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.

Anyone who regularly attends church and participates in a church community deserves a school place in a faith school!

Our local Catholic school puts baptised Catholics above others though, without any church attendance required, followed by those baptised in another Christian denomination. Beneath them are those that practise another faith. At the bottom.are those with no faith. Doesn't that make you recoil at all?

No. Sounds very reasonable to me.

On the selective point. Do you mean selective on religious grounds? What do you mean selective by the back door?

Would just like to understand this point.

“Backdoor selection” is when a school comes up with. Way of screening out “undesirable” families. There are lots of ways. Expensive uniform is one. Expecting parents to jump through hoops, often for some years in advance is another. The schools which have an element of selection for music or sport are another. They all tend to benefit organised aware parents who know how to negotiate the system and who have the time, money, energy and the will to find out about and meet the criteria. Which are likely to be more privileged families. Who have the children who are likely to do well anyway.

longestlurker, yes, it makes me recoil. I wonder what the outcry would be if the religion were Islam rather than Catholicism?

Personally I don't like selectivism on any grounds - religious, academic, wealth, none of it. I also don't like these huge schools (one in our area has over 1500 students) which bring children in on buses from literally 25 miles away, and which contribute nothing to the local community other than a traffic problem at start and finish times. I prefer a community school, thank you.

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.

If I'm funding it my children shouldn't be excluded. Would you be happy funding schools that promoted a flat earth?

I would like to send my child to a state funded school with no religious element at all. I see no reason why as a tax payer I should be able to do that. But I can’t.

*shouldn’t

I see no reason why as a tax payer I should be able to do that.

The (very good) reason is that the public purse in England has never been able to afford to offer education to all children without the assistance of the Church. You don’t have the choice of non-faith school because there isn’t enough money.

I also don't like these huge schools (one in our area has over 1500 students) which bring children in on buses from literally 25 miles away, and which contribute nothing to the local community other than a traffic problem at start and finish times. I prefer a community school, thank you.

You cannot have community schools without very stringent geographic selection. You are asking for the impossible - even if the cash were there!

If you want schools to be as unselective as possible, you need schools to be very large indeed and to bus children in from a wide geographic catchment. Schools with year groups of 10 or more classes are needed in order to do this.

“You don’t have the choice of non-faith school because there isn’t enough money.”
No. I don’t have a choice of a non faith school because all state schools in England have a statutory element of religious worship.

I agree that even with none of the things Bertrand cites, you will still have location and thus selection. Location is the biggest selector round my way and, of course, it's those with extra cash who can benefit from that and move to desirable locations (though not necessarily the biggest houses) close to a very good school that will often have a 'furthest distance offered' of less than a kilometre.

That’s a different issue, Bertrand. Do not confuse faith schools and the statutory element of religious worship in all schools.

That's not true of all areas. In London you can have random selection /funny shaped catchments without anyone travelling miles. But you still do have schools like the one Bertrand describes, with people passing scores of local schools en route. I would vastly prefer no religion in schools. I think religion is something that can easily be added on by the church, family and community groups without creating a segregated school system with some local schools not catering equally for all. But I tend to view that as a matter on which reasonable minds may differ and subject to democratic will (though I don't know what the majority would vote for, as we have never been given the option). On the discriminatory admissions policies I can see no arguments in favour at all that aren't deeply depressing.

That’s a different issue, Bertrand. Do not confuse faith schools and the statutory element of religious worship in all schools.“
I’m not confusing these things. I am pointing out that you say you see no reading why parents should not have the choice of a tax payer funded faith school, but I do not have the choice of a non faith based school. Christian privilege is alive and well.

I would vastly prefer no religion in schools.

Take a country like France, where every child lives in the catchment of a secular state school with no selection other than geographic up until the age of 15, but where there is also a far reaching national network of Catholic schools which, while privately owned, are highly subsidized by the state. People who prefer secular education should have no issues. People who prefer faith based education should have no issues. And yet...

And the local Catholic school I describe above is in an area with huge demand for schools where some years people don't get allocated a school place at all until some last minute scrabble when something is found the other end of the borough (possibly at another faith school as actually these aren't all equally popular near me). So you are literally deprioritising access to public services on the basis of a protected characteristic.

Bertrand - have you ever spent any time in a secular school?

Well France are clearly not the model I am aiming for then. I am not sure what your point is.

longestlurkerever - the problem is that education in England is not a universal public service!

My point is that there is no possible model that meets everyone’s desires.

“My point is that there is no possible model that meets everyone’s desires.”
No. But a system where faith families have a choice of a third more schools than non faith ones is not helping.

“Bertrand - have you ever spent any time in a secular school?“

Not in this country-because there aren’t any. Why do you ask?