We haven't had a state vs private debate for a while! What did you think of the Fiona Millar programme on schools?

[WideWebWitch]

Well?

I would say deceitful myself

No I didn't mean it was snobbish. Unfortunately ML there seem to be quite a lot of people who only attend the church to get their kids into the RC school, just like some young couples only attend church so they can get married there. Nothing to do with genuinely following a particular religion and everything to do with exclusive and discriminatory nature of Catholic schools. My DH is Catholic (non-practicing) and I am non-religious, although Protestant by birth. Ds and Baby No2 will attend a non-religious school and will not be introduced to this religious divide by us..... unfortunately they will soon be well aware of it as the 1st example they will see in the big wide world is segregation in infant schools!

Going back to the idea of fitting the education to the child (ie vocational) there were 2 schemes mentioned on the radio last week that seemed v.sensible and succesful. One was a school with a large number of fairground children, dissapearing for months/uninterested in school/leaving at 14. They introduiced a welding course. One day a week and parents/students had to comply with basic rules ie keep up with homework whilst away/attend school when there. Kids learned a really useful skill they could use on fairground and for casual winter work, stayed at school and became literate. Other one was a school in Cardiff, high unemployment but large hospitality industry. School runs catering GCSE with its own restaurant, they see the since in getting a qualification with a practical use. Neither of these really costs much, just needs imagination

well. I finally watched the fiona Millar programme and thought it was inaccurate and very selective in what it said.AND IT WAS WRONG! She banged on about the wonders of Acland Burghley and how Highbury Grove has 'improved '( both Islington secondary schools). I actually did a block of teaching practice at Highbury Grove, plus my brother, poor bastard, went there, and it is a majorly dangerous place to be. Female staff are advised not to walk down corridors alone and there are real gang/drug/violence problems there. I vividly recall observing a year 8 lesson which descended into a huge class fight and the teacher and I had to get help. Why did Ms Millar not mention these little facts? And Acland Burghley is definitely NOT all that.If she really thinks that making some pathetic and ultimately meaningless gesture in sending middle class kids to these places is somehow going to transform them in to caring sharing academic hotbeds of excellence then she ought to be put out to pasture right now. What a load of old bollocks. And another beef I have: if her mate Tony gets rid of all the private schools and thereby makes redundant all those teachers, will he fund the building of all those new schools we'll need ? and pay all those extra teachers?

Miggy - That sounds like a wonderful idea. And far more useful and practical an education than algebra and calculus and interpreting poetry. I'm not knocking all those things BTW!! I just don't see their place in the core subjects we must all learn.

But Aloha- what about those faith schools that aren't making any selection on religion. I don't know how it divides out across the country but I personally know more faith schools that don't select on religion than those that do. Do you still have a problem with those?

M2T: Whilst I follow your arguement on selection and religion - I assume that your arguement stands for Jewish, Muslim, Cof E etc? - surely the whole school issue is based on selection and discrimination anyway
Indpendent/private schools - discriminate aginst children who do not come from a wealthy background
"Faith" schools discriminate against all those not of the same faith.
The rest of them discriminate against children dependent on where their postcode is.

I don't condone what your relatives have done - it is exactly the same as lying your way into any "good" school in the area dependent on where you live, give false addresses etc - and we all know that this goes on.
In an "ideal world" we would all have access to excellent schools that did not discriminate on religion, wealth or postcode

Perhaps I have given the wrong impression of my SIL. She IS Catholic and her children were baptised. But as a V busy woman she would not be going to church every Sunday had it not been necessary for her children to be allowed into the local RC school.
Fair enough Sonnet, all discriminate in their own way, but to have religion FORCED upon a child to so they can attend a segregrated school is just not right. I can only talk about my area and my own experience and it is not the case that the RC schools are more convenient or 'better'. They are all within an 8 mile raduis of each other. These children attend the RC school as that is the way their parents want it to be. In and around certain areas in the Central Belt of Scotland it has very little to do with religion and everything to do with the Sectarian divide.

