can someone explain how church schools are funded to me?

[hatwoman]

What I can make out about ours is that it is "voluntary aided" - which - apparently - means that the governors have to contribute to the cost of maintaining and improving the school. can someone tell me if this contribution from the governors (who are appointed by the church) is one and the same thing as the church contribution? the church contribution being the thing that entitles the church to appoint the governors and set admissions policies.

the reason I ask is that we have been asked to contribute towards the governors' contribution. If this amounts to being asked to contribute towards the church contribution then we will be refusing to pay it - as we are both wholly opposed to the idea of church schools and the idea of churches being able to set admissions etc. We feel we can't facilitate this system by funding something that is meant to come from the church. iyswim. [all a bit complicated - thanks if you're still with me]

thanks for the info - which seems to confirm our suspicions. but we will be asking the school about this - not relying on mners! I was just wondering.

re my "silence" - yep I have been at work and then out for the evening

re my child's attendence at a church school - firstly we live in a borough with a disproportionate amount of church schools. we were not able to send dds to our nearest primary (about 400 yards away)because it is a church school and we are not church go-ers. Our next nearest school is a (non-church) infant school. and that is where both dds have gone. However it feeds into a church junior school - effectively giving us no choice but to have them attend church school from year 3 onwards.

littleol - I'm afraid that certainly in my borough it is just not true to say that all children benefit regardless of their religion - the only children that go to church schools round us are either genuine Christians or children of parents who are willing to fake religion for a year or two. which is my objection to church schools. private church schools is another issue but church schools supported by tax-payers and able to discriminate re admissions criteria on the basis of religion are just not on, imo.

I am not sure how sending your child to your local school - entirely funded by the state execpt for a 10% contribution to the capital costs - amounts to "taking advantage of the system" - this doesn't make any logical sense at all tbh.
it is a perfectly legitimate pov to have an idealogical objection to religious discrimination/ indoctrination / religious influence over state religion / segregation to name some arguments against the state funding of church schools or the exclusion of certain groups. hatwoman is entitled to have her views respected and tolerated, and tbh I find these kind of statements (if you can't stand the heat etc) to be symptomatic of a type of arrogance and lack of respect for others views that leaves a bit of a nasty taste in the mouth.
bugger off out of "our" schools or stop complaining - no I stand by my statement - that is unchristian.

sorry hatwoman I am sure you can make your own case without me getting all hot and bothered

Now you've explained the situation, hatwoman, I see your point a bit more. It is a bit much that you are being asked to pay for a situation you didn't want in the first place.

However, I would still look at the immediate practicalities - how far does the church connection really influence the school's admissions (it sounds as if that particular school has to take all comers locally anyway) or policies/curriculum etc? Before my children started school, I'd have been hot under the collar over the potential for religious indoctrination; several years in, I don't see it in such simple terms. There's a fair bit of wishy-washy New Age waffle out there in "ordinary" state primary schools, and I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer my children to learn something that is relevant to their cultural heritage and would help them to understand Victorian novels. VA status does also give the school some freedom from the LEA, which could be to its advantage.

I'd pay the money (both to avoid starving the school of funds and to ensure I had an influence) and save my fire for the battles that really matter.

thanks incog! hallgerda - you are right that in this particular school the church's influence over admissions is limited by virtue of it being a junior school (which actually means that my comment to littleol doesn;t apply to the particular case) and I have to agree (and in fact pmsl) at the "new age waffle" - so true. (dh and I both feel that school is not the place for ideology - although it's an interesting discussion (that happens quite alot in our house)quite where the line is between schools quite rightly teaching kids stuff that will help them grow into constructive members of society and something a little bit more ideological and doctrinal.) I digress...back to the issue. One thing that makes us nervous about the current situation is that the church has long harboured desires to merge the infants and juniors into one school - which would make a big difference. the infant school has always told them to bog off and about a year ago they had a parental vote - and a merger was roundly rejected. so perhaps they won't bother trying again for a while. The other problem that has arisen because of the church influence was a failure to appoint a head teacher quickly when one resigned - apparently (and I accept this is the playground rumour mill) because none of the applicants were sufficiently Christian.

we'll ask the school for more details about the fund. I don;t mind giving the money to the school (which is, you guessed it, excellent) - but I do mind subsidising the church's influence over the school.

Perhaps I should look into getting on the board of governors and fuelling a rebellion from within....perhaps setting up an alternative fund that is nothing to do with the church...