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?

DC, answering a quetsion of yours from several days ago: No I'm not thinking of Mary Whitehouse and Gay News, I've already said Oz Magazine (in fact it was the Skoolkids issue) where the owners/publishers Richard Neville and Felix thingamajig were taken to court.

Caroline1852, I agree that the school that excludes your children is a travesty of what true Christianity stands for, & I wouldn't want any child of mine going there. As I've said a few times, the faith schools in my area have a proportion of places for practising Christians/Muslims/Jews etc & the rest community places for all-comers, & I don't think I'd personally be happy with a school purely for kids who went to church as that could be very exclusive. My church is actually full of people with doubts, with complicated pasts & with messy lives, including various 'odd bods' (& I'm pretty odd myself!) who don't really fit into society, & the philosophy of true Christianity is that anyone should feel welcome: that's why Jesus spent most of his time with poor people & outcasts.

UQD, I'm glad to feel a bit of a thaw from your direction & I hope it's not my imagination. Re. proving the existence of God: I know it sounds like a cop out, but I don't think it's something that can be proven in a material sense; just that Christians believe that God is at work in the good in the world, be it perpetrated by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, tree-worshippers, pink unicorns or whoever, & that evil exists because God created freewill. Why don't we just agree to differ on that on the grounds that a tolerant & open society is best all round? Off to eat my tea now (prepared by my heathen husband...)

But 'twinset' the situation is that the churchgoers have more choice and an exclusive choice not open to non-churchgoers but we all pay taxes. It is disingenuous to say that the other schools need to get better when they can't improve when all the able/motivated/better behaved pupils are being creamed off by the selective (by the back door) faith school. That is the reality faced by so many of us.I accept that when church schools were established they wouldn't have anticipated the current situation but we have to face the fact that there is such a blatantly un-level playing field.

I suppose we do have more choice and I can't defend that, although lots of parents who send their kids to church schools would only use the church school so they have limitations although they are self imposed.

I must be very lucky because here I can genuinely say that our church schools do not cream off kids and I can say that with some insider knowledge as a parent using one school, a teacher in another, a governer of a further school and a supportworker in two other local schools. THere is a difference between our schools but that is to do with geography not if the school is a church one.

Thanks twinset for the concession re choice. It sounds as if you are lucky in your area.I think one of the reasons so many people have got hot under the collar on this thread is the lack of choice issue; once we have that problem then it is quite natural to point out any unfairness in the system. I don't know what the overall answer is. Is it properly drawn up catchments with no opt out? This would probably work in our area but might not work everywhere.

idelmum, when you say no opt-out, you mean everyone has to go to their catchment school, no arguments? (And no faith schools.) I think that's good in theory but it would only work if everyone played fair - believe me, some people would still find a way round it. (Using grandma's address, renting etc - as they do now.)

Regarding the choice issue, what people fail to consider is that for a parent of a particular 'faith' who wants to educate their children according to that teaching, there is arguably less choice available than for those non-believers. My parish does not have a church school attached and therefore it has been difficult for me to secure places for my children in the nearest available catholic school.

Ultimately my choice of a catholic school is borne out of the fact that this is the education that I undersatnd and have expereinced myself and want for my children. I am a practising catholic who lives by the teachings of my church and to be honest, I resent the fact that individuals who have no interest in this religion should expect to educate their children at a catholic school, at the expense of a place for my child.

Perhaps they resent paying for a school which their child is barred from attending?

Then the same parents woud start to fuss about how the schools are better in the wealthier areas than they are in their areas. You would end up with the same problem really.

..which in areas with grammar schools and not many church schools is the case already...

I agree UnquietDad - that is the problem with catchments in some areas at the moment. Where I live it could work for us if all the local people had to go to our local school and couldn't play the sysyem by suddenly starting to go to church. But I know then it could become a problem if the local school improves - the area would become one in which people pretend to live etc. As I said in my earlier post, I don't have the answer but I did wonder whether the catchment idea could be used if the catchments were fairly drawn. I have to admit that I could be persuaded that properly managed and flexible selection by aptitude could work too but only if enough money and resources were ploughed in to all the schools and not just the 'grammar' equivalents.But I am sure that the ongoing practice of allowing faith schools to select by the back door is ridiculous.Education should be about opportunity for all children and no child should be refused entry on the basis of whether the parents attend church.
Out of interest UnquietDad - what do you think would work best ?

