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?

TheNaughtiestGirl- yes, it does feel like arguing with a toddler somtimes.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - the faith schools that people like seeker or Steve want to access for their children are never the poor, under-subscribed ones, where they could indeed easily get a place. Like Groucho Marx, they are never interested in joining any club that would actually have them as a member.

What this is really about is that they want their child to go to a top-performing school - and why shouldn't they?

As always, they have seen the problem but misunderstood the cure. The problem is poor schools (non-denominational and faith schools - by no meas all faith schools are high performers). The solution is not getting rid of all faith schools (just because they are slightly higher performing on average), but improving the performance of ALL schools, so that all local schools are equally good, and faith schools appeal only to those who actually value the faith element.

I would agree with Steve that 'atheist' or 'Humanist' schools are not what is needed.

To me, it would be as wrong for a teacher to stand up in front of a class and say 'there is no god' as it is for a teacher to stand up in front of a class and state 'Jesus is the son of God' as fact.

Especially since in both cases, your average state primary class is likely to be composed of children from a mixture of religious or non-religious backgrounds.

Steve -why don't you want to open a new school if the current ones you can access are too far away/not good enough?

Is it just laziness ie you think it is easier to just take over an existing successful school? Or lack of support? Or a deep-down hatred of religious types and a desire to kick them where it hurts?

I can't imagine why humanists would choose to be 'against the idea' of creating a new school, and instead choose to carp from the sidelines?

Ah, but WavinGLeaves,that is because you are nice and tolerant - Steve is not like you. He does not want religious people to be allowed to teach their faith.

I don't think people should be able to teach their faith in state schools. Educate children about different faiths yes, but not enforce worship.

Of course anyone is free to do as they choose in their own time with their own money.

And I don't get that just because a school doesn't enforce worship in any form, that somehow atheists have 'got their own way'. It is simply inappropriate in this day and age that schools with a mixed intake are expected to all worship the same god. There are plenty of religious people who agree on that point too.

This argument that people pay taxes and don't want to subsidise other people's choices - if the country functioned like that, that your taxes only paid for what you want, it would all fall apart pretty quickly. For e.g., I pay (a buttload) of taxes, but don't have any children, and hence don't use any of the schools, children's parks and other child related activities. Should I insist that all schools should be closed, or should be open to childless adults, because I pay taxes?

breadandbutterfly - an interesting article here on how faith schools tend to select for the middle classes, which will in turn positively skew their results:

Guardian "Church Schools Shun Poorest Pupils"

From the article:
"A study by Dr Rebecca Allen and Professor Anne West of the Institute of Education and the London School of Economics, published in 2011, showed that middle class parents are more likely to apply to faith schools ? and that the admissions procedures there are easier for them to navigate."

So in short, it isn't that the schools themselves are necessarily better. Any school that is allowed to pick and choose their intake has an advantage, to the cost of other schools in the area.

"He does not want religious people to be allowed to teach their faith."

Abs - that's not really relevant, surely? Would you want to live in a society which doesn't educate its children?

B&B, we don't think there should be "Humanist Schools" we just think there should be "Schools" which don't discriminate. To suggest that, in our endeavour to stop the discrimination of faith schools the optimum course would be to go off and start opening up new schools ourselves is, ludicrous. I personally am not a fan of the customer services of any ISP I've dealt with but I'm not about to go out and set up a communications company as a result of it. Nor would I try to create a bank because of their being issues within the banking industry.

But if you choose to have children, why should someone who doesn't have to pay for their education? (I do obviously believe in state education)
Or (better example), if someone chooses to smoke, I don't smoke, why should I pay for their treatment for smoking related illnesses on the NHS? Or skiing related injuries? I don't ski. Should my tax money be used to pay for somone else's ski related injuries?

What I am saying, is the argument that I don't want my taxes to pay for activity x when I don't do activity x is barking.

bread you've played the religious tolerance card. Are you fine with all religious beliefs, no matter how extreme? If not, why are you so critical of someone who draws the line between tolerable and intolerable in a different place to you?

"What I am saying, is the argument that I don't want my taxes to pay for activity x when I don't do activity x is barking."

Well there are of course thousands of points of debate surrounding individual cases of who is deserving of public funds and who isn't.

To me, what is pertinent about accessing state funded education is that it should be as FAIR as possible for each child who needs to access it. Of course no system is going to be perfectly fair, but adding religious discrimination to the mix isn't going to help across the board. It's also something which wouldn't be allowed in any other state funded service.

I think that the Free School Meal argument is weak to be honest, particularly at primary level.