I understand that things aren't as clear-cut in Scotland But if she chose to have her children baptised then she did want them to be catholics in the first place - maybe as they got older and needed to make first holy communion she would have attended church anyway.
I am a catholic, had my children baptised as catholics but have not attended church for years until recently. Even though I was non-practising it was impt to me for my children to be baptised as catholics. I have recently started to attend as my elder DD is the age for holy communion - maybe I am forcing religion on my child but I baptised her in the faith therefore I beleive that I should carry on that way.
School choice didn't come into it as it was too far away and inthe opposite direction to my work!!
Maybe i would have attended to get them into a catholic school - IMO it is less immoral than giving a false address.
Sorry M2T I understand that things aren't as clear cut in Scotland

oh what a lot to catch up with. I am with bk and jimjams - I wouldn't find selective criteria a problem as long as parents have a real choice of schools - and if you want to add political selection to that, you can.

Talking personally, I wouldn't consider sending my sons to any school with a rigid selection criteria based on parents beliefs and commitment - athiest, christian, tory, labour. But as long as a good choice of schools exist, I don't object to more rigid schools existing.

I do not want to push my beliefs down my sons throats and would not want them to have a narrow view of the world. However, if any school said we broadly follow beliefs a, b, and c, which as you know are beliefs of 'x' relgion or political group, if those broad beliefs fitted my broad beliefs I'd have no problems choosing the school. I have a mental list of things that are important to me about a school, and just seek a school that matches them. Simple as that really.

I freely admit my sons' education is at the mercy of my and dh's beliefs. That's a given fact. If we believe it's important to have a good holiday each year and a new car, then we won't be able to afford to educate them privately, no matter how much they winge on about it and work their socks off. If we believe football is a boring waste of a Saturday afternoon, then they won't be having football coaching. If we believe they must excel at a musical instrument, then they will be made to learn the piano. It's not fair, but children do not rule the world.

aloha, I am fascinated by your comment, and genuinely interested by a view almost the opposite of my own to religion. It's a shame this isn't the right thread to go into this one further. DP would agree with you almost wholeheartedly on this one, so we are trying to give ds the best chance possible to make his own choice between mummy & daddy's views as well as everyone else's views. It is challenging, and very interesting. We are adament that he will be able to make an informed but open choice, and so he will decide for himself whether to be christened. Anyway, I've totally sidetracked this debate now - I was just really interested by what you said!

Sonnet - My Sister in Law lives in Liverpool. And she had the baptised Catholic as it's the 'done thing' as do loads of people I know.

i know lots of families ( am related by marriage to most!) who christen theri kids just for the piss up and celebration of making their kids feel special - nowt to do with religeon at all.

we have all argued this many times. so again i will say please remember the issue of choice here. when it comes to money i have no choice i send my child to a school i can afford - becuase i have no choice. i sent my child to a catholic school becuase i do have a choice.

discrimination is about choice my children have not the options many have and will work harder and have a harder life becuase they were born poorer - no doubt. this is why decent education should be afforded to ALL - not just those who can pay for it.

another point is this - children do not chose religeon as a rule, their parents chose. you parents all chose for you and when you became adults i bet most of you who came from a religeous background thought - feck it i cant be arsed with that palava every sunday - i can go to the garden centre. so the brain washing argument bit doesnt wash with me as it is far far far easier to be non religeous than religeous. that being said becasue of my faith belief and small affordable ( whatever your income) contributions i can send my children to catholic schools - here they will have the best education i can get for them - and STILL they will have to fight to have decent lives.

choice
adults/parents chose their religeon, no doubt you have the choice NOT to believe and therefore negate the possibility of your children attending the local religeous school.

i have no choice on not being able to afford public school education. i work hard everyday. i have sacrificed loads - violins play automatically when i walk down the street - but i cant afford it. i do not have the choice

its choice which is the issue here

agree custardo - you can freely choose to believe or not to believe, you can't freely choose to be poor or rich.

Also let's say I was rich enough to afford private education, but chose to believe private education was wrong. Because of my chosen beliefs, I didn't send my child to a good private school. I sent them instead to the local, underperforming comprehensive. So my children's education is directly affected by my beliefs. Is this as 'wrong' as a C of E committed parent choosing to send their child to a C of E school?

happy belated b day tiger moth - forgot sorry!

Tigermoth - I don't think it's "wrong" at all, I'm afraid. I know that will put me in a minority on this thread, but hey ho.

