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?

is it most though aloha. That's my point really. When we lived in Bromley you had to be a church goer and live within 6 inches of the school gates to be gauranteed places at the school gates. But all the schools in Bromley were slective. Secondarys in terms of ability and non church ones in terms of postcodes (and there were big differences in standards according to how expensive your house was). Here its just not like that- I would be interested to know how it does divide up across the country. Many many rural schools are c of e and they generally select on distance. I wouldn't be surprised if mpost c of e schools are not selecting on religion (it will be different for RC and jewish etc, but the numbers of those are far less anyway- not enough of them to make a difference).

I would agree with you if I thought it was a huge problem everywhere, but I think the reality is that in most places church schools function as originally intended- they provide education for the community. At aa time when no-one was interested in educating the masses the church started to do that- so effectively its a bit of a legacy.

The areas where it does become unfair are areas where all school selection seems unfair. I don't think church schools are the problem. lack of places and real choice is.

not school gates- church schools- its late I've had too many bits of shattered glass to clear up today but you know what I meant.

To be honest with regards ds1 it wouldn't really matter what religion a school followed. I'd love to see them trying to teach religion to him They could PECS it out. Maybe not.......

I agree jimjams, it's not discrimination - it's diversity as long as there is a good choice of schools Closing church schools isn't going to improve the choice.Would it make the state schools any better. That's debatable. Even if you argue that all those committed church school parents and their offstring will then be a positive boost in state schools, haven't we already argued earlier in this thread that parents cannot wave a magic wand over a failing school?

I wouldn't want all schools to be exactly the same, anyway. And would most schools and parents want that too? When you look at a school propectus, they always bang on about the special ethos of the school, even if the school is non religious, and government awards recognise that certain schools are centres of excellence in certain subjects.

Incidently, in my bit of london, where school standards are not the highest (especially at secondary level) I had the choice of a good state primary. It does not have a huge waiting list - it is in a very poor area of the borough so the postcode lottery argument does not apply either. It is within a 25 minute walk of our house, just like the church school my son attends. It is vibrant, improving fast, with a good head teacher, great ofsted reports, high position in the league tables, etc etc. It's not just my son's church school that is the 'good' school around here. When I look at the league tables for primary schools, it is true that some church schools are near the top, but also, others are right at the bottom.

going back to discrimnation being 'wrong' in school if it's 'wrong' in the workplace. I agree with the 'having a choice' and 'not having to prove your religion' arguments that jimjams has put forward.

Also, I do think there is a difference in how you view selection criteria for a school and for a job.

A school is there to care for and help a child. That is its primary function. The child is not responsible for the school's success. That is not why the child is at school. The school offers a service to the child. It is saying, we will help your child in this way, this is the approach we follow in teaching and helping your child grow into adulthood, this is how we will care for your child. We have adopted this particular approach and these methods because of our beliefs - religious, non religioius, steiner. We put great emphasis on (insert at will) sport, music, celebrating 'x' religion, celebrating religioius diversity, community links, etc etc etc becuse we feel this particularly benefits our pupils. This is what we believe will help your child.

When you apply for a job, you are offering your services, not the other way round. You expect to be paid and work in good conditions, but your employer's main task is not to nurture you. Your employer looks at what you can offer them. Selection for a job is on different grounds entirely to selection for a school. Religious beliefs do not matter in a practical sense - since when has your religon or lack of one contibuted to a company's financial success? So I agree it would be wrong (usually) for a company to only employ people who held certain beliefs, because it is not relevant to how well they do their job. All companies operate other selection procedures though - experience, qualifications etc - that are more relevant for them. That's a given fact. So should companies scrub all their selection procedures if schools scrub theirs?

Aloha, I wasn't going to join in this thread today - but I do understand what you are saying - how come it is right to discriminate against a child by not letting them attend a faith school when it is not allowed in the work place -
My response to that has beenNB: unfortunatly I can only talk about catholic schools)

1. You are not discriminated against in my local catholic school - you can join the waiting list and if a spare place arises it is yours (not that you'd want it anyway )
2. How can that be discrimination when if you want to attend a school out of your postal location the same rule applies - go on the waiting list and if a place arises it is yours! If discrimination occurs in the former then it alos applies to the latter - discrimination by postal area.
3. I supose I just beleive in freedom of choice in education - whatever education you might want for your children and I get pissed off that choice is limited by income ( ie the less income you have the more your choice is limited!).
4. I agree that the state shouldn't fund religion - but don't go along with scrapping statefunding totally for faith schools as I can only see that will reduce the number of schools and thus reduce parent choice (be it limited to religion).
5. I see a "carpet" state school option just reducing choice and not benefitting the system and making the schools any better. There are some fantastic state schools but it appears to be postcode that dictates your eligability. 1 What i started out to say yesterday but addmitidly got sidetracked was that to improve education FOR ALL one tack maybe to investiagte the perceived notion of why it is that faith schools are perceived to do better.(Note tigermoth that some faith schools are down the bottom - I've noticed that too!) I hope you take the time to read all of this....and thatwe can agree to disagree but still chat on mumsnett ps: need to get some work done today!!

