Church schools should stop discriminating against teachers and pupils, say church leaders

[edam]

This news story is interesting. New group of church leaders and 'secular figures' campaigning to stop religious schools discriminating against non-religious families and staff, or those from the 'wrong' denomination.

(I have looked to see if there's a thread on this already but couldn't find one.)

I am a Christian, and it is important to me that the school I send my children to is sympathetic to my faith.

I will not be placing my most local school first in my list, I will place the primary school in the village 3 miles away as number 1, and then a school in another village about 3 miles away as number 2. My local primary will be bottom of my list - it is not where I want to send my daughter.

I know that for some areas, especially in London, it is more tricky, but for my first choice school, our faith will put us in position 7 out of 8. We live outside catchment, but worship in a CofE stream church.

I don't personally think that given our location, this will make a huge difference, but it will make a small one, because it will put us above the other children in our estate of the same age, so gives us an advantage of about 2 places.

I am hoping that with a PAN of 60, and some of this year's intake being as far as 15 miles from the school, that in 2 years' time when I need a place, My DD will be within that 60.

I think the question you have to ask is why so many people want places in a faith school? Why are they performing so well?

In my school, it isn't as easy as wealth and class. It is rated outstanding by ofsted, yet ofsted recognises that there are a large number of travelling children that attend the school, and there is a usual mix of well-off middle classes and less-well-off families (such as myself).

I do feel for people who strongly choose to practice no faith, and on principle feel discriminated against. But what you are suggesting, is that I should not be able to access a school on the basis of my faith, when that school is specifically attributed to that faith. That strikes me as a bit of sour grapes. But, I can see that it would put you between a rock and a hard place. Those with less conviction would attend a service once a month for a year, and get a recommendation from the priest.

I don't agree with that myself, but as I have attended church fully and served as a committed member for the last 12 years, and my children are only 2.8 and 12 months, I don't have any issues with getting a letter of recommendation from my pastor, so I haven't got the dilemma to consider.

Sadly, Athene, I don't entirely disagree - clearly religion is practice plays a far larger role in affairs of state than it should, even if only tacitly (unlike the US which despite it being enshrined, everyone seems pretty happy to violate it very publicly). That doesn't mean, however, that the principle isn't widely accepted - look at, for example, recent cases on wearing religious symbols and school or the many various statutory instruments (e.g. Human Rights Act) stating that discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal.

Leaving aside the fundamental objection to linking religion and any state-provided activity (um, or at least trying to!), I don't object to building a 'single community' on shared values. This assumes, of course that this would not create dozens of 'single communities' and actually make society as whole more fragmented and divisive - which would be the natural result in a non-homegenous society like, for example, ours.

do I look scared?

I think not

Oh, you've done something different with your hair?

CountessD - Is your dress from Ghost?

Faith schools don't exist in addition to other schools, but instead of. This is a point many seem to miss. They effectively replace schools we could have used. (please don't say that your school was here first. So were witchcraft trials and poorhouses. We phased them out when we became civilised)

Maybe those in favour of discrimination are right that it's a good thing. In that case we should scrap all laws against it.

After all we live in a white, low crime town with a 'shared community' of decent respectable, like minded people and I don't see why we should allow blacks into our area. They only want to come here because their areas are so bad. That's just sour grapes on their part.

Tell you what. In order to match Daftpunks offer that people could convert to catholicism to get their kids into her school we will let blacks into our community providing they pretend to be white, wear white makeup and clothes and dispense with all that 'black talk'

If any pro faith schools people think that sounds vile you now know how this issue sounds to many of us.

you know, I was reading about one of the schooling pioneers in the 1600's, a Christian woman, and she would have been utterly appalled at the idea of her school being 'only for Christians'.

I do hate to keep banging on about this, but as a Christian, I really feel compelled to state that discrimination was never supposed to be the point of church run schools, and it shouldn't be part of them now, especially when they are funded by the state.

Very well said Kay Harker.

Agree kayHarher.

hardly division of Church and state is it?

Schools should be sympathetic to all faiths, but not exclude upon the basis of.

The other thing that srikes me is comments such as 'I do feel for people who strongly choose to practice no faith, and on principle feel discriminated against. But what you are suggesting, is that I should not be able to access a school on the basis of my faith'.

