Would you/have you started going to church to get child into a good church school?!

[Bomper]

My ds should pass his 11+, but I am not 100% confident he will. The comprehensive schools in my area are pretty awful, except one, which is a C of E school. Lots of parents have now started to go to church in order to be able to apply, and I am being urged to do the same. Most of me thinks - 'this is my childs future, I will do whatever it takes', but a small part feels guilty. WWYD?

Natric I'm so sorry that happened to you.

"There have been tons of posts since I was on this thread last night, it's taken ages to read. And nothing anybody has said has made my change my opinion that if you're a non-believer it makes no sense to fight for a religious school place then slag off the 'gift' you've been given."

And nothing I have read on this thread has convinced me why people of faith should be given preferential treatment at the expense of taxpayers.

Nothing has convinced me that it is right that many children don't get a choice of school in yet people of faith get a choice of school that suits their ethos - funded by the taxpayer.

Nothing has convinced me WHY parents and churches can't take care of indoctrinating their children into their religion (not that I agree with the indoctrination of children anyway)

Nothing has convinced me away from my belief that if religious folk want their children to go to a religious school THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!

Also, if faith schools are so good because of the faith element (which I do not believe) then the religious parents ought not to feel threatened by non-Christians attending those schools too. Why deny children a good education on the basis of what their parents' believe?

JUst to clarify my question to mainlymayday - I don't want to judge, I'm just curious! (And interested as to how such a deception would be maintained on a day-by-day/week-by-week basis. It strikes me that it could get difficult if there was pressure to become more closely involved.)

As for section in general, it begs a question that has been notably absent from most of this topic.
What is best for the kids ?
Selection seems to suit teachers at over-subscribed schools, but the number of more difficult children is not altered, so they must end up somewhere.
Selection is good for middle class people like me who have bright kids with no real problems.
Governments of both kinds pander to people like me. If you allow any substantial amount of slection, it does rather follow that difficult kids will be more concentrated. Since they are often working class and coloured, that suits the Daily Mail and Labour party, and who really cares ?
To me it follows the a higher concentration of difficult kids who may often hyave parents who don't hlelp the situaiotn means thatthe kids who need the most help are put into actively hostile environments.
My nice middle class friends hear my accent and know my academics, so flatly refuse to believe my tales of knife fights at school, or being taught by teachers with no qualification in any subject relevent to the one in hand.
That's comprehensives, where we send kids with poor parents. The religious schools have been successful in keeping down the number of such kids, which helps their statistics enormously.

HaHabizarre, to answer your question:

If there was a high acheiving vegetarian school, I think I would accept that priority had to be given to those who were vergetarian for whom the school was set up. I would be seriously questioning why a vegetarian school should be out performing the local school, and in all honesty would probably become a vegetarain if I felt it important enough to get a place at the school.

In reality all oversubscribed schools are selective, and what we are really talking about is oversubscribtion to good schools. No one minds failing Catholic schools selcting.

Most oversubscruibed schools select on distance, which we all know in reality is selectiing on economic grouds and ability to pay the premium to live in that area. This may not be the explicit intention of the policy, but let's not pretend that we don't all know this to be the case in reality, which is what counts.

A parent who cannot afford to live in a certain catchment has as much right to moral indignation about selction as you, as in reality they have no choice, and pay tax.

In fact more grounds for moral indigantion, as selcting on financial capability...now that is elitist.

"Since they are often working class and coloured"

"they" being the diffcult children according to DC

Haha -- in most cases church schools do not deny non-believers places. Many catholic schools, both state and private, have large numbers, sometimes even a majority of non-catholic children. But when the schools are over-subscribed, Catholic children have priority, on the basis that the schools were founded by the Catholic church to provide a Catholic education for children from catholic families.

And in answer to the question about why church schools perform better:

Firstly, not all church schools do perform better, in terms of SATs results. Where schools are under-subscribed they can end up in the same downward spiral as any other undersubscribed school.

But I do think the faith plays a part in their overall success -- IME it has a unifying influence on what might be a very disparate community. People have chosen that school specifically for its religious ethos, and IME the fact that even the more challenging families support that ethos (although often only nominally) affects the whole atmosphere. Which doesn't necessarily make it a more academically successful school, but probably does make it a more desirable school, which in turn means they will be more likely to attract families who value what the school provides, which presumably at some stage does translate into academic results.

But of course those of you that think we're all mad idol-worshippers hellbent on indoctrinating our children aren't going to be willing or able to understand that.

So not much point me posting, really.

Actually for once ever I agree with DC.

This is actually a debate about selcetion.
Whether it's selection on the basis of religion, catchment(which in reality is economic), aptitude or academic acheivement.

All 'good' and therefore over subscribed schools, (whether religious or not) have to select somehow, and as DC says usually in preference of middle class parents who have economic power.

