Church of england schools - proposal to admit more non-cofE children.......

[Icoulddoitbetter]

here

I'm not religious, and my child is not yet of school age so it's not something I've needed to think about for mysef.

But, I know a family where the parents are athiests who attend their local church weekly, read lessons, had their daughters christened and wear crosses around thier necks, just to get their children into the local church school, and this I have a very big problem with. I have no problem with children being brought up in a faith but not when the parents teaching that belief themselves have no belief in it whatsoever, it jsut seems wrong!

So if this new proposal stops the need for such behaviour then great (and the very mean part of me is secretly hoping the children above above get bumped off the list to make room for the non-cofe children in the community, whochaven't faked Christianity for two years, sorry.....!)

dd goes and im not a church goer never even pretended to be but school agreed that it is important for dd to be educated locally as is such a small community and she needs to stay locall social reasons ( community of 25 houses 8 primary aged local kids )means she can join after swchool stuff.

oh and ds2 second school has made descion after consulting parents that they will not be doing any form of relgious worship abd think there was only 2 letter sof complaint

and funny enough ds is not religious at all but has opted to take at gcse level as he is really enjoying learning and discussing all the differnt relgions and the cultrual side is tied into religion .It has confirmed for him that his choice not to believe is right for him .

But he says thats no reson not to respect and enjoy finding out other beliefs

and sorry bad spelling but am typing flat on my back

JustCallMeGrouchy - yes it does make perfect sense for children to go to school within their local community, and everyone should have that choice.

It is madness that some children are bussed for miles because of schools not giving first priority to local children, but instead ones of the 'right' religion.

It's a choice about whether to do the church thing.

As I said at the beginning religious or not, it's all the same to me basically there's a good argument against religious selection but a good argument for non-religious selection.

These two are getting conflated now on this thread.

Faith schools have survived and thrived because they enable selection and thus (in general) success.

Argue against them on religious grounds all you want, that's fair enough. Arguing against them on selection grounds is very different. It's a different argument. I mean, make it if you want, but don't pretend it's anything to do with the religious argument.

I think people are deliberately misinterpreting what Gooseberrybushes is saying. Faith schools perform well on the whole because they are selective. Christians do not have more drive and ambition etc etc than non-Christians, but drive and ambition are qualities required to be a practising member of any faith - getting to church each week to sign the register, following rules etc. They're also qualities required to pursue any hobby to a high level - commitment, giving up time, finding out information about where you can do it. So it's not what Christians believe in per se that means the parent body on average is more committed, ambitious etc - it's the fact that they 'follow' something at all.

And of course you can 'pretend' to be a Christian, but you still have to have the same 'drive and ambition' - you have to have realised that this gives your child the best chance of getting to a good local school and modified your behaviour accordingly.

I agree with what Gooseberrybushes says but reach the opposite conclusion. We should get rid of faith schools as they are selective by stealth. If we remove faith schools we'll have a better chance at equality of education for all children, including those whose parents don't have the wherewithal to pursue religion in the name of getting a perceived better school.

I completely support what the bishop says and think he's absolutely right when he argues that faith schools shouldn't be safe places for nice Christian children to huddle together. Actually, I think faith schools shouldn't exist at all and have some sympathy too with the bobble hat argument. I could afford a bobble hat in any colour I want, but have chosen not to buy one; however some parents can't afford a bobble hat at all, or don't know where to buy one, so their children don't have a chance at getting into any of the bobble hat schools.

"It's a choice about whether to do the church thing."

Er, so if for example the only school that is local to you is a selective CofE one, how is it a choice for EVERYONE in the area to 'do the church thing', even if they are of a different religion?

Cheers singer you have my meaning exactly, thank you.

Yes Milly, it's unfair, but in that situation the complaint seems to be not access, but the religious element of schooling. That's what I've seen on threads like this - two complaints:

"I have no choice, all the local schools are CE" -- in which case standards are average, access is non selective but all children are subject to faith education.

Or : "I can't access the best school which is CE because I don't go to church" in which case you have a choice.

Notably, most CE schools place membership of ANY faith above non-faith families. ie they know what active membership of faith involves as singer quite rightly described. Also worth noting is that some people who don't go to church might still describe themselves as Christian and have bascially Christian principles and beliefs but didn't go to church during a busy child-free active social life. So CE schools give them a nudge back which is quite nice really. It's not all hypocrisy.

Gooseberrybushes - but both complaints are valid ones, surely?

Unless there's an AGENDA to 'nudge' Christian bums back on pews (and sod everyone else)?

As for the argument that people who are 'driven and ambitious' enough to follow a faith - ANY faith - being somehow 'better'? Well words fail me on that one I'm afraid.