Adults select the family faith but it is children who access schools. Little innocent kids. Who shouldn't be disadvantaged by parental decisions any more than is unavoidable. We might be unable to prevent Mum downing half a bottle of vodka throught her pregnancy, but we can ensure that child's disadvantage is not further compounded by being relegated to a second class school (obviously not all non-schurchs chools are, and neither are all church schols fab, but thats clearly what we are debating here) n the basis of a lack of faith of the parent.

As a Christian, I have a duty to try to ensure all children get the best available. That is regardless of faith, of class, income, of whether Mum cannot travel to another school or if Mum (I say Mum, clarly could be Dad, guardian etc) can't be arsed to look at another school.

I was going to say that about bishops peachy, but couldn't remember whether they were still in HoL or not - but as you say, they are.

It's also still impossible (under the 1701 Act of Settlement) for a Catholic to be the head of state; and the head of state is still the head of the CofE (these two things are of course related).

So not true to say that the church is effectively disestablished, i think.

Is it not convention that the Lords Spiritual do not vote?

There are 1,000 posts saying: "In a fair society all schools would be secular and not exclude children or on the basis on their parents' beliefs, a form of discrimination that is illegal in every other sphere of public life in this country'
And you STILL get someone bleating:
"Why do you want to get into our school if you don't believe in our religion'

PW: that's a good point, I hadn't thought about that. But on a practical basis, I think it's fair to say that the monarch's role in both state and church is very much symbolic these days and in practice it is disestablished - apart from some of the examples earlier, as RMP notes, the Lords Spiritual certainly don't vote, well haven't for the best part of a century anyway I don't think.

The Sovereign holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

The Church of England, and the monarch's relation to it, was established through a series of Parliamentary Acts in the 1530s, which brought about the English Reformation - examples of the relationship between the established Church and the State.

Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without Royal authority.

The connection between Church and State is also symbolised by the fact that the 'Lords Spiritual' sit in the HOL. Parish priests also take an oath of allegiance to The Queen.

Powers that are still held by the monarch under Royal Prerogative include

The appointment and dismissal of ministers
The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections
declaration of war;
The declaration of an emergency;
The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England

We depend on legal convention to prevent absue of power.

Would you care to gloss for us Swedes or should we draw our own conclusions?

So when was the last time a monarch used any of these powers to exert their influence?

Consensus seems to be not since the mid-nineteenth century parliamentary reforms.

Reckon Prince Charles might if he ever got the chance.

Yes, one can well imagine King Charles witholding the Royal Assent to the Hunting Bill or to a bill introducing Sharia Law? It is only convention that assent will not be refused.

Hmmmm. I guess, which kinda goes back to the point about there being an effective separation of church and state on a practical basis (if not an absolute basis).

(PW: I liked the googling interlude footage. Cute kitten. Shame it got so horrendously tangled in the string.)

I agree, c'est la vie. Much as he might like to, even if he ever does get to be king, it's impossible to imagine Prince Charles successfully influencing anything a government might do unless he has very substantial backing from the public/media. Same goes for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As our entire political system is pretty much based on convention (as indeed are most social rules etc) then I think the "only" is misplaced. In any case the position of the Church of England does not explain why we need so many Catholic schools - 2,315 in 2006-7 with places for 824,329 children (including some tertiary education). 9% of the population claim to be Catholics, but even with the recent influx of Easter Europeans (now expected to be largely reversed) there are only 1 million churchgoers.

Oh and in case you think I am anti-Catholic, then yes, I guess I am, given that I am an atheist but I was brought up as a Catholic and went to a church primary school.

Nooka. The 'only' isn't entirely misplaced. To put it in a Mumsnet context, if stealing fruit shoots from the supermarket was left to accpeted convention and not spelled out in the Theft Act, do you think the rule would be more or less likely to be observed?

Yes but our legal and political system is largely based on convention, common law, precedent etc. So it is a powerful force. The likelihood of the monarch or the Archbishop of Canterbury taking an overtly active role in decision making is minimal, and would almost certainly lead to speedy political change to ensure it could never happen again.