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.....!)

"There is no principle that state schools should be able to select children on the basis of the supportiveness and commitment of the parents"

Well no, obviously. I don't see why this needs writing down. There have been cases where school have been reprimanded for too overtly using faith for the purposes of academic selection. That's the whole point: it is often "academic" (loosely) selection by the back door. That's why people dislike the schools but still want their children to go there.

Misty: "The issues are so intertwined that I don't see a lot of point in separating them."

You're entitled to that point of view. However for clarity of thought it is better to identify the reasons why they are defended and attacked. I've done so earlier. There are those who object on the grounds of religion: and those who object on the grounds of unacknowledged academic selection.

"With regard to my confusion, the only thing I'm struggling with is identifying what your viewpoint actually is"

My viewpoint is very clear: what you are struggling with is accepting that someone can recognise that the argument for faith selection is weak or non-existent, and that faith education does not necessarily perform on a standard with non-faith education (outside of the parents' input), but that unacknowledged selection is a benefit that will disappear when access is widened. Also you have a problem with understanding the reasons why faith schools often achieve "better" results: that it is not selection by child, but by parent. You also seem to struggle with the difference between "morally better" and "better at achieving certain academic outcomes".

I don't think you are having a stupid day, and I don't think you are stupid: I think you are accustomed to a different sort of argument where people disagree with everything the other person says. It is possible to have a conversation where one says, yes, I agree with that, but not with the other. Or, yes, that fact is true, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Ivy: "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?"

They might: or they will transfer the drive and ambition to the school their children attend, so more people will benefit, but their efforts will be diluted.

Gooseberrybushes - you seem to be conflating academic selection (I.e. of brighter children) with social selection (of more supportive families/exclusion of families with more complex needs)

They are not the same thing; the first is legitimate in some circumstances (e.g. Grammar schools). It is a seperate argument whether academic selection is a good idea, but it is not relevant here since faith schools are not filtering children based on academic potential, but parents based on their lifestyle. This is not legitimate in any circumstances. I don't really understand how you can say this principle is something you agree with, and is obvious and then use the supposed benefit of breaking this basic principle as the key argument for faith schools.

Also, you explain it it purely positive terms in terms of selection of supportive parents. Who wouldn't want their children to go to a school like that? But I think it works more in negative terms - filtering out families with more complex needs (and as someone else has said here, often encouraging parents of children of SEN that they would be happier elsewhere).

So the 'concentration of supportive parents' effect you think is worth keeping comes at the expense of concentrating families with higher needs at other schools (I.e. Where faith schools are oversubscribed, other local schools have higher rates of SEN, free school meals, kids
on at risk register, ESOL, coming and goings of kids who join mid-
year etc...). I don't think this is defensible at all. All children have an equal right to an education, and it is harder for schools to provide this where some schools have more than their fair share of families with more complex needs and others concentrate those that are easier to teach.

I haven't said I agree with anything, except in one post I hinted that I do quite approve of academic selection.

I've used academic in inverted commas when referring to faith schools: and I specifically refer to selection by parent rather than child.

I understand exactly the argument and what the terms are.

It is the job of schools to provide a full and rounded education, not other childrens' parents. Trying to make an argument against faith selection on the grounds that the benefits of "driven" parents ought to be shared out is very weak.

I do not make an argument of the benefits of the driven huddle as a reason to maintain faith selection. I've stated that if people want wider access so that their own children can have access to those good results, then they will soon be disappointed as the results will drop back. People need to know what they are wishing for. It's all the same to me.

rocking horse been again?

I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?

well I was wondering the same - that's why I thought I would mention it

Yes, I know what I'm talking about.

What are you talking about?

Gooseberrybushes - YOU may well know what you are talking about. But as you persist in being very cloak and dagger about what your motivations and opinions actually are (apart from saying vaguely that you agree with 'selection', and that we will all regret it if it disappears) then I for one will remain in the dark.

btw, all your previous observations about what I do and don't understand are inaccurate.

Well that's good you know what your talking about gooseberry, at least someone does....

