Religious schools discriminating against atheists

[MNersanonymous]

Dh and I are just having a discussion about this. The best state schools in our area are all religious and we, as atheists, feel discriminated against.

Could we take action against our local council under the religious discrimination legislation?!

Just curious really.

Harpsichord you have your facts wrong concerning how much contribution the church actually have definition of VA school

"Voluntary aided schools are usually called religious schools or faith schools. In a voluntary aided school:-

• the land and buildings are normally owned by a charity, often a religious organisation such as a church, but the governing body is responsible for running the school
• the school is funded partly by the local education authority (Education and Library Board in Northern Ireland), partly by the governing body and partly by the charity
• the governing body employs the staff
• the local education authority provides support services
• the pupils have to follow the national curriculum
• the admissions policy is determined and administered by the governors in consultation with the local education authority and other relevant schools in the area."

Round here the only good proper comprehensive is RC - in theory they take non-Catholics, in fact they are over-subscribed with Catholics so no chance for the rest of us.

(Actually having said that I do know 2 non-Catholic kids who go there, but they went to the only primary school in their village - which happens to be RC - so the primary head, and the local priest, vouched for them and they got in. But that was a freak occurrence!)

Local Catholics are free to go to the Grammar school if they pass, or a County school if they don't. Once they apply to take the Grammar exam they are no longer welcome at the RC comp - there's tolerant for you - but they do have that choice, which the rest of us don't, and it isn't right or fair or equitable or just or whatever other word you like to use that the reverse is not true.

Catholic schools educate both rich and poor catholics - they do not cream off the middle and upper income groups.

If they did that then the non catholic schools would be full of poor catholics - which they are not

I personally wouldn't be keen to ban faith schools themselves (even if politically it was in any way a goer), because there are so many good ones, and it seems like a bad idea to disrupt a part of the system that actually works.

However, faith schools clearly are discriminating against atheists/agnostics/other faiths and it's clearly wrong. The rules on selection criteria need to be changed.

It is absurd that any state school is allowed to choose pupils on the basis of what their parents do on a Sunday morning.

Is anyone planning to speak to David Cameron about this on Friday? Seems like a good opportunity.

Wasn't it David Cameron who said he sympathised with parents who pretended to be religious in order to get into a good school? I wouldn't expect much empathy from him on this point.

I have been reading this with interest. Why do faith schools perform so well? Perhaps it's because they are teaching the good, fair & nice stuff but it's backed up by the stories about God & Jesus. The parents also attend church usually so it's even more backed up with Sunday school, friends through church and the like. The children celebrate Easter & Christmas, and other days but unless you are a churchgoer, they would probably be boring.

The children are involved with something bigger than just what their own parents tell them. Someone said earlier that she was showing her children the same values, but if it's those values are only coming from you, they may not actually make sense, as your parents tell you alot of things as well as how to be good.

I think alot of it is that your teachers AND your parents are instilling into you the good of whichever parable/story they are telling.

Plus you are getting told how to be good on a Sunday morning as well, usually with juice & nice biscuits .

I am not saying it's right, but it's a group effort rather than 2 parents saying 'yes, you must be nice because Mummy says so and it will make xxxxxx cross/angry/sad'.

nametaken I don't give a toss whether he empathises, but the tories will certainly be casting about for popular policies ahead of the next election so we might as try to make ourselves heard.

Although, having just read the webchat thread, I realise that this is not going to be the groundbreaking serious political event I had naively envisaged...

Goodnight anyone who's still up. Can't remember the last time I enjoyed a debate so much. Seriously.

Sleep well all

Have no problem with faith schools, don't mind kids learning religious studies etc. I'm a complete atheist.

What does bug me is non religious schools making kids pray after assembly etc. I was once pulled out of an assembly because the head teacher asked at the end for everybody to 'put their heads down for prayer.' I didn't. Why would I? It wasn't a religious school. I got the biggest telling off of my life that day because I was 'answering back' when all I was doing was telling the teacher that I didn't believe in God, therfore why would I want to pray to him? That would make me a hypocrite. I wasn't being cheeky, just honest. Detention, lines - the feckin lot I was given for that.

