Why do faith schools dominate the league tables?

[benetint]

I looked at the league tables for primary schools in my area (nottingham) and I was surprised to see the top few were not schools in affluent areas bur were all catholic schools. Many of them are actually in quite deprived areas. So what is it catholic schools are doing to get such excellent results? Is it that they can be more selective about who they take? Are they just exam factories? Ate they stricter with their kids? Or are they just better in general than secular states?

And are you seriously suggesting that the restricted hours of shops on Sundays is evidence that we're a Christian, non-secular nation? If that were true then they'd have to be closed on a Sunday full stop.... show me in the bible where it says "And God rested on the 7th day, for a few hours but then did a bit more work and closed up early". It's convenience and cultural norms.

merrymouse - thanks for the correction,and maybe another example of why I'm happy to exclude C of E schools from my points above.

Steve - of course Sunday trading is down to cultural norms, but where do you think they came from?

In other,non-Christian countries, shops close on other days.

Thank you B&B, I know what that is... but surely if it's okay for you to throw insults at me and attempt irony and sarcasm, it's also okay for me to address points you've made through doing so, including via rhetorical questions.

faith schools DO cater for a very real demand (hence why they are so over-subscribed).

Faith schools tend not to be oversubscribed if there is a perception that neighbouring non-faith schools aren't 'sink' schools.

Yes exactly, I'm not arguing that this was not ever a Christian nation... it certainly was, but it was also very many other things which it's not anymore... some of those things we've kept as part of traditions also. My point was never that we "were" secular, it's that we are now.

I have just read some of the posts on the thread and can only comment on what was said to me years ago by the HeadMaster at a school my DCs then attended,we where moving out of the area and I enquired about two schools that fell into our new catchment area,one was C.O.E and the other Catholic and the Head told me to put them in the Catholic school as there was never any shortage of funding and that they where more strict in their teaching.My DDs children then went to the same school and four eldest have all passed the 11+ to the best school in the Area and the two little ones will most likely do the same and she lives in what can be discribed as a deprived area,so as long as children get the back up of their parents they can acheive anything they want.Eldest two are now at Uni and middle two will also go in the future.

If you want to send your child to a Catholic or Jewish or whatever school (though not clear why you would wish to given your apparent dislike of religion), you have to do some things,like attend church, synagogue etc just as all the other prospective parents do - but you need not believe a word of it or do anything at home.

This is where it gets a bit silly, surely.

WavingLeaves - you said:

^"breadandbutterfly - I really don't see how a school which a) doesn't discriminate on admissions on the basis of religion and b) doesn't impose any kind of worship on children somehow equals an 'atheist school'.

They wouldn't 'teach' atheism, they would just accept people for who they are for the six hours that they are there, and leave them to worship with their parents outside of school if that is what the family wants to do.

That is surely far more appropriate in a multicultural and multi-religious society? "^

You also said;

^"A child does NOT need religious worship as part of their school day in order to receive a good and fully rounded education. You might prefer that this was the case, but you as their parent can easily include worship as part of their day at home and outside of school.

As with the NHS, there is only so much money available for setting up schools in each area, and it is selfish and impractical for people to expect the state to cater for their own particular religion to the exclusion of others. ^"

I think that is the fundamental misunderstanding on this thread, and one that I appreciate is not easy for the non-religious to understand. Religion is not a list iof facts tio be learned, it is a lifestyle and a set of values to be lived. Coming to that as an adult, or experiencing that for a few hours a week, is better than nothing, but that individual will always have missed out on part of what it means to be part of the religious community.

I appreciate that to those brought up without that sense, without that community, this is very hard to understand. But if you are religious and want your children to benefit from their heritage, then doing it part-time will always be second-best. Hence the popularity of religious schools.

Re the money part, as explained above,faith communitis have paid in MORE - with the exception of C of E schools, faith schools were founded AND funded by faith communities, and still are - my kids' religious instruction is paid for by the parents (in a pretty hefty voluntary contribution) NOT the state. So there is no argument there.

"If you want to send your child to a Catholic or Jewish or whatever school (though not clear why you would wish to given your apparent dislike of religion), you have to do some things,like attend church, synagogue etc just as all the other prospective parents do - but you need not believe a word of it or do anything at home."

breadandbutterfly - can you really not see just HOW absurd that argument is? Why on earth would anyone design or desire such a system?

"I appreciate that to those brought up without that sense, without that community, this is very hard to understand. But if you are religious and want your children to benefit from their heritage, then doing it part-time will always be second-best. Hence the popularity of religious schools."

I appreciate that this is your personal preference, but I would also still argue that it is selfish and impractical for each religion to expect to have such a service provided for them at the taxpayer's expense, when there is only a limited education budget in each area and school places in some areas are in extremely short supply.

I would also argue that where religious schools are popular, this is mostly due to the perception that they are perceived as being better than the neighbouring schools academically, not for religious reasons. And they are often better academically since they operate discriminatory admissions policies which have the overall effect of excluding less 'desirable' intake, again for reasons which have little to do with religion.

merrymouse - thanks for the excellent summary:

"I think there is a fundamental difference of opinion that underpins much of the argument about this. Some people argue that there should be diversity in education, so there should be choice (hence Free Schools).

