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.

Strix don't you bother reading posts?

I directed you to my post By ImSoNotTelling Tue 26-Jan-10 15:19:57 about my friend.

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

"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."

NO around here you have to go to church regularly for a set number of years as per the published admissions criteria AND buy an expensive house near the school.

Actually, I largely make the commute specifically becase I wanted my children to go to a C of E school. And there is no local C of E school for us. Do I as a parent not have the same right to choose a C of E school that you have as a parent to choose a non-religeous school?

I can understand people being upset when the only schools around them are CofE and it pushes them 20 miles out to the next village. But, I don't understand when people live in a major city and still have lots of schools to choose from. What is the big deal about a 10 minute car ride to school when most of us drive much more than that to get to work?

Happy - according to this, sadly you're wrong. Schools can apply religious discrimination when hiring.

Yes, ISNT, my point was that it is the big house that keeps poor person out, not the church attendance. So by allowing some places to go to church goers you get a school population comprosed of some local children and some who are there because of their faith. And that seems a fair balance. If you remove the church avenue, you can only get in by buying a big house.

Grimma, that is sad, my friend must be lucky to teach at a particulary enlightened school (or one that has trouble finding enough Catholic staff).

I Primary admission is unfair and faith schools should be abolished. The problem is not often the religion but the buman representatives of that religion. Education is to broaden minds and not narrow them.

Strix, if you've got 2 schools in the community, one secular, one selecting on the basis of parents' religion and you remove that selection criteria, you automatically increase the number child places available in that area.

Apply that across the board and you are surely only increasing the choice for parents to send their children to a good local school, or am I missing something?

Firstly, I do not have lots of schools to choose from.

My DD will not get into any of the schools for religious reasons. She won't get into the community ones for distance reasons. This is despite the fact that I have 3 perfectly good primary schools within wlaking distance. She may well not get a place at all.

Plus if you can't understand why I don't want to drive my daughter to school when there are perfectly good ones within walking distance, why I don't want to add to pollution, why I want to start and end my daughter's day with a nice walk, as I had when I was young, why I don't want to add to the weight of traffic and associated dangers to both adults and children. Why I don;t want my daughter to learn that the way to get places is in a car. then we are never going to understand each other.

That is when it gets political i suppose. I believe in community, in working together to get good outcomes, to look for inclusive solutions to social inequality etc. In children going to school with their neighbours and all of the positive results that implies for community and for safety etc.

"Do I as a parent not have the same right to choose a C of E school"

Because the net result of our selective school system (whether it's selecting on grounds of religion/academic ability or wealth) is that it disadvantages children who are already disadvantaged, and drives them into sub-standard educational 'ghettoes'

In other words - it creates an unequal society. Which is very 'unchristian', don't you think?

And surely your children's spiritual education is the responsibility of you, your child and the church - not of the state?

But, Wubbly, the poor kids who live in nneighboring community and who happen to be the religeon of the religeous school would still have to go to their local crappy school. None of the nice community will apply there of course, leaving the crappy school places for the already disadvantaged kids. But, if religeous disadvantaged kids can apply and get into religieous school in nicer town, then they have a chance to the same education as the kids whose parents could buy more expensive houses.

So, removing religeon as an entrance criteria would widen the division of the classes.

I believe that equal opportunity to education is key to equal opportunity within the nation.

Strix are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

"Yes, ISNT, my point was that it is the big house that keeps poor person out, not the church attendance. So by allowing some places to go to church goers you get a school population comprosed of some local children and some who are there because of their faith. And that seems a fair balance. If you remove the church avenue, you can only get in by buying a big house."

Around here the faith schools mainly have 100% of their places reserved for people who go to church (or synagogue etc). They are all oversubscribed.

So if you want your child to go there, firstly you have to meet the faith criteria. Then, as there are more people who meet that than there are places, they apply a distance criteria.

So you have to "go to church" AND you have to buy an expensive house near the school.

Do you get it now?

Er, Strix

I believe that equal opportunity to education is key to equal opportunity within the nation.

Couldn't agree more. But your argument (a) completely omits disadvantaged kids from non-religious households and (b) its currently much more the middle classes who play the bums on the church pews charade.

