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.

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 corners

This shows a very poor understanding of the agenda of the Church.

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.

Margo - successive governments haven’t sorted the problem you describe because it doesn’t exist! There are undoubtedly issues to do with fair access to the better free-at-point-of-access schools in England but they are not as you describe.

If you want to understand the direction Catholic schools are taking, read www.dioceseofnottingham.uk/education/mats/mat-development.

Government MAT policy is reinforcing the Diocesan hold on the governance of Catholic schools - not reducing it.

They pay rent, yes. But you were arguing ownership rights.

There are a number of campaigning organisations national and local who would argue the problem is exactly as I have described.

There is no “but”.

Margo - campaigning organizations often don’t grasp institutional complexity. Brexit, anyone?

Why can't we can have separation of church and state? Public money shouldn't be going to promoting a particular religion.

Why can't we can have separation of church and state?

Do you really think that this would gather public support in the UK?

I fucking hope it would.

You need also to bear in mind that countries where there is separation of church and state also have state subsidized faith schools. The church is a historical provider of education all over the world and did a pretty good job in many cases of raising enough money to educate the poor well before the state felt it had a responsibility to ensure universal education. In most countries the church continues to be an important provider of education alongside the state and this isn’t controversial. I’m not quite sure why it upsets so many MNers, other than because they feel

that they are shut out of better schools than the ones their DC attend.

It upsets people because it is state sponsored discrimination. I have no idea why you are so adamantly defending it. We haven't even got to the question of whether the state should be supporting religious education at all, we are still on the question of why church schools are allowed to do something that would be illegal if anyone else did it, and get to use taxpayer money to do it.

Well that's exactly why they are upset about it yet - the principle of it at least. As it happens my dc do attend an outstanding church school and it doesn't discriminate on faith grounds (it's VC) but I can be cross on others' behalf

Churches are usually happy to have people come on the basis that if they try it they may like it more than they thought! But I do think it’s morally wrong to send your child to a faith school and then moan that it teaches your child this faith...duh that’s the point!

we are still on the question of why church schools are allowed to do something that would be illegal if anyone else did it, and get to use taxpayer money to do it

I think that question has been well and truly answered!

Yes, because taking a place away from a child and family who have faith is fair? Hypocrites.

Because the state should not be promoting any particular delusion religion.

Except the state provides subsidies to lots of different religious faith schools. Not just one.

Why not, aren't religious people tax payers and don't we live in a democracy? Why must we get rid of a model that works, why not ask why church schools do so well and replicate it in non religious schools.

Yes, religious people are indeed taxpayers and there is no good reason why they should not be able to choose a faith school for their children that is subsidized by the public purse.

“why not ask why church schools do so well and replicate it in non religious schools.”

Because what they do so well is backdoor selection.

Selection is part of what makes some faith schools achieve highly but selection is not the whole story. Community, continuity and relationships drive academic success (which is why banding and lotteries are such a bad idea - they destroy value).

Faith schools only do “better” when they are oversubscribed and therefore are selective.

If it was anything to do with faith all faith schools would be “better”

Hypocrite is someone who does not practise what they preach. I don't really see how that's apt to describe someone who goes to church to get a school place really.

"Taking a place from a person of faith" is nonsense because 1) the criterion is church attendance, not faith. No one has to lie to anyone. 2) if someone doesn't think discrimination on the basis of faith is a good idea then why would they feel bad that someone with faith failed to get the advantage?