Others argue that choice in education is a myth, school places aren't like a product on a supermarket shelf where you can expand and contract production according to market fluctuations. Schools need to provide a good standard of education that is suitable for everybody. I think it would be nice if the first argument were true, but the second argument is more in touch with reality."

I think that pretty much sums it up,though I disagree with your conclusions. I think that a combination of greater mobility in the moden world, with the opportunity, through free schools and other means, to redress the problem in areas where the non-religious are at a disadvantage, means that the situation can be resolved, so that EVERYONE who would like their first choice school is able to access it.

I think this is far preferable to a situation where only the non-religious can access their first choice school and everyone else can go hang.

Wavingleaves - you said:

"breadandbutterfly - can you really not see just HOW absurd that argument is? Why on earth would anyone design or desire such a system? "

I agree absolutely. Of course it's absurd, and no-one desires that people fake their religion to gain entry to a school. That is not my preferred or recommended option - as above, it is (a) move or (b) set up another school.

Basically, in a nutshell, seeker and Steve's preferred option is to turn all schools into ones they would like, leaving me with no options I would like.

Clearly,that is a huge improvement from their point of view.

But for the 76% of taxpayers who described themselves as adherents of a religion in the census, it is not very fair, or a reasonable allocation of scarce resources.

Waving leaves - you said -

"I would also argue that where religious schools are popular, this is mostly due to the perception that they are perceived as being better than the neighbouring schools academically, not for religious reasons. And they are often better academically since they operate discriminatory admissions policies which have the overall effect of excluding less 'desirable' intake, again for reasons which have little to do with religion. "

Evidence for either of these claims?

This is where it gets a bit silly, surely.

Agree.

Also, I have some strong beliefs about the place of gay people and women in society. One of the oversubscribed schools in my local area is connected to a church (as in the building, not the denomination) whose views on these matters are rather out of step with the UK population as a whole. The idea that I should attend this church just to get my 4 year old an education within walking distance is a bit archaic, surely?

Surely, the most important factor, is why are these government funded schools allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation at all? It's unbelievable that this is going on. If selection was done on the basis of nationality or skin colour there would be an outcry but it's okay to select by religion!

"But for the 76% of taxpayers who described themselves as adherents of a religion in the census, it is not very fair, or a reasonable allocation of scarce resources."

Since presumably that 76% is made up of different religions (including non-Christian ones), how would you go about making sure that each area provided a suitable school for each religion in each area? Which religions would qualify and which wouldn't? And how would you make sure no places were wasted in each year group?

It simply isn't practical unless they are entirely self-funded (which I have no objection to, although personally I don't think it's healthy to segregate children according to religion).

Steve, if you think that England is not a Christian country, I suggest you go to any Muslim country, to India or Israel etc and play spot the difference.

Just because you see Christian as = British does not mean that that is inevitable. As someone who is not Christian, I am constantly aware of the ways in which Britain IS Christian. If it bothered me, I wouldn't live here - it doesn't.

I'm afraid that faith schools are part of that package, specifically Cof E schools - Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, etc schools are rather reflections of Britain's admirably tolerant attitude towards other faiths.

sammypaws - try to read the thread first...

...then comment.

WavingLeaves, I'm no statistician - I am just about enough of a capitalist to believe that the laws of supply and demand will largely do the job for you. ie people will move to be nearer to schools of their choice and/or set up schools of their choice.

It will never be perfect, and some people will end up going to a school that is not a perfect religious fit,sadly. But at least this way the vast majority will be happy - as I believe they largely are now, contrary to this thread! in the real world, there are no protests against Faith School's, and Steve's Humianist friends do not actually have enough supporters to open a single new school.

ergh - faith schools not school's - excuse unacceptable apostrophe error.

I was having a conversation with a friend very recently when she said something that made me stop and think.

She said that she did not want to take away the choices of others (the choice of a faith school) just because her child could not attend.

She likened it to a toddler who wants to snatch a toy away from another child, or someone having the mentality that ?if I can?t have it, let?s break it?

If all schools were of an excellent standard we generally would not be having the debate (unless you support the Humanist campaign to do away with all faith schools).

B&B then what about France or Switzerland? Or Japan even? Saying go to other countries to spot the difference is a cop-out. All other countries have similarities and differences whether they're secular or religious.

"Steve's Humianist friends do not actually have enough supporters to open a single new school."

In my opinion as already stated, the fact that parents are willing to start following the procedure from before 6 months shows a strong level of interest in their child s education, having attended RC school myself & also my eldest (now 22 with a degree going onto MA) I think they very much focus on discipline & presenting a good front of their pupils behavior wise but another thing to consider is that they will not fully go into the theory of evolution and much of their curriculum has to include religious studies often pushing aside other parts of the curriculum!!!! I have a new one and I'm not too sure if I want to go to a RC school this time round but the league tables can be persuading. I do believe that if parents & child are inclined to want to do well they will in any environment