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.

Even assuming your statistic is true, which I am doubtful about tbh. Church schools are well known to favour the middle classes

So you keep saying but I fundamentally disagree. A school is nota building

Geographic selection always tends towards selection by house price.

A school is land/building (the bit that changes the least often), a curriculum, teachers/staff and pupils.

“A school is not a building”

A family is not a house. Homeless families tend not to do very well.

“Geographic selection always tends towards selection by house price“

In a few areas, yes. That’s why I said it was the least worst.

No, Bertrand, not in a few areas. Where geographic selection is or has been the only criteria (examples in Boston or Paris have been studied in depth by researchers if you care to google but the underlying principles remain the same), social segregation in schools spirals out of control.

Your logic doesn't stack up though. A school needs a building. A building is not sufficient for a school. So why is the owner of the building the owner of the school? If they want to run their own school as they please they can do so privately with private funds

Ownership is not governance.

I think you're talking waffle, but hey ho. Governance is what we are mainly talking about anyway. Decision-making about who gets to attend.

Yes, and owners form part of the board of governors who take decisions collectively.

Yes and in faith schools, they make decisions about how tax payers money should fund discrimination against those who do not share their faith.

Why do you consistently choose to pretend that faith schools are 100% financed by the state, Margo? Why???

But is it any worse than the person who deliberately keeps themselves on a low wage and works the minimum possible hours in order to get a full bursary at a very expensive fee-paying school, while eschewing socialist values?

Faith schools are not 100% funded by the state. Just 95%z

Because apart from Voluntary Aided schools that is the truth of the matter and I am not pretending anything.

With regards to Voluntary Aided schools, the Government's website says the following about funding:

"VA schools are paid on a similar basis to other categories of school, but the governing body must usually pay at least 10% of the costs of capital work."

Bertrand - imagine the state had to pay rent to the owner of church schools. Consider that to be the value of the Church’s contribution.

But is it any worse than the person who deliberately keeps themselves on a low wage and works the minimum possible hours in order to get a full bursary at a very expensive fee-paying school, while eschewing socialist values?“
Do you mean espousing socialist values? Do you actually know anybody who’s doing that?
Anyway, Private schools are a completely different argument. We are talking about the allocation of places in tax payer funded state schools.

Imagine if the Church had had to pay mIntainance on those buildings for the past 80 years...

but it happened and without bankrupting the country

In large part because most hospitals could be nationalised without any payment to the previous owners. The situation with schools is very different, partly because the bodies that own schools are not cash strapped (many of the hospital-owning bodies were) and the law has changed significantly. Like it or not, adopting a policy that is likely to result in closure of all RC schools would cost hundreds of billions of pounds. It is simply not affordable.

Not sure that paying 5% of a school’s maintainance costs should buy much control over admissions procedures, frankly

They own the land and buildings and pay at least 10% of maintenance costs. And I keep coming back to the same thing. Where do you propose finding the hundreds of billions of pounds needed if you stop faith schools prioritising on faith grounds?

The value of the maintenance is far lower than the rental value.

prh47bridge - I imagine what you have outlined is the exact reason successive governments have not sorted the problems out and continue to allow religious discrimination to take place against children!

That doesn't make it right or a desirable system in a 21st century modern and fairly secular country.

Anyway, as I said, a Church committed to fairness and confident of the effect of Christian values on education would surely scrap the faith criterion so they can work their magic on all comers, rather than specially selected comers..

Yes, and owners form part of the board of governors who take decisions collectively.. Subject to the laws of the land, which generally prohibit faith based discrimination.

And the owner of the premises a business is run from is not necessarily the owner of the business.

And the owner of the premises a business is run from is not necessarily the owner of the business.

No - and in that case rent is payable to the owner of the premises.