Did you/would you got to church just to get into a better school?

[charliecat]

Where i live the schools are grammar schools or great schools that you need to be religious to attend or rubbish.
A lot of people go to church with their children simply so they can have the form signed to say they attend regularly.
Have you? Would you? Is it only here or is it widespread?

Haven't done it, wouldn't do it, think it's hypocrisy (to pretend to believe in god when you don't just to get into a school) BUT otoh I don't think faith schools should be allowed either, I'd ban them too.

I know someone who did this she had to go for 2 yrs or so and keep going once they were in the school.She then came into some money and sent them to private!

I think it's dodgy teaching children that hypocrisy/lack of integrity is OK in the pursuit of what you want - isn't it like lying about how old they are, in front of them, in order to get into a theme park cheaper? Sends them all the wrong messages, surely.

Well said, Tiddlypom.

Is it hypocrisy? Our local church school (oversubscribed) looks for church attendance, not religious belief. Nowhere on the application are you asked to confirm that you are a Christian etc. Nor do the children need to be baptised. The requirement is merely that you regularly attend one of the lcoal parish churches for the 2 years before admission.

I guess it would be hypocritical if you had to make a statement of belief/faith (eg going through baptism etc).

Thomcat - lots of reasons really:

1. they create religious segregation which I don't think is a good idea for society
2. religious indoctrination is something that should be up to the parents, not the school. It is certainly not something that should be state funded.
3. their presence discriminates against minority religions and atheists

..and more reasons. Putting them into words would require a glass or two of wine though i think.

I have no problem with RE in schools or even the odd hymn in assembly (as long as non-christian children are actered for). I just have a massive problem with what is known in Spain as "religious instruction" - the teaching of religious ideas as truth. This is what Spanish schools have and dd will not have it even if it means i have to go and collect her from school for an hour.

to answer the original question Yes I did! Dont regret it and would do it again.

I would not do this - for the same reasons as Tiddlypom, and LOL at Slartybardfast! Parents who use a different address or temporarily move to a different address must have the same problem, mustn't they?
I don't think that fake-piety to get into a religious school is any worse than temporary-renting to get into one with a competetive catchment area.

Charlicat - are you sure that you have to go to church to get your child into the school?
I've just got ds into a Catholic school (reception class) but I've told them from the start that I have no religious conviction whatsoever.
The school takes x% non-Catholics & I had to write a letter to explain why I wanted him to go.
(Apart from being excellent academically it's a freindly, nurturing school with a great philosophy - tolerance & understanding of others.

Bascially, I couldn't have gone to Church but so long as I don't have to lie about my beliefs I am happy for ds to go to a religious school that has a broad and caring ethos.

Check out what the school's admission criteria is (if you haven't already). Good luck.

The local school that dds attend is Catholic, but, by golly, they pack them in regardless of creed. I don't feel bad about having dd1 baptised Catholic at all, since it seems she would have got into that school, regardless.

Shes at a c.o.e infants now, its for secondary school. Thinking ahead, shes 7 now. Most folks here do stand in the playground saying Oh yeah im going to, which made me think...well am I? And im not. I couldnt keep up the pretence for one sunday, let alone a few years worth, and TBH I would just be embarresed if the vicar/whoever came over and spoke to me and I couldnt do it, so I wont be.
She will have to sit her 11 plus, but even that has complications. If you pick a grammar school for your first choice and fail the 11+ then your 2nd choice has no obligation to give you a place as they were your 2nd choice...ARGH..

I wouldn't because I can't be arsed to go to church on Sundays, but I wouldn't condemn anyone who did. If you put up hoops for people to jump through in order to get a good education, they'll jump through them. Rather than condemning anyone for jumping through hoops, I'd like to have the hoops taken down and give people the opportunity of a good (hoopless) education.

Caligula, . Well said.

Yep I did went to local comp completley rubbish, got into c of e all girls, great teachers, much better class of pupils, much better teaching ,
would most definatley choose single sexed church school for my boys. And if you look at the facts single sex church schools do much better at gcse and a levels than mixed comps, no distractions lol

LOL Caligula. The thing that scratches at the door in the attic of my mind, though, is if religious schools were completely non-selective, would they still get those good results?? In our area, the religious schools take the top chunk pf league tables...are they 'better' per se, or do they attract children of highly motivated parents, or what?

Blu, I think dds' school is non-selective. Still manages to do quite well, though.

Ooophs, non-selective in that it's Catholic, but doesn't barr any other religion.