can get out of bed on a sunday morning and take their kids to church , polish the brasses and bake cakes for the coffee morning.If you can't be arsed and would rather have a lie in then don't whine about the church school not admitting your DC."

My friend went one better than that. She was genuinely religious, went to church before DC, was top of list for priest to call if he needed help, always doing fundraisers etc etc.

Her DC didn't get into the school because they were not quite near enough - many people who had gone to church for teh school lived a bit nearer. She missed it by 2 places.

Her mistake was, of course, not reading the entrance criteria thoroughly and realising that this would happen. She "failed" in her first duty as a north london mum, by not being quite obsessed enough.

So the genuinely religious person has a place at a community school (a crap one, incidentally) while the ones who did it for the school are there.

This system lets people down all around, both religous and otehrwise.

And being "aresed" to go to church is only the start of it round here. You need to do that in conjunction with comprehensive mapping technology including sattelite images, keeping a close eye on how many children the age of your DC are in the running, giving generous "donations" to various institutions and possibly hiring a sniper to eradicate people who live nearer in than you.

OK the last bit is an exaggeration, but not by much, I promise.

Restricting entrance criteria to proximity to the school leads to high house rices near good schools and that leads to crappy schools in less affluent areas. And so you would have a system that provides good schools for rich kids and crappy ones for poor kids.

Do you think separation of the classes is better than having some kids get a place through religeous affiliation? (most C of E school set aside some places for proximity. In our C of E school it is 30% so there are actually a fair number of non-CofE kids at the school)

We get up on a Sunday morning and do something real like fell walking. Believe me it takes a lot more discipline to get a family provisioned and kitted and out in nature than it does to trot off to sing songs in the warm

it's crackers system, round here we have tons of privates and religious schools yet everyone moans about the all welcoming to every creed colour religion comp.

they should all be banned. everyone should go to their local school.

TiggyR - read my wording 'does tend to' not
'the only way'! You missed the point.

"Restricting entrance criteria to proximity to the school leads to high house rices near good schools and that leads to crappy schools in less affluent areas. And so you would have a system that provides good schools for rich kids and crappy ones for poor kids."

Please see my previous post about my religious friend.

In this area you need to go to church/synagogue every 5 minutes AND buy an expensive house.

We have nearly 60% of primary schools which intake on religious entry criteria. I guarantee that the wealthier people still end up at the better schools, and the less well off people end up at the crappier ones. I don't see many children from teh estate trotting into st bungles super-duper catholic school I can tell you.

Yes everyone should go to local school. Better for health, environment, community cohesion, everything.

And if the "pushy" parents werent creamed off to selective schools they would be pulling out all the stops to improve the schools their offspring ended up at.

But, in the current system, a poor person who is so inclined, it is possible to get into St super duper cathilic school.

I'm not saying the current system doesn't encourage separation of the classes. But, if there were no criteria which related to which house you live in then it would be an even bigger separation.

Not to mention the obvious ppoint about this country having a state religeon -- even if the non religeous residents want to claim we are a secular society. I can personally recommend life in the US for separation of Church and State. It is a lovely country.

ISNT you talk a whole lot of sense.

why should everyone go to the local school? Its not so good for my academic child or for my sporting ones - who go/will go to a sports specialist school. The academic results of the local school are slightly better but thats not everything - i want a school that suits my child.

"On your application form they don't ask you to swear the creed or anything."

Astonishing. You do, I believe, have to swear the creed both at the baptism and weekly mass. Is it ok to lie in church, just not on the admission form?

You are not making sense.

Sure, we still have a state religion - but we shouldn't let such historical anomalies shackle us for ever.

"And if the "pushy" parents werent creamed off to selective schools they would be pulling out all the stops to improve the schools their offspring ended up at."

Now what "pushy" parent is going to send their kid to the local crappy school for the benefit of others?

I want my kids to get the best education possible, and that is far more important than a short commute. The local school may be important to you, and that is fine -- for you. It's not my highest priority and that is also fine.

Strix no it isn't, in my area, because the poor person won't be able to afford a house near enough.

Out of interest would those that support allocating school places to children based on their religous affiliation also suggest the same for adults in the workplace?

I suspect that if my employer decided that it would only employ those who were practising Catholics, and had a letter of support from their parish priest, there would be uproar but for some reason this seems acceptable for children. (Obviously an employer would only propose this in order to ensure there was a strong sense of community in the office and to draw together people who could bond due to their common faith, not because it was discrimatory.)

we're allowed to segretate and discriminate on religious grounds for children, nuts isn't it.

Happy, obviously that would be outrageous and completely unacceptable.

Except of course if you are in the teaching profession. I know of a couple of people hereabouts who gave up plans to enter teaching or become TAs because so many of the schools wouldn't have hired them.

"Strix no it isn't, in my area, because the poor person won't be able to afford a house near enough. "

ISNT, you are supporting my argument. It is the proximity criterion and not the religeous one which is keeping the poor kids from an education at the better school.

"Out of interest would those that support allocating school places to children based on their religous affiliation also suggest the same for adults in the workplace?"

Interesting, I was just going to make aprallel point about proximity. What if all the adults go work at whatever place of business is closest to their house irrespective of whether they are qualified for that job, want to do that job, or are happy with the pay. LEt's see, my nearest business is a racecourse. Pity I'm too fat to be a jockey.

Interesting how this is going. Wubbly I want to echo your point about Jesus, only wish I'd been braver earlier. Although strikes me that He would want to be nearest the sinners. Or else He'd say "Give unto Caesar..." and wash his hands of all the secular bits of education. SO perhaps the religious admissions policy should entitle your child to attend free Sunday morning religion classes... ah, that would be Sunday school. That said I wouldn't want to double guess what He would want. And I've stratyed into the other debate about whether faith schools are fundamentally wrong, which isn't what I set out to do and is a whole other AIBU.

It's not to do with sending your child to a crappy school for the benefit of others

It's to do with local children going to local primary schools. That would benefit everyone.

Strix you are obviously someone who would drive for an hour across London to get their child to a school with half a point better results. That is up to you. However I resent having to drive halfway across London myself because of your actions.

People used to go to their local primary. Many studies have shown that what happens at home is as important/more important than school. To get into a selective secondary you need private tutoring, which is again not to do with the school.

My utopia involves all children being able to walk to a decent primary school. Your utopia is different, but there is no need to imply that I do not take my children's education seriously.

Grimma, my understanding (based on conversations with my atheist friend, who teaches at a Catholic school) is that schools cannot discriminate against teachers based on faith, only the children.

Strix, quite agree. If a parent is willing to drive an hour to get their child to school, why shouldn't they have that choice?

Strix, I agree proximity doesn't necessarily equate to fairness either. Following you analogy, admission should be based on selection of suitability of a child for a particular school. Which is meaningless at age 4 - you can't tell yet.

I don't think there really is a fair system except by magically making all schools excellent at everything. But selection according to what supernatural being a parent believes or pretends to believe is - to a rationalist - pretty much incomprehensible.

picklepud, I was a bit wary about bringing Jesus into the debate

I'm fairly sure he wouldn't approve of my standing in a Church and telling lies in order to get what I want.

I'm also fairly sure he'd be happy to teach my son, regardless of my own personal views.

On the otherhand, maybe it's okay to tell lies, so longer as I repent later?