GooseberryBushes, you are really not giving those of us who are against discriminatory admissions policies much credit here, which makes me suspect that you really don't understand the argument. It is not by any means simply a matter of "access to good results". The issues are exactly as himalaya states, both in terms of the principle of fair access to state services, and in terms of the actual effects of these policies on those community schools which end up taking far higher numbers of pupils who are more challenging/expensive to educate, and who have all been filtered out by the VA school admission process.

Selectiopn by parents?

Interesting.

Well. I am a Christian; I wonder though if we'd get into your imaginary school? Two ASD kids, one with dyslecxia and add ons, a 4th being assessed. I am certainly a caring parents (heck with all that, SSD have given it to me in writing ;), ecuated, involved etc

And tired, and poor, and struggling sometimes.

Do I get in as Christian, or not on basis of being a demanding family?

And if the latter is that actually what Christ wanted? Seems to me he was a purveyor of love and equality for his era) and not a fan of those who passed by leaving the needy / poor / struggling in favour of tehir own errands. What with the Samaritan and all.

Failure to understand doesn't mean someone doesn't make sense.The problem is usually closer to home. Hth.

I have been very, very clear. Cloak and dagger? Misty, if you do understand, then you've tried to deliberately conflate and confuse. There's no other explanation.

What you two are talking about I have absolutely no idea, particularly this stuff about rocking horses.

Zephrine: I know what you mean: in fact I've said outright that the arguments for faith selection in and of itself are weak. There are arguments for selection, but to tie them with faith clouds them. One might just as well argue for selection per se. However all I've pointed out it that where standards are good at faith schools, they will fall when access is widened. It is a mistake to want to end faith selection so that all schools are as good a faith schools, or because people want access to "faith school standards". This is impossible for some people to understand and it is quite the mystery to me why they struggle so.

Yes, I understand that many people object to faith selection simply on the grounds of faith.

There is no objection to faith schools on the grounds of not grouping together needier children. In that case, there is an argument for better provision of services, better teachers, expansion etc etc. Complaining about faith schools on these grounds is weak.

I should say, not no objection (obviously you two are objecting) but no argument, no good case.

not read any of the thread really but thought id add my thoughts. My dd is in a very catholic school who takes catholics first and then other practising faiths. Its a very over subscribed school as its the best in the area. In reality they only take catholics as so many catholics apply so it never makes it down the criteria to other religions. Personally i think church schools should take their own religion first as i would be furious if my catholic DD didn't get to go to a catholic school because of someone who didn't have a religion or go to church, That would totally affect her religious education. I suppose it depends on where you live and the schools on offer but near me we have a catholic school, several CofE (some more church-y than others) and community schools and they should serve those members of their faith else where would they go?

Gooseberry, perhaps you could look closer to home - try looking at your last sentence and tell us are you using a double negative on purpose or to again try to use a cloak and dagger on whether you agree or not. If the double negative is on purpose then you agree, if the double negative is not on purpose then I would take it you disagree.

"Not no objection" isn't very clear

Gooseberry I suspect that the reason you think the argument is "weak" is that you think people are making a different argument. I have never heard anyone arguing that if you ended faith schools standards would improve across the board.

As for there being no good argument against grouping "needier" children together - in this context meaning a broad range of under-privileged children from transient, low income or chaotic families, children with special educational or behavioural needs, and children from families where little English is spoken - words fail me. You really can't see what's wrong with this?

Kitkat, how lovely for you to have your own personal beliefs so closely reflected in your children's school, and to get priority over other families in your local community to boot. I can quite see why you would be reluctant (or as you say, furious) to give up such a privilege.

Whatever happened to the church's proud claim to be "the only society that exists for the benefit of its non-members" I wonder.

Seriously Ivy, I don't think it's worth the bother for you. Honestly.

Seriously,how you can think this has a double meaning?

"There is no objection to faith schools on the grounds of not grouping together needier children. In that case, there is an argument for better provision of services, better teachers, expansion etc etc. Complaining about faith schools on these grounds is weak."

Struggling? How about: "There is no argument against faith schools based on case studies that selective faith education leads to the grouping together of needier children."

You are just looking for reasons to be nerdy about what I'm saying.