Who said they were better? I said they make the results better. I don't know if you're misinterpreting for straw man purposes or because you don't understand.

I don't know if aspirational people are better or not. I know that we evolved because of aspiration and inquiry so, I don't know, better or not, they are the people who make the future.

The religious complaint has ground: the selective one less so but a lot of people hate it don't they.

Well clearly the selective schools think they are 'better' - because they actively discriminate in favour of them.

Whether you personally think they are 'better' is neither here nor there, as you say.

It is the system that people have a problem with.

Are you confusing "morally more good" with "more likely to have achieving children"?

The school will think they are "morally better" for having a faith.(I think - maybe they don't, maybe it's just a huddle thing.)

They will not think they are "morally better" for their drive, ambition etc. But their drive and ambition makes them better in the sense of "more likely to have achieving children" but this is not the allowed reason for discrimination.

Misty: there is more than one meaning to better: I have read your posts before and I know you are not too stupid to know this, you have some fair arguments. So mixing them up must be deliberate on your part.

"As for the argument that people who are 'driven and ambitious' enough to follow a faith - ANY faith - being somehow 'better'? Well words fail me on that one I'm afraid."

Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that this was my argument, since you now say what I think on the issue is neither here nor there.

I agree though: what I'm posting is not about opinion, mainly, just about the way things are and the way they will be.

"The religious complaint has ground: the selective one less so but a lot of people hate it don't they."

Can you seriously not see why? Or do you think the extra 'bums on pews' justifies the unfairness?

What I was meaning was that actually we can argue about what consititutes 'better' till the cows come home, but what is important is what schools are using as the criteria for 'better'. And whether the criteria they use are morally defensible given the effect it has on the system.

Singersgirl - agree with all of your post, and I do get the point that 'selection for 'religious' children' can pretty much equal 'selection for motivated parents'.

What I don't get is why anyone would support such a system unless they have an agenda, be it 'bringing more people back into the fold' or 'I'm alright Jack and I support the status quo'.

Misty: you still seem very confused. I say "the argument against selection has less ground" - distinguishing it from the issue of religion - and still you talk about bums on pews in response?

"We can argue about what constitutes better"

Well, there are two meanings (at least) on this thread. You are confusing "morally better" with "better at activities which will lead to achievement". Either you don't know the difference or you are deliberately confusing them. I know the difference and I am not confused at all.

"What I don't get is why anyone would support such a system unless they have an agenda"

I don't think anyone has come forward to support it on this thread.

Sorry - and I would still maintain that parents who want wider access to CE schools, because they themselves are being denied access to a school with the best results, will be quickly disappointed.

The results will dry up with the selection.

Sorry again I mean the results will dry up when the selection is abandoned.

what will happen to the parents with drive and ambition though? Will they stand by and let this happen or will they find other ways to sort it out so there dc are huddled together in certain schools?

Parents will always find the best for their DC.

I object to CofE schools prioritising church going families, giving the few remaining places they have left over for local community families and then only prioritising siblings in future years if accompanied with a 'clergy reference'.

Minimum 12 months church attendance once a month, moving to twice a month for 18 months prior to application next year.

Living within half a mile of this said school and 2 miles from a further 3 non church schools which allocate according to distance from school, we are caught in no-man's land. Too far away to meet the distance of the non-faith and now facing having our DCs split because l choose not to attend church just to meet the target they have set !

"Misty: you still seem very confused. I say "the argument against selection has less ground" - distinguishing it from the issue of religion - and still you talk about bums on pews in response?"

Well, with regard to what this thread is actually about , the issues are so intertwined that I don't see a lot of point in separating them.

With regard to my confusion, the only thing I'm struggling with is identifying what your viewpoint actually is, so apologies if I'm having a particularly stoopid day on that account. Are you saying that the issue of religion here is wholly irrelevant? So as long as some sort of survival of the fittest 'selection' - of whatever variety - is happening, thereby making some schools 'better' and others 'worse', then that is a good thing and to be encouraged? Is that your only point?

Gooseberrybushes - there is no principle that state schools should be able to select children on the basis of the supportiveness and commitment of the parents, although many heads would like to have more supportive parents, and would be happy if other schools took on more of the burden of teaching harder to teach pupils - transient families, illiterate families, transient families, families that don't speak English, families with chaotic lifestyles, drug and alcohol addiction etc... Many parents too would be happy for their DCs schools to have a less challenging intake. But the thing is state education isn't for teachers, or for parents. It's for children. All of them.

That is why the school admissions guidelines try so hard to make sure schools can't select for keen parents. The only exception to this is the religious practice/letter from the vicar etc..,

The argument that religious selection 'works' because it selects for committed parents is correct, but completely illegitimate.

Absolutely right himalaya