To claim FSM, no one in the family can be working more than (I think) about 16 hours. If you are a two parent family it is far more likely that at least one of you will be working somewhere approaching full time.

There are likely to be more two parent families in faith schools than in non-faith.

That does not mean that these families are middle class, just that, at least one parent happens to be working.

Generally (perhaps with a few high profile school exceptions) the only admissions criteria for a faith school is that you practise that faith and demonstrate this by attending church. No other hoops to jump, no having to live in a certain area, or be a certain gender, or perform in the 11+.

I really do believe that you do not have to break something that is working well in order to meet the needs of everyone.

We need to concentrate on improving the outcomes of all children at all schools. Otherwise we really don't achieve anything positive at all.

TheNaughtiestGirlInSchool When religion stops infringing on the lives of others who don't want a part of it, then maybe that view would be acceptable, but for the moment when it hinders scientific progress at the risk of life saving medicine and technology, whilst being against equality of race and gender, forcing terminally ill people to suffer against their will by opposing assisted dying, and deciding for themselves what a woman can and cannot do with her own body, I'm afraid the "I can't have it, let's break it" toddler argument isn't going to sit so well.

And that's just a few issues, look more broadly across other doctrine and you'll find that the catholic church is very much responsible mass numbers of deaths in Africa, and continued poverty by preaching that it's not okay to use condoms.

As soon as religions stop interfering in other peoples lives, you can tell Humanists to stop arguing against it!

Iamsteve - that is, without doubt, the biggest load of biggoted claptrap I have every had the misfortune to read on MN. (and I have been around for some time)

But, it does set out very clearly your views, so I will not report your post for the offensive nonesense it is.

Clearly you are not interested in improving the outcomes for all children - you just want another stick to beat those with faith with.

B & B

My point remains valid - you send a child to school to obtain an academic education, you send them to church/ sunday school etc to learn how to pray. Religious affiliation or a perceived/ concocted one should not be used for selection.

I very much doubt that a lot of the children who attend these schools are from truly religious families. Just because historically the cofe and catholic churches have monopolised education in this country does not make it right - we allow women to vote now and no longer exile hungry people to Australia for stealing bread, i.e bad things can change.

As to whether faith schools are better, I believe its just a proxy for parents that are involved in their childrens' education and wish to see them do well so push hard for them, help out in school; the churches just take the credit for what is the parents' hard work. Of course the impetus for the parents being so involved may well be to get their children into the school in the first place - hence lots of free flower arranging etc for the churches.

TheNaughtiestGirl, are you then not willing to explain why that is a) Bigoted, and b) Claptrap?

What, in what I have said is untrue?

By the way, I am not a humanist, a Quaker in fact, but I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.

"There are likely to be more two parent families in faith schools than in non-faith."

If that is true, and if you believe that the child of a two parent family is advantaged in some way, then it illustrates the fact that if a school can select for two parent families then the school itself will be at an advantage.

"There are likely to be more two parent families in faith schools than in non-faith."

*Not saying that a one parent family is dysfunctional but you get my point... two parents aren't better than one if the only reason it's two parents is down to oppression, brainwashing, or cultural pressure.

WavingLeaves - no I was using the point to demonstrate why there may well be poor families in faith schools who happen not to be eligible for FSM.

Iamsteve - you are trying to lump all religions together and at the same time have a particular dig at the Catholic faith.

It is not just (some) Catholics who (for example) have a problem with the use of embryos for research, or to avoid euthanasia. I have plenty of non-religious friends who struggle with accepting that this is a good idea. There is good and bad in all, I would not, for one minute suggest that any religion is perfect. Many of us are trying to change things from the inside. Your tone and insinuation that religion is inherently negative is something that just does not sit right - because it is wrong!
Come and have a look around my church and church community one day to see how much good goes on.

From where I sit you seem to be happy enough for Humanists to interfere with my choices.

Traditional, i.e. politically incorrect, levels of discipline, order and aspirational desire.

Religious institutions are slow to change. So the religious education system has yet to suffer the excremental fate of many a state school that has adopted the left-wing bilge of diversity, inclusivity, blah, blah ,blah... that has resulted in a system that treats deliquent disruptive wasters as some sort of colourful addition to the classroom, whose 'creativity and energy' just needs to be 'encouraged and given direction' and for their 'human rights to be respected'.

What they actually need is to be told to shut up, sit down and listen, lest they be thrown into Dante's Circles of Discplinary Hell, where ultimately the Headmaster lurks on the lowest level waiting to chew their arse into a thousands pieces, unless they stop f'ing around and making a mess of everyone else's classroom education.