sad face not ment to be there....

people who go the school are CHILDREN and go there to learn about life, the world, people, history, culture and so on. Religion is a part of that whether you like it or not.People who go to work are ADULTS and go there to earn money. They've completed their learning. Let's not get carried away with a simplistic and specious argument which suggests school and the workplace are exactly the same. How could they be? it's ridiculous and risible!a six year old kid being compared with a 30 something earning adult - what planet???? as I keep saying, if people don't believe or have a religion, fine, but don't discriminate against me and my family by saying we should be deprived of religious schools.

another point - people have been saying one 'chooses' one's religion in the same way as one chooses what to wear or what to eat for lunch that day. This is wrong and also reflects a deep ignorance as to what religion means to people and how it forms part of their life.For me it is not a choice - I believe in God and know it is my duty to try ( not necessarily succeed!)and be a good Christian and also be vocal about my beliefs when I can. Please don't think that it's as trivial and superficial as deciding whether or not to wear lipstick one day or making the choice between tea or coffee.There is no choice for most people who follow a faith, it is more like a calling or at least a very deeply rooted spiritual impulse.Some people on this board are very vocal about being anti-racist etc but couldn't care less about insultying and abusing people's religious beliefs. How very trendy.And stupid.

My kids go to our local catholic school because we are in the catchment and we are catholic. today they are having a dress as you like day to raise money for a playgroup they support in the phillipeans. My friends kids go to a fee paying school - I was recently asked to buy a ticket for a "charity " draw to raise money for playground equipment for that school.
I think this demonstrates the "ethos" of each school - and why we choose the catholic school- we agree with it's values.

oh carriemac, my child's private schools raises lots of money for charities as well as school equipment, etc. Good values are not the prerogative of catholic schools.

Donnie, funnily enough, I think you will find it is religious posters who have been mainly talking about 'choosing' religion. I have said several times on this thread that I could not choose to believe in God any more than I could choose to believe in Thor, ghosts, Tarot reading or David Icke's big lizards. I do not believe in the supernatural and cannot 'make' myself do so. It seems to me irrefutable that that every extension of 'choice' by funding sectarian schools is a limitation of choice for those who do not believe in religion. Religious people would be horrified to find themselves banned from non-religious state schools soley on the grounds of their religion, I imagine (as I would be myself btw). I am equally horrified that those of different religions and none are banned from quite a number of state schools.
At present religious people have MORE choice of school than atheists. I can see why it would be threatening to lose that position of superiority but it is hardly discriminating against any group for them to have the same choices as anyone else. I am arguing for equality, instead of special treatment either for or against anyone on religious grounds.
Re why religious chools 'do better'. I am convinced it is because by their very nature they are able to cherry pick their pupils. I think we all agree that the kind of pupils that fail to pass any exams/disrupt the classrooms/abuse teachers et al are very unlikely to come from families that are organised enough to get the whole family together on Sunday morning, let alone make it to church regularly, either for reasons of a deeply held faith or because they are committed enough to their kid's education to get there every week despite not believing in any of it. The children of these chaotic, irresponsible parents are certainly not going to pass interviews about religion either!
These families are therefore by their very nature not going end up with their kids in selective religious schools. They will end up in other schools, probably to a disproportionate degree. I think that this is probably where religious schools score. I think if schools could select children who played a musical instrument or were in the Scouts/Brownies that would similarly weed out the disruptive and chaotic pupils that teachers and other parents dread.

I also totally reject the idea that I - or anyone else - have been particularly critical of RC schools with the obvious inference of prejudice. This is not about particular religions. I am talking about discrimination against children of any religion or none. I also don't condemn parents who take advantage of the system. It's the system I don't like. I have friends who have kids in religious schools - both those who have 'faked it' and those who are genuinely religious. I wouldn't have this debate with them, admittedly, because we'd probably get very pissed off with each other, but that is the big difference between RL and Mumsnet. Religious schools are here to stay - Blair is going to make sure there are more of them - which will make some of you happy and me a bit sad.

Cam, my stepdaughter's private school similarly raises money for cancer research and numerous other charities. So do the non-religious state schools.

