Attending Church, purely to get to a certain school

[sleepydad3000]

They're aren't many things I feel so strongly about, but this issue is one of them. I am currently looking at schools for my daughter. I am a non religious person and my partner is a none practising Catholic, doesn't go to church at all anymore.

I personally think it's wrong on a moral level to exploit a church for 6 months or however long, just to get your child to a certain school. It's almost like, "Oh hi, yes thankyou, I've got what I needed, you'll never see me again!"

2 schools near me are both decent, 1 outstanding and 1 good (Ofsted ratings) interestingly enough, the NON Catholic school has the higher mark as of 2017.... just saying. Both schools are great in my view, religion aside. But I'd feel awful and wrong and like I was cheating or manipulating the system, just to get my girl to a certain school, and then waving bye bye to the church after, as I know for a fact, my partner and I have no intention of going to church afterwards.

I doubt the catholic school would be the right choice as every day is filled with religion in some form.

Not the worst thing to do however. Seeing what some of it's members have done and still feel they are part of the church.

Also the priests aren't daft. They may not sign your paper as you and a hundred other parents will suddenly be rocking up to church for six months for that very same reason.

I'd feel it was morally wrong (and most of all I'd struggle to explain and justify it to my child). BUT I also think it's morally wrong for the Church to be able to impose those conditions on school places, so depending on the specifics of local schools/catchments/whatever I think it can be perfectly defensible to respond by manipulating their rules.

And I say that as a practising Christian (not RC), who wouldn't want her DC in a church school anyway...

I would not be taking my child to church to get a school place, but I have no qualms about anyone ‘exploiting’ the school.

The running costs are paid by the state, from your taxes, just like any other state school.

The criteria are clear and state church attendance (usually two years round here). Attendance is attendance. If you meet the criteria you meet the criteria. And many CoE churches are desperate for the head count.

And wouldn’t a genuinely Christian church welcome new attendees in the hope that they might actually become genuine members?

I personally wouldn’t do it because I wouldn’t want an enhanced religious context in school for my Dc.

I also wouldn’t perform the lie of the promises you would have to make at the baptism - that would be an outright lie.

But simple attendance to get a place in a state funded school? Each to their own.

Most VA schools (ie those who pre-date the new ones of the Blair years) are church schools which are currently operating in cooperation with the state sector (because they also pre-date the founding of state education).

They are not state schools school are allowed to be religious. And they are not government-owned.

If the required attendance period is as unusually short as 6 months, and baptism is not required, then yes, this particuiar school might attract hypocrites.

And of course some faith schools are much swerved, because even though the stereotype is of leafy success, they are not all like that. RC schools are more ethnically diverse than the norm, and the proportion of schools with high markers of family deprivation is in line with the national norm. CofE are of course so numerous that thy are formative of the norm.

And of course, it's because they are numerous that no government (even when we thought we were rich) has felt able to afford to buy out the churches (the govt can't just take property owned by someone else, though they can compel purchase at a fair price)

It’s 2 years at our church, not catholic though, and kids usuayhave to go to Sunday Club and attendance recorded on a register. Some people do the 2 years and yes once at school disappear. Churches know this happens all the time. However some parents stay on for the sense of community and it is argued that it doesn’t matter if the motive to come to church was just for school places, if that increases the flock then does it really matter?

Anyway it’s a good way to give preschoolers the opportunity to learn about Good Samaritan, being thoughtful to others and caring about the environment etc

Don’t be so naive to think the nice church folk won’t know what you are up!

I know of many schools that are twice a month for two years.
If you go for two years perhaps when your child gets into the school and you stop going and your child comes home with questions, you'll have a better understanding of what she is learning.
So from that point of view it's like you came to a very long phonics meeting.
Maybe you'll go and like it!
People have their children christened, the whole church welcomes them and they are never seen again. People get married in the church, and are never seen. by the church again. Families come to a church and want a deceased buried and that is done for them.
Of course church folk know what you are up to, but I'm not sure that matters.
Come to this table those who have been here often and those who have not been for a long time. Those who have much faith and those who have little. All are welcome here.

It is wrong when, as HotpotLawyer states, The running costs are paid by the state, from your taxes, just like any other state school..

We all pay taxes, so why should some schools be allowed prejudice about choosing which children go there on account of the parent's religion, or have the right to push their religious beliefs onto a child which could be different from the parent's.

It is just a sad reflection on the way state schools are run that parents have to go through this in order to get their child into particular schools.

Morality aside, you have to do what you feel is right for your child. You have to deal with the world how it is, here and now, not how you'd like it to be.

It's no use to you child for you to put yourself on the moral high ground pedestal if it means they suffer a crap education which will influence their future life.

Others will be playing the system - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

I despise Dianne Abott but I actually agree with her sending her kids to private/grammar school whilst at the same time advocating their scrapping. They're two different things. She has no power to scrap them any time soon, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't campaign and work towards them being scrapped. In the meantime, she has to do what she feels is right for her children given the existing system.