Zephrine: the argument I've said is "weak" is the argument above, which is what Himalaya said and what you supported her in saying. I am not confusing it with the argument about the abolition of faith schools improving standards across the board.

Actually, no, I can't see anything wrong with that. You can offer concentration of provision, concentration of ESL, bring in the extra TAs that will be needed.

These children need those services. They will need them whichever school they are at. Unless you think those children and those families will improve because of the influence of other children and other families?

The cost is very high. Think about the influence of three conscientious, hardworking, quiet children on a class. Now think about the influence of one disruptive, demanding, noisy child.

Standards are brought down more swiftly than they are lifted when you rely on peers and parents. You need to rely on official provision to see stable, consistent, real improvement in standards, particularly where children are needier.

So -- it's certainly not an argument for the abolition of faith schools. There are other arguments, but that is not one of them.

You would need to fcous your efforts for change on improving provision, if that is what you are concerned about. Or you are just shifting responsibility for improving standards, to the parents of other people's children.

That's the govenrment's responsibilty and the government's failure. Maybe the responsibility of the childrens' parents, if those parents are neglectful. But it is certainly not the responsibility of the parents of other people's children - or indeed the children who pay the price with disrupted education.

ivy I just tried to understand again what you said and really, it's just contrary blither.

Gooseberry who is talking about the abolition of faith schools? We are discussing admissions policies.

I suppose I think the reduction of faith selection to 10pc amounts to the abolition of faith selection.

Gooseberrybushes ? after reading your posts, the best attempt I can make at summarising your position is:

• You are of the opinion that if admissions policies in faith schools are changed to combat discrimination, then academic standards will fall across the board.

• You are not bothered by the existence of faith schools. In fact, you think they are quite a good thing because they allow selection for academic achievement by the back door.

• You are in favour of academic selection, because then all the more ?difficult to teach? children can go to another school (presumably not one that you have to have anything to do with), and have resources concentrated on them there.

• The faith element of faith schools is neither here nor there to you. You think it would be okay to send your child to say, a Catholic school if you were atheist, CofE or Jewish (or another permutation thereof) ? since the faith element is not important, the academic element is.

That last point is one which I?m not really very clear on where you stand. As far as I can see, you also haven't addressed the issue of discrimination which was raised earlier.

Kitkat ? you say ?I suppose it depends on where you live and the schools on offer but near me we have a catholic school, several CofE (some more church-y than others) and community schools and they should serve those members of their faith else where would they go?? Is there really a perfect match of numbers of each ?type? of child to each ?type? of school? I would be very surprised if there were.

No, you're wrong on the first, I just think they'll fall in those faith schools where they were higher/best school in the area etc previously.

I'm not bothered by CE faith schools, as they seem more tolerant, open to other faiths and viewpoints. Catholic schools and madrasas less so. I used to think faith schools are a good thing not because of selection but because I like the idea of a middle-stump Anglican ethos behind schools. But that's changing now, so I mind less if they disappear. Re: which faith. The faith school my children went to welcomed children of any faith over no faith. My children's friends included Hindus and Muslims. So, no, I'm not worried about that, I just like the faith element and the thought and self-discipline involved.
So no, it's not the academic element that is important to me, it's the faith element. The academic element is important to those who feel aggrieved that their non-Christian child has no access to those standards.

I don't mind selection but I'm not sure how strongly at primary it ought to be effected.

Also I can see arguments for and against focussing resources for needier families at certain targetted schools. What ought to be done is clear. What happens is the ghettoisation without the resources. If the resources were made available, the arguments in favour would be stronger.

I don't know enough about this to have a strong opinion. I don't see any reason why neglectful and chaotic parents should have a negative impact on the education of other people's children - that's true. But I don't know enough about specialisation and what parents want and need to offer a decided opinion.

Gooseberry you certainly suppose wrongly when you suppose that reducing faith selection to 10% of places amounts to abolition of faith schools. There are many VC faith schools which operate by the same admission policies as community schools.

As to the rest, your approach to public services is so extraordinary I don't know where to start. Would you be in favour of publicly funded hospitals that gave priority to those belonging to teetotal faiths? They would certainly have a much easier time providing a high standard of care without having to deal with alcohol related illnesses and incidents.