Aloha - I don't disagree with anything you have said in your last post. There should be more state funded choice for everybody not just religious denominations. FWIW:Although we disagreed I never thought that you were "critical of RC schools with the obvious inference of predudice" - and I hope that you didn't think I did

Why is it necessary for reading, maths, chemistry, P.E etc to be taught in a religious context?
To my mind, the answer is for ALL schools to be improved to a standard which is acceptable at the very least, and then for NO state funded school to use their funding to support time and resources spent in practicing any one religion. No religious assemblies etc, but INFORMATION about different religions to be taught alongside a range of philosophical beliefs and value systems, from Druidism to Thor.
I would not consider sending my child to a school which included practicing a particular religion because if we were offereing conflicting views at home, it would possibly undermine the credibility of the rest of the education he was getting there.

It's bad enough having to deal with my nephew, who aged 7 and in a rural CofE village school (no other choice)tells me that our son can't be ours because we aren't married and babies are given by god to people when they get married!

donnie- - who has been "insultying and abusing people's religious beliefs"? I actually think this has been a really interesting thread with intelligent argument.

I'm not saying that private and state schools dont raise money for charity, its just the fact that someone would ask me to buy a ticket to raise money for equipment for a fee paying school a bit off.
Our RC school has a policy of not raising money "outside" school if the aim is solely to benefit the school

Blu- all state schools whether church or not have to have an assembly which is christian. And according to ofsted every child has to attend assmebly (according to the TES the school can fail its ofsted if they don't- which means that my son's faith school breaks the rules as my son doesn't attend and nor do some of the children of other faiths- the parents have asked that they don't attend). You won't escape religion by sending your child to a non church school.

Sonnet, thanks for your message! As it happens I do have very good friends who are Catholic - my oldest friend (30 years!) is Catholic by upbringing if not in practise, and another friend is a practising Catholic with her kids in a Catholic primary. I like them both as people, and, as I said, I probably wouldn't have this discussion with them.
I don't want to argue any more with people I like. I am all in favour of a secular state but I know that is, at present, a mere pipedream!

Most private schools rely heavily on fundraising to buy equipment or to upgrade equipment as they get nothing from the state (obviously) and most of the fees pay the teacher's salaries in order to have lots of teachers for small classes and specialist teachers for subjects like PE, French, Science, etc.
I find the concept of a totally secular state very scary (sounds like communist/totalitarian).
Am I wrong in thinking that RC schools are given money by the RC church and therefore can afford to have smaller classes, etc?

jimJams: I know! That's why if I ran the world it would be different! I have no negative feelings at all about people's involvement in their religion, (I wouldn't get far in my immediate blood family if did, DS's grandparents are Hindu, Muslim, Methodist and athiest, his cousins include Jewish and Japanese Zen Buddhist). By the state insisting on an act of Xian worship, it immediately sets up discrimination, and a platform for segregation, exclusion, and the necessity for a full range of faith schools. I also think it is inappropriate for state education funds to be used to conduct religious worship. When I become Minister for Education (sic) schools will enable provision for religious sessions run by visiting mullahs, clerics, shamans or whatever during the lunch hour or as after school clubs, but compulsory acts of worship will not take place during curriculum time. Schools round us are so very multi-fith/cultural that most heads recognise the ofsted requirement is ludicrous and would involve the school and pupils in considerable hypocrisy, so interpret the rule very liberally indeed.

What would be the pros and cons of a voucher system, a bit like for nurseries: if you don't take up a place in a state school you could have a voucher to use in a faith or private school? (rather than faith schools being state funded)

When I taught in an inner london school which was Cof E but very much mixed it used to make me cringe when the local vicar used to come and talk to the kids to give them guidance. The class was full of sikhs, Muslims etc. I taught RE o this was unavoidable. Every teachers meeting started with a prayer and you certainly didnt have to be Christian to work there either. I didnt see the point of joining in the prayer not for any not being religious reasons but because I was at work! btw didnt chose to be there, was a placement.

What's totalitarian about a secular state? People would be free to go to church, have their beliefs, celebrate any festivals they wanted, there just wouldn't be any religion in schools just as there isn't in the workplace, Bishops would have no place in our law making and the head of state would not also be the head of the Church - in fact there wouldn't be a 'top' official faith. I cannnot see why that is scary. There are plenty of democratic countries which do not impose religion on their citizens, while freely allowing religion in a private capacity.

Cam, why do you find the idea of a totally secular state scary? It wouldn't be totalitarian, because religion wouldn't be BANNED, religiion would flourish amongst it's various followers in freedom..and would ths cause less friction. We non-religious people can be spiritual, ethical, moral, kind, and charitable too, you know! My only argument is that ONE religion, in fact one particular version of one religion, is built into our constitution, and filters into the legal requirement for a compulsory act of Christian worship in schools.