I guess the only totallay 'fair' way would be, out of a hat selection.

Hasn't an LEA suggested this this week??

OOOh see those Middle Class parents who object to religious selection react to that suggestion!!

I agree with frogs post.

And following her reasons for many church schools doing well, I think that hypothetical vegetarian school would probably also turn out to be high acheiving.

Not as vegetarians or Christians are intrinisically any better, but because when people actively opt into something they invest in it, they have shared and understood values, and work together more effectively for the common good and the success of the ethos they've subscribed to and beleive in.

Which is suely a 'good thing'??

so as well as making sweeping judgements about the religious DC you make similar judgements about comprehensive schools.

I teach in a school where as you put it "poor parents send their kids" and I am highly qualified as are my colegaues and we are all very very good atour jobs. In factdare I suggest that the teachers at my comprehensive school are better qualiied and certainly better practioners than at the previous leafy M/C church school I taught at.

I atill think the answer is to reduce the number of church schools which flies in the face of government policy so only the religious are choosing religious schools that angst ridden m/c parents will have to use the local comprehensives ( if I was in power I would get rid of private education which is much more harmful to education than the church schools) which will force them to improve.

agree with SmileysPeople it is the shared value and belief systems thatmake a good school.I would be quite happy to see atheist/ humanist schools.

Can just imagine if "out of a hat", you could end up with a school miles away.

Although not ideal selecting on distance, children should have opportunity of attending a local school.

Unquietdad - would I lie? Well, going to church with my daughter when I don't believe is a tacit lie.

If the vicar asked me outright if I was a believer I would have to say no but I would say I wanted to give my daughter a religious grounding. Given my views on religion, this is pretty much untrue too but I feel so strongly about the faith school issue that I would do it.

BTW someone suggested faith schools are in the minority. Not in my borough they are not. I live in Westminster (central) and ALL my local schools are faith schools. I actually used to be a governor of one and they definitely used faith selection as a back door to other forms of selection.

Well that is wrong as I had said I woudl like to see faith schools as being the minority as we are a minority in the population. I actually think we woudl end up with more catholic than c of e schools as the catholic poulation is rising dramatically here with the influx of eastern european immigration. Our cathlic churches are packed at the moment.

I still wouldn't send my DD to a faith school as the only one that I would find acceptable in terms of school standards is a Catholic selective (and we're not Catholics so she could find that aspect of school life difficult to maintain). I also couldn't put in sufficient effort to 'be seen' at Church events as I'm not a Church-goer (although I do believe in God - so shoot me). On Sundays I prefer to take my DD out to create fun times with her family rather than jump through hoops to secure a potential secondary education. Sufficent unto the day etc...... By the time DD is 11, I may be able to blag her a place at Roedean or Marlborough if the latest proposals from the Govt go through [tongue in cheek smiley].

Unquietdad - those are the reasons I was suggesting all along!

There's something else to remember in all this.

Although statistically certain types of schools do better, that doesn't mean that an individual child who is doing well and supported by parents will do better in, say, a Catholic school than a reasonable community school.

One of DS's friends goes to a catholic school which is way above DS's school in the league tables. But those league tables are based on the accumulative scores of the children in the school. I am confident that DS will do as well in his school as he might have done if he was in his friend's school.

Another proposal - and I have no idea whether this is true or not. Groups of people tend to develop a 'team mentality' when they have a shared identity - like MN v BMC, when I was at a (high performing) girls school, we felt immensely competitive as girls that we do better than the boys school across the road. Perhaps catholic schools have a sense of motivation and drive to be high achieving as catholics - especially as I am making the presumption (I am hazy on the historical facts) that the origin of catholic schools is in the discrimination Catholics have faced in this country since the Reformation?

Thinking about what twinset and frogs and Blu have all said, it seems we are broadly in agreement that it is shared ethos and value system and concerned, actively involved parents which make for a "good" school. Along with strong management and good teachers, I expect (although you get great teachers in some "bad" schools because they want to make a difference).

So I wonder if you can have all this without the faith dimension? Surely you can. I suppose the faith activists would argue that they don't want to.

and conversely just because a school is high up in the league tables doesn't mean the individual child will always be well supported...

well that is the question isn't it, uqd? rather than people of faith saying they don't want to - isn't it up to the vociferous anti-faith school brigade to answer that question?

and btw uqd if you had read my link below you would see that in general there isn't stronger leadership and management in catholic schools (use this example because that's what i know and have evidence for)than in the school population as a whole.

Of course you can ahve a good school without the faith element, although you need to clarify what you mean by a good school as we may not all ahve the same definition.

As a "faith activist" myself I do not want to deny anyone a good education. Far from it in fact as I don't teach in a faith school.