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.

Why would that be fair to the church that owns the school?

Been following this discussion with great interest.

@Margo. if faith schools operated under entirely open admissions, so they are not able to set their own ethos, wouldn't they then cease to be faith schools? Maybe this is the outcome you want.

It is not discrimination for a church-owned school to cater to its own parishioners first and foremost.

NMQ - faith schools (unless private schools) are state schools just as academies, community and free schools are state schools.

Maria anyone who lives in the parish is entitled to go to the local school, regardless of whether they are churchgoers or not. That is how it should work.

LouiseCollins28 I suppose my question is why would the state fund a school that discriminates against potential pupils simply because of their parents religion? Surely state funded education should be freely accessible by all and religious discrimination restricts that free access.

I have no problem whatsoever with parents applying to send their child to a faith school, should they want to, but I don't think the school should be able to decide which of those children goes based on religious discrimination.

However, in my utopia, there would be no state funded faith schools. Faith is a private matter for the individual to practice in their own time and shouldn't be something that the state funds at any level. The state should just provide the freedom for individuals to practice their own faith, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's freedom and is within the law.

I have no issues with it. Why are many Catholic schools "better"? Well maybe they teach and encourage higher standards all round. That can't be a bad thing for any child. I'd start early and see if i could get the catholic vibe down my local church. The pews are empty and new visitors are always welcome. After all,it isnt all about latin masses,smoke,incense and incantations. There may also be a sense of community,family and childrens groups. You might actually like it. Your child has only one chance,.make sure its the best chance..and my God be with you.

And the state has been paying for the maintainable if faith school buildings since 1944 (ish)

To be accurate, the state has been contributing towards the maintainence of faith school buildings since 1944. Originally the contribution was 50% of costs. This went up to 75% in 1959 and more recently to 90%.

In theory the state meets the full running costs of such schools. In practice there are some insurance costs that are not funded by the state and in some (possibly many - I haven't checked) faith schools the church provides additional funding for runnnig costs.

I suggest that state does not fund faith schools whose entrance requirements discriminates or segregates on the basis of faith

If that happened all Catholic schools would close and possibly some CofE schools. So you would need to find the funds to establish new schools to replace the schools that closed.

I agree with you Margo, in part at least. I agree that faith is largely a private matter. The idea that the state "funds" faith in this context I'm not clear about. From the attached doc, a few things stand out re: admissions to my mind.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06972/SN06972.pdf

First, 1/4 Primary schools, are CofE. So if they are to be funded entirely as state provision, that will be very expensive and will require increases in taxation to fund it. You may well prefer this.

Second, in some places, a CofE primary school might well be the only primary there is, in a small village say. If the church can have no involvement then either the expense to the taxpayer is increased, or in the worst case scenario (as I'd see it) the village school closes and you have all the problems of transporting young children to school somewhere else, desirable for few people IMO.

Lastly, the "faith based" admissions criteria would seem to apply only if there are more children applying than there are places. If there are enough places for every child, faith parent or non faith parent, gets one and all is well.

By "owning the school" you presumably mean they own the land and buildings. There's a lot more to a school than that. And that's what's funded by the State.

It would be reasonable for the State to put conditions on this funding - open access, for example. The church could refuse these conditions but then it would have to stump up for its own running costs or close, and since most church schools were opened to benefit the public at large as charitable endeavours, this would perhaps be a perverse decision.

If a school is wholly owned AND FUNDED by the church, then the church can set its own entry criteria.

But there is no justification for state funding of schools which discriminate on faith grounds.

Maria seems to have a very poor opinion of the Church. Apparently the Church would not want to welcome just anybody to its schools - only the people who are already churchgoers (and whose kids therefore presumably already have a broadly Christian upbringing). Goodness knows they wouldn't want to provide an education to anyone else, or introduce Christian values to kids who didn't already know about them. If state funding was withdrawn from discriminatory schools, then the Church would rather charge fees than open its doors to the community at large, apparently. What a depressing picture.

LouiseCollins28 I suspect that all the rationale you have included in your post are the reasons that successive governments have chosen not to tackle the issue! I still think that a government could insist that state-funded schools cannot discriminate against admissions though. If the churches felt it was their Christian duty to withdraw from education as a result, then people may question how exactly they served the community, how loving, how inclusive, how welcoming they really were.

where I live all the schools are over subscribed (there are 3 state secondaries and one VA christian one) I attended church in my town before both my children were born but actually started to go less as they came towards secondary age. The minister still wrote a letter for me to apply for the christian school but we actually applied and got a place for a state one which we are very happy with. At the church school there is compulsory chapel attendance (for pupils) a certain number of sundays per term which is made clear at the open evening. If anyone wants a church school to avoid bullying, bad behaviour, teenage pregnancy or drugs, you might be disappointed. That happens at all the schools in our town!!

Of course there is more to any school than the land or the buildings, entirely accept that point.

If, as longestlurkerever proposes there were a condition of "open access" even in the case of over subscription, it would seem to me that the state is benefitting by getting more wholly "open admissions" schools without paying the full amount for them.

That would be at the expense of churches, who, (in my experience anyhow)have enough money problems of their own to deal with.

Well my DC's church school does have open access conditions (is it applies the usual local authority criteria) which is why I was able to send them there, as I had no intention of going to church.

On one level the state is benefitting yes. On another level communities are benefitting, which was presumably the church's original intention. If their aim was to profit the church then they can run the school as a private school

Owning the school is not just about physical premises and land - governance is also a dimension of ownership.

Respect for private property (the private property of the church, in this case) is a pretty fundamental aspect of the rule of law.

Louise: The state does pay for these schools. The state pays for teachers, staff, insurances, and pays for the repair and maintenance of the buildings that consequently retain their value on the balance sheet of the church.

We have all seen church appeals for new church roof, new church organ...not new roof for St Luke's Primary!

I agree that if the state has to rent, lease or buy these schools then it will be expensive - but the state will hold the equity of the property: own it. It is a cash-flow issue. The balance sheet of the state showing all its assets will increase. The value of the property will presumably increase over the long term and therefore the money the state pays for repair and maintenance will be invested in their own property.

We have all seen church appeals for new church roof, new church organ...not new roof for St Luke's Primary

Of course there are fundraising efforts for church schools! In a village next to the one I used to live in, parishioners raised funds for a building for the preschool.

pays for the repair and maintenance of the buildings that consequently retain their value on the balance sheet of the church

To again correct this, the state CONTRIBUTES to the repair and maintenance of the buildings. It does NOT pay in full. The church must find at least 10% of these costs.

Also, to say again, although the state in theory pays all running costs, in practice there are certain items (primarily insurance) that the church is required to fund and in at least some church schools the church provides additional funding for running costs.

Indeed - the proprietor must pay for insurance.

My ds2 had to go to a catholic school as we moved part way through the school year.
Two years he was there before there was a place at the community school next door where his db managed to gain a place.
It may have been the best school in the area but it was awful for my ds, such religious discipline, no place for mistakes, and was supposed to go to church every week like his school friends.
Not the place for a none Catholic, which is fair enough.
I'd say the same for CofE schools. All our secondary tend to be faith schools though, so you just choose the one you know your dc stand a chance of gaining a place.

Interesting article: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556731/Brothers-win-500000-after-school-site-sale.html