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.

It makes perfect sense. I say that a school with selective entry will do “better” than one that doesn’t-regardless of the selection criterion applied. Faith school supporters say “No, it’s absolutely nothing to do with selection-it’s the Christian ethos”
If it’s nothing to do with selection, then it doesn’t matter about the cohort, the Christian ethos will work its magic on whatever children it has to work with.

The Christian ethos works both ways, Bertrand.

Any ethos won't work if the parents don't buy into it. That's the point. Faith schools work cause the majority of parents share the same vales and ethos the school has. Same applies to schools that are not religious but are I affluent areas.

It

The problem here is why are state schools not delivering, why is the state failing to provide sufficient good quality school places? The answer is not because there are too many church schools.

I expect the answer is a combination of money, government meddling politicking and poor management. We must also take some blame, we expect our schools to deal with an ever increasing number of social issues and they do it without resource.

I say this as a parent whose child goes to an awful school. I failed to get my child in either the outstanding church school or the excellent state school near me. What I donny do is blame it on those schools as to why our school is so awful I blame it on the local authority and government and the parents who in some cases really don't care about their children's education or behaviour.

The Christian ethos works both ways, Bertrand.

Not sure why my post got a second outing

I am sorry to read about your DC bicyclethief. It is very distressing when one’s child cannot access a suitable school.

Undoubtedly there are schools that concentrate poverty, poverty of aspiration, less qualified and/or experienced teachers, social issues etc and it is the combination of factors that make a school extremely difficult to change for the better.

Yes, it's very frustrating especially as both schools are within 5 minutes walk.

We've been on a waiting list for a while but if a space came up I'm not sure what we would do since my child is so settled.

We are lucky in that we can support our child and he's doing v well despite the school (although we always wonder whether that is the case from time to time, we often think we should get him assessed in some way) but I feel for all those children who for one reason or another can't do that, for sure they are disadvantaged in this school. We also worry whether we will continue to have the time to support our child once school becomes more demanding (he's in lower primary at the moment) as we really need to do so much at home to ensure he's achieving.

I would move him to a better school if you get the chance. It does get harder and harder, as children get older, to bridge the educational gap between what school offers and your own standards as a family.

what shared values are we talking about?

The ones that are actually important aren’t faith based, they’re education based. They’re also not only shared by people with faith. It’s just that making parents jump through hoops for admission self-selects families with those values. It doesn’t matter what those hoops are.

Arguably if you can only get results with parents who think education is important then you have to question how good the school is anyway. There are plenty of church schools around where most of the parents are doing what bicyclethief is doing and masking underlying issues.

Rafals for some people those that are faith based are as equally important since what you're trying to do is educate within the tenants of your given faith.

For religious people the two are not separate. It's a holistic approach.

Something is wrong with education but blaming regions schools admissions policies is not going to change anything.

Since I was a child myself all I've heard is education education education and here we are years later with a child at an appalling school. Put the blame where it should be, at the door of successive governments who fail us all with their politicking and cuts.

As with everything else stated funded, education has suffered under austerity and there are wider things wrong with the whole system.

However, I still do not see how anyone can justify religious discrimination and segregation of children. Faith should not be part of a state funded education. The state should be ensuring individuals have the freedom to pursue their own faith in their own time, not funding certain faiths to discriminate against certain children at the tax-payers expense.

In our family we have experience of many sorts of schools. The very important shared value that we have found from our experience of faith schools but not other schools is respect.

Margo - stop putting the cart before the horse.

Whilst I understand the expression, I have no idea what that means in this context Maria .

The Church came first to the education arena, long before the state. It set up schools, often on a shoestring budget, begging largesse from the rich for land/buildings and using its own very badly compensated manpower to do its best to educate the children of the poor for their own betterment and that of society.

When the state finally got its act together and decided to provide universal access to education from taxation, it couldn’t actually afford to do so without relying on the existing Church infrastructure. That situation persists to this day.

Stop banging on about why the state should take over education 100% from the Church. It can’t afford to do so.

I am Anglican and attend Church regularly. Fortunately my church is not connected to a school so we don't have school-tourists, although we did at my previous church that saw a a lot of 9/10 years and their mums (never dads) attend.

Despite being a Church attender, I don't agree with the principle of religious schools - that extra level of application procedure serves to penalise those children whose parents don't know the extra lengths they have to go, or can't be bothered to go. Excluding them doesn't seem very Christian.

There is a very good Catholic secondary school near us - very sought after. To get in, my Christian but lapsed Catholic husband would have had to attend Catholic Church and I'd have had to pretend to be Catholic too. As we believe in God, we can't do that as God would know that we were lying, being deceitful.

So the irony is that if you really believe in God, you can't play the system - whilst if you don't believe, well who cares I guess. Ultimately, no one askes if you believe, they ask you to prove you've been sat in a pew enough times. I understand why people would do it.

But I'd rather there were no faith schools.

No one has to stop banging on about anything, that's the nice thing about a free country. You haven't put forward any moral case for allowing a dispensation from the equalities act for faith schools and your assertions about affordability are mere assertions. The state can afford what it wants to afford. It has revenue raising powers The fact you're ok with the status quo doesn't mean everyone else should shut up about it.

I shall continue to argue that religious discrimination and segregation against children is wrong. If that is banging on, then so be it.

The various churches have done lots of things for children, some of it good and some of it shockingly awful, including systemic physical and sexual child abuse for those in its care and the most cruel practices of separating children from parents in church run workhouses.

The churches couldn't afford the upkeep of their schools, so most of them were in a very poor condition when the state stepped in in 1944, which is over 70 years ago now.

So, I'm not sure what your point is about the churches having provided education before the state. The state didn't exist and churches were supposed to be looking after their flocks, so they probably should have been doing a better job of it.

In days gone by the church more or less was the state. Times have changed.

Thank you walking for your dignified and thoughtful point of view.

Despite being a Church attender, I don't agree with the principle of religious schools - that extra level of application procedure serves to penalise those children whose parents don't know the extra lengths they have to go, or can't be bothered to go. Excluding them doesn't seem very Christian. This, this, this a million times. Thank you walkingtheplank

what, so we should only every discuss things that should change for the better than can be afforded right now? What nonsense.

And the church did come first to free education 'for the masses' - they were set up to educate the children of the parish - that's it. They should still do so - but they don't once they insist on church attendance. I have a very devout friend who is also a teacher who thinks it appalling that church schools don't stick to that remit.

The state can afford what it wants to afford. It has revenue raising powers.

This is so very far from reality that it is hard to know where to begin how to respond. Basic economics (think GCSE) would dispel you of this notion very quickly.

They should still do so - but they don't once they insist on church attendance

Just to say again, they use church attendance to prioritise. They do not completely exclude non-attenders. If they have places available they must be offered to anyone who applies, regardless of church attendance. Some schools have so many applicants from church attenders that they never admit any non-faith applicants. Some regularly have places for non-faith applicants. And a significant proportion of CofE schools award some or all of their places without reference to faith.

Nothing necessarily has to be afforded anyway. The church just needs to be persuaded to come round to the point of view that some Christians on this thread already hold. As it happens I think many parents prefer the status quo because of its stealth selection potential, and that's the real reason it's not been addressed, not money. Like the remaining grammar schools. So banging on about it and making people defend their position is a democratic necessity.

The church just needs to be persuaded to come round to the point of view that some Christians on this thread already hold.

And why would the Church agree to this? What interest could it possibly have in relinquishing it’s influence on young people in England?

I don't think churches needed to be persuaded of anything.

I think the government needs to legislate that faith schools may not use religion, faith or church attendance as criteria for selection for a state funded school.