I studied RS for my gcse's and really enjoyed learning about the different religions. But I just can't stand it when non-religous schools push religion on young minds, without even consulting children or their parents about what they believe. Bugs me.

by Christywhisty:
"Harpsichord you have your facts wrong concerning how much contribution the church actually have definition of VA school

"Voluntary aided schools are usually called religious schools or faith schools. In a voluntary aided school:-

• the land and buildings are normally owned by a charity, often a religious organisation such as a church, but the governing body is responsible for running the school
• the school is funded partly by the local education authority (Education and Library Board in Northern Ireland), partly by the governing body and partly by the charity
• the governing body employs the staff
• the local education authority provides support services
• the pupils have to follow the national curriculum
• the admissions policy is determined and administered by the governors in consultation with the local education authority and other relevant schools in the area." "

er which bit of that contradicts what I said before, exactly?
the state pays 100% of VA running costs
and around 90% of capital costs

VC are 100% funded for capital and running costs

No you are wrong,The 10% capital costs is a minimum, but they still have provided the building and land which is a big subsidy in anyones book, Voluntary Controlled schools also have to provide the land and buildings.

Even if it is only 10% of capital costs it is still subsidising the state and taxpayer.

10% of the capital costs is a tiny percentage of the running costs of a school
the land and buldings were provided (if at all) in many cases a very long time ago. who bought them? who paid for them?
who does that land belong to?

or rather, who did that land belong to before the church sequestered accepted it as a gift.

I have not read all the thread but would the OP be complaining if the faith schools were perceived to be offering a sub-standard education?

I have never understood why people who have no religious faith get wind up about faith schools. All schools have admission criteria but none are criticised as much as faith schools.

All tax payers subsidise private schools because they claim charitable status, receive tax relief but most of them do very little or next to nothing for the communities they claim to serve. That to me is more unsavoury than a faith school giving priority to families who follow the faith and whose parents are likely to pay taxes to support all schools anyway.

To those who object to faith schools, do you also object to grammar and foundation schools that are state funded but are self-selecting?

You are right (of course), harpsi. Churches and salaries were ultimately paid for by the 'voluntary' contributions of the ignorant poor, of course. The land was donated by the local landowner, in return for.. well, depends when it happened.

Said land, frequently, had been initially sequestered from the common ownership of the people and was worked by tied labour. Etcetaraaaaaaa etceteraaaaa.

It is rather disingenuous to suggest that the church subsidises the state, when it is rather that the state subsidises the church to regenerate itself.

"All schools have admission criteria"

mine doesn't, Spokette, other that one live within a certain distance of the school.

Onebat, in which case, IT DOES.
A child from 40 miles away would have less chance, right ?
In which case, it does. Some have more than others.
All are very open about their criteria.
Surrey lists all scholls and list all the different criterais and tells you which school uses which criteria.

Do you object to their being say alternnatives - Steiner schools or private schools aswell ?

Ive come to this thread quite late so im sorry if im saying the same stuff as others BUT religious schools are just that RELIGIOUS if you arent following that religion why opt for that school?

religion isnt a cop out its a life choice my children attend an excellent secondary school its catholic and we are catholic we pay a nominal fee per year 'voluntary'.

i dont think you are being level headed in maing this accusation.

we are hoping to move soon and near us will be an excellent church of england school we wont try to get our ds3 in there when the time comes we will continue to drive the chidren over 8 miles to another borough to the catholic school we chose.

Plus we all pay our taxes and have very little say in how it is spent.
I object to Northern Rock and the Olympics, but hey.
Plus we don't all utilise all services. Some couples who don't have children could quite rightly be put out that so much of their money is spent on failing education systems, but we have to pay for everyone irrespective of what services we actually use.
I still don't understand why faith schools bother people so much.

But you wouldn't turn up to the Olympics only to find the organisers turning people away for not being 'the right sort'.

And Northern Rock isn't a comparison. The fact is, if you take public money, you have ethical duty to serve the public, not keep out anyone who isn't in your private club. And a legal duty in all cases EXCEPT faith schools. Bizarre anomaly.

I'd like to know when CofE schools started demanding people get a chitty from the Vicar as it certainly didn't happen when I was a child.

Onebat, in which case, IT DOES.

This is splitting hairs rather, oblomov.

But yes, it does have an admissions criteria, though that criteria is about as neutral as it can be, and is not based on class, religion, race, income, sex. Distance tends not to be perceived as discriminatory, though in a richer area it might become so.

The reason church schools are unjust is because they take are 90% funded by the state, but they do not take 90% of local children without regard to their faith.

t's that bleedin' simple.

'they take are 90% funded '
should be

'they are 90% funded' of course.

That's what a secular education does for you.

siblings is discriminatory. My ds does not have siblings. But I can't object to that criteria.