Doesn't really work, does it?

ISNT, wind in yer neck.

I understand your point. I disagree with it. There are two components to your entrance crteria. The first is religeon. The second is proximity. As you need a lot of money for a big house to qualify for proximity, it is therefore the proximity which is keeping disadvantaged kids from an equal oppotunity to a good eduacation in your area.

Do you get it now?

The problem here is that "local crappy schools" exist. That is what needs to be sorted out first and foremost. And the number of community places needs to be increased.

This wouldn't work for the church schools though, because if all the community schools were good, and there were plenty of them, they would suddenly lose an awful lot of students, and thus funding.

But there are no schools anywhere without a proximity element to their entrance criteria.

So what are you talking about?

How would you say that students should be selected in oversubscription situations? How do they separate the churchgoing children?

You say "So by allowing some places to go to church goers you get a school population comprosed of some local children and some who are there because of their faith."

How does this work in your area then?

Apart from private schools obviously.

Actually, I think there should be schools of a wide variety of criteria for entrance. Some for proximity, some for chosen religeon, some for academic selection, some for the arts, and probably lods of other categories that escape me just now.

But, if you narrow it down to only proximity, you will end up with a bigger division of classes than you have now. And I think that is a bad thing because it will further inhibit social mobility.

'Ah right PP, so parents who don't go to church on a Sunday have no discipline'

Absolutely not.Saying churchgoers have discipline ISN'T saying no one else has !

I really disagree with that. I think that primary schools should be local, good and give a broad and varied education, to enable children to find out what they like and what they are good at, and to progess and stretch them in all areas.

Leave the belting around all over the place and selection and specialities for secondary schools. I would not like to see primary schools selecting for academic prowess for example, I think children are pressurised enough already. I can picture the poor toddlers having to slave over their numbers and letters and the tutoring and everything it would be simply awful.

Strix, agree with you re all your suggestions of criteria, except for the religious one.

I think as a matter of principle, children shouldn't be discriminated against on religious grounds. As an adult, I would be irate if I was turned down for a job because of my religion. I would be similarly upset if as a user of a service I was turned away because of religion and I don't want that for my children (or anyone else's). Imagine the outcry if some NHS hospitals were only open to Chrisitians. It wouldn't matter if the hospitals were good or bad, no one would agree with this.

Please can you explain to me why this should be any different for children.

Maybe Strix is talking about secondaries, whereas most of the problems with faith schools relate to primaries. All that 'choice' at primary wouldn't make sense at all, you can't tell at 4 a child's academic potential with much accuracy, let alone a propensity for 'arts'. Or for that matter, what faith he or she may espouse when old enough to do so.

YANBU. It is a stupid system. I think that, in a country where we legislate against religious discrimination, it is absurd that a child might be barred from using local facilities because his or her parents don't feign religion.

See, what you are saying about "selecting" a primary school based on some of these attributes being inappropriate, but don't parents in the private sector actively manage to choose schools based on what is important to them, at primary as well as secondary level?

Just shows how important parental ambition is to the success of a school. Parents who will do whatever it takes to get into a church school are wanted by the school because of the input they will continue to give -- they are de facto actively ambitious for their children and it's assumed that will not cease after entry.

I can only imagine that unless they're required for discrimination reasons to accept a certain proportion of different faiths, this is why they prefer families of faith than families of no faith at all. Religious attendance implies structure, routine and acceptance of and compliance with a set of rules. All considered desirable by in a school environment.

ok, here's a thought.
I was raised c of e, my children actually beleive in god, dh and i are, i suppose agnostic. i am a good person, a spiritual person and perectly happy to help my children attend a place of worship etc. But I cannot get involved in organised religion. If you like, we worship rpivately.
We didn't stand a chance at the c of e secondary faith school, despite the dc having gone to the local c of e primary school, as it require a point system which goes soley on parental church attendance.....no chance to speak up for ourselves or anything. Just ''which church do you attend, will the vicar write in support of your application? Date and place of children's chrsitening...''

Not very christian, eh, to punish the children for the sins of their fathers, as it were....?