Jimjams, yes I do oppose all sectarian schools - even if they are not segregated - though obviously they are less immoral than the ones that do openly discriminate (my argument here is that it is the schools that are immoral, not the parents btw). My view is if the church wants to run schools it should pay for them - not use taxpayers money for propaganda purposes.
What I cannot understand is why they are legal. It would be totally illegal to refuse me a job becauese of my religion or lack of it, or to refuse me medical treatment in a hospital because of my religion or lack of it, so why is it OK to refuse to educate my child because of my religion or lack of it?

Actually, and this isn't the point of my argument at all, I don't feel I have a choice about whether to believe or not. I cannot believe in something I genuinely and honestly believe is utter nonsense - not more than I can 'make' myself believe in fairies, Thor or David Icke's giant lizards.

Suppose businesses only employed Catholic staff or actively rejected Catholic staff - surely we'd all agree that was wrong, morally (as well as legally btw). Or would that be Ok provided there was a similar busines that only employed Protestant staff or Muslim or Hindu etc etc etc. WHY is it not OK to discriminate against adults on the grounds of religion/race but OK to do the same with little kids?

you could go to lessons aloha, explore diferent reigeons. but whether you fel this is open to you or not - is indeed a choice - whether you like it or not.

in this country we are so very very lucky to be able to practice religeon without the threat of being raped tortured or killed for it - its definatley a choice.

now if public schools decided only to allow someone in only because they were on income support - and all the other rich people could whistle and their kids go to state school and it was the law that rich people couldnt build more exculsive schools. would this be discrimination based on income?

I know a lot about religion Custardo, and the more I know, the less I like it, I'm afraid. However, I am perfectly happy for anyone who wants to to go to church, to follow religious rituals at home etc etc. But I fail to see why our state schools, funded out of taxation, should be sectarian and discriminatory.
Re private schools, while I won't be using this sector, it is IMO a totally different issue. It's not provided out of taxation for a start, and it is to me more akin to anything that you can't have because you can't pay for it, be it designer clothes or out of season vegetables. Gucci aren't discriminating against me because I can't afford it - I think we'd all agree that it would be different if Gucci had an active door policy that asked people their religion and refused, say Jews or Catholics admission.
Custardo, suppose a local business refused to employ Catholics, would that be OK?

but what about private school's charitable status aloha? Aren't they indirectly taking money out the system? (I'm don't particularly follow this arguement byt the way- just playing devil's advocate). I still don't see what the problem with faith school's is providing there is a choice.

Maybe I come into this arguement from a slightly different angle. When I chose a school for my son I wanted one that would be able to cope with him, as otherwise I knew I would be home educating after the first half term. I didn't think for a moment our local school would manage him, or would even want him there to be honest. So I looked around for other schools- I didn't even know that the school he is going to was a faith school. We weren't asked about our religion, we weren't asked if we were churchgoers. No attempt was made to exclude us in terms of religion (or diasbility for that matter- and a few of the schools I rang did they say they wouldn;t be able to have him- even though that contravenes the dda, or they said they were full - which doesn't matter as he has a statement- but still). I can't see the problem. If schools are excluding in terms of faith then the problem lies with their not being enough schools to go round- and I would still rather a school was excluding in terms of faith than money. That seems the unfairest thing going to me.

I think some jobs do exclude on faith- some charity work performed by the churches for example. TBH I don't have a problem with it. Unless it was producing divisions in society (eg all christians are automatically higher up the social hierarchy) but in today's britain society isn't like that.

In fact in UK society today I would say the biggest division in society is from money- and that's why I have less problem with faith school selection than selection by house prices.

But M2T I don't underestand what your gripe is they chose to become catholics- that is their choice - religion is a choice. So why is it unfair they get to choose to attend a catholic school??.
Income/postcode is (largly)not a choice - so school selection based on that critieria (which is what happens) is unfair and discriminatory.

i think being able to afford guccie sunglasses is a bit different from an education system which will impact on my childrens life.

and as you have researched religeon and do not like it - you have therefore made a choice.

this is therefore different from someone excluding me from applying for a job becuase of my religeon - which in turn is different from the debate on public schools. in fact i cannot quite see how that analogy equates to anything really!

*when i talk of religeon i am talking about england as in ireland and scotland the divide is indeed sectarian and even though jobs are not supposed to be discriminated on by religeon thye can often tell what religeon you come from by the name of your school or your given name. this discrimination is indeed wrong and does happen

exactly sonnet- and as having money or not is the biggest divide in todays society surely postcode selection is more divisive.