Also, for popular and over subscribed catholic schools, the "minimum attendance" most likely won't be enough. Around here, none of the "twice a month for two years" attendees would get a place, you'd need to be there at least every week, help out at activities, have the kids in Sunday school etc. Really be an active member of the church.

This doesn't bother me in the slightest, church schools were set up to educate the children of the parish and they should do so regardless of what faith those children have, including none. The system should be that parents can choose to opt out of those schools, rather than the church deciding who gets to opt in. As it is, they can't complain if people play the system - and they get bums on seats, money in the collection plate - and they may actually get some permanent members - I know of people who've actually stayed and become very active in their church from attending solely for school reasons.

What is wrong is that schools are allowed to discriminate against children based on their oarent’s religion (or willingness to play the system as the case may be). Unconscionable but will continue because the middle classes in Britain don’t want to pay for schooling but don’t want to share their schools with the kids from the local council estate.

Both my primary and secondary selected on church attendance. It's a really good way for the school to get parents who care about their kids, and are willing to invest in them - after all, an atheist who goes to church for two years to get their child into a certain school is very committed to that child. It means far fewer behaviour issues for the school, more pleasant classes to teach, good league table results - from the school's point of view, what's not to like. It looks very successful, so I doubt it'll be changed any time soon. And I admit that as a parent, we may well choose a church secondary for DD. We're part of a church anyway, so already 'qualify'.

It's a really good way for the school to get parents who care about their kids, and are willing to invest in them

So only parents who take their DC to church to get a school place care about them?

That is utter bullshit.

My church doesn’t mind the “exploitation”. It would rather the child attended church for a short time and received a catholic education than he/she never being introduced to the faith at all.

What is wrong is that schools are allowed to discriminate against children based on their oarent’s religion (or willingness to play the system as the case may be). Unconscionable but will continue because the middle classes in Britain don’t want to pay for schooling but don’t want to share their schools with the kids from the local council estate.

What nonsense, religion doesn’t discriminate by class. Anyone can go to church, regardless of income. My nearest, excellent catholic primary is in the middle of a very deprived area and it’s a feeder school for our nearby, excellent catholic secondary.

We have a very high proportion of children from low income families and they get exactly the same education as the children in the class with better off parents.

I don't have a problem with it.
You would learn about the church and their 'morality'.
Some of it would probably stick by osmosis.

School admission isn't really about faith it is about meeting specific criteria. They aren't testing what is in your heart.

But don't then go and complain that they expect your child to take part in mass or whatever.

This is easy to sort. People who want a church school should be obliged to apply to church schools only. Then, if they don’t get the place they want, go on the waiting list for other schools and take whatever places are left.

Religion may not discriminate by class, but mandatory church attendance for school places discriminates against children whose parents are too chaotic and/or disinterested in making the effort.

I actively chose not to do “the god thing” as it’s known among the local parents. When DD was small and had a place at a good non faith school I had the same opinion as the OP, I don’t now because I’ve been through the secondary application system. I still wouldn’t do it because I don’t want a faith school place, but I’ve stopped judging those who do, they’re just doing what they think best for their children. We live in an 11 plus area, I paid for tutoring throughout y5, for many this is just as unfair an advantage as parents doing the god thing.

Oversubscribed church schools are just backdoor selectives. That is the reason they are “better”. Nothing to do with faith- just old fashioned privilege.

yes, I agree with that Bark. Round our way (London, large West African population alongside increasing numbers of white middle class people) churchgoing crosses class and race, but you do have to show a good degree of organisation and commitment to rock up to church every Sunday.

I always hated the idea of going down the church route, to me it reeked of hypocrisy, but many of my friends - oddly some of them the most vocal Corbynistas, who bang on about hating privilege etc - have done so with zero qualms, and then started re-attending when secondary admissions loomed. Vicars I've talked to about this couldn't give a monkey's, it is bums on seats for them and - as other say - they hope to net a few conversions from the exercise. Whether you want to do it or not is entirely your shout, OP, but you wouldn't be alone in recoiling at the idea.

“but many of my friends - oddly some of them the most vocal Corbynistas, who bang on about hating privilege etc - have done so with zero qualms, ”

Yep. I am sure this happened.

Hey ho, Bertrand believe what you like. You always think you know best

RC schools are more ethnically diverse than the norm

That might be true of London but in the Northern towns that have riots every few years it isn't the case.

It's a really good way for the school to get parents who care about their kids, and are willing to invest in them

So only parents who take their DC to church to get a school place care about them?

That is utter bullshit.

That's not what I mean at all, there are lots of ways to care for and invest in your child. But those who can't prioritise their children are unlikely to make it to church regularly, or do many of the other things that would help their children. Other posters have mentioned chaotic households - not many of them at regular activities (such as church, but could also include swimming, music lessons, brownies etc.).