I don't know - I'm not in the business of making silk purses out of sows' ears, and if I were I'd be earning a lot more money! What I do wish is that the comprehensive system were not trumpeted as some ideal of fairness, when it is riddled with people pulling a fast one, jostling and hustling and lying and cheating because they feel they need to. If we had a properly fair system, none of this would need to happen. I don't know what a properly fair system would be, though...

At the risk of sounding like an old fart, "it was never like this in my day." (Well, it wasn't, was it? I don't remember my parents stressing about school catchments and appeals and faith schools and all of that. I went to a grammar school so there was a bit of tension over whether I'd be selected, but I never had to do the 11-plus - it was selection at 13 by aptitude - but apart from that it all seemed plain sailing.)

I see no reason to blame religious schools for the stupidly poor state of British education, though if apologists for their discrimnation want to take credit for their role in creating our system, I rather think they should share the blame.
Comps as UQD says are source of inequality not in their concept, but because they are badly run, as well as having inadequate resources.

Hence parents willingness to lie and cheat to escape the worst of them. If we had schools that discriminated on the basis of race or choice of football team we would see the same effect.

I have read a lot of comments on threads like this from people who object to paying taxes for religious schools that their children cannot attend. Well religious people pay taxes too for schools they don't intend to use either. Its a pointless argument IMO. If I have only boys why should my taxes fund girls schools or if I have no children at all why shouldn't I pay less tax than people with children. If I am healthy why do I have to fund the NHS etc?

The only reason people make the tax arguments is because they have poor alternatives. If the faith schools performed badly and the local schools were excellent then there would be no such complaints.

Maybe people who do attent church regularly and have religious beliefs are more likely to have a strong set of moral standards which helps schools achieve better results.

FWIW my sons attend Catholic school with a high % of English as a second language children (Korean,Spanish,Polish) and the school still achieves very good results even though they have a limited pool or Teachers to recruit from. There are also plenty of children there who never attend mass and a number of single parents too.

You say you've read the threads, perhaps you'd like to do it again paying closer attention ?

We object because of the discrimination. I am not black or female, that does not stop me supporting laws against discrimination. I didn't live in a time or place when Christian churches were able to force polticians to enact laws against coloureds, torture heretics, or get umarried mothers comitted to aylums. Doesn't mean I think that's OK.
It's a point of principle, don't suppose a bulk christian would get that.
The schools thing is of course far less bad than many of the things bulk christians have done. That's not the same as being good.

As for the "moral standards", is this a subtle joke I missed ? Look at countries with more religious observance than Britain, like America or Iran. Hmmm. Nice.
Not.
Both George Bush and Tony Blair are clearly committed Christians who openly speak of God in their decision making. You up for defending their higher moral standards ?
How about Cardinal Cormac O'Connor, self confessed accomplice in the rape of children ?

23balloons:"Maybe people who do attent church regularly and have religious beliefs are more likely to have a strong set of moral standards which helps schools achieve better results."

With respect, you may see this has been argued below, and equally unconvincingly. What evidence is there for this? To say that the religious have higher moral standards is very dangerous ground - for one thing, it's a total debate-stopper, as :
either
a) you're saying that without God, you'd not be a good person and are therefore naturally inclined to steal, lie, cheat, harm, etc., and that, worryingly, only your belief in a deity is presenting you from doing these things
or
b) no, you're not saying that, you're a naturally good person anyway and you would be even without the surveillance of God - which rather defeats the point of believing in God.

Good schools, faith or non-faith, are in a self-perpetuating cycle - they attract motivated parents with bright, well-supported and well-resourced kids. They usually have a good ethos and strong leadership. That's why they are good schools. It has nothing to do with religious morals.

23balloons:''I have read a lot of comments on threads like this from people who object to paying taxes for religious schools that their children cannot attend. Well religious people pay taxes too for schools they don't intend to use either.''
Your two sentences illustrate the problem - ''cannot attend'' because they are excluded from applying versus ''don't intend to use''.In the second case there is a choice being made whereas in the first case there is no choice.

UQD, the point of believing in God isn't to make you a better person, but it should follow that by believing you become better and happier (than you were, not than non-Christians) by trying to follow Jesus's example. Obviously people like George W Bush & Tony Blair do nothing for my argument(!), but it's evident that power corrupts. I sometimes wonder if things would have been different with the Labour Party had John Smith not died & gone on to become prime minister as somehow he seemed a far more genuine Christian.

The church schools I've visited, which I realise are only a tiny minority, have had a genuinely caring ethos rather than just one of success being allied to league tables & exam results, & that's what's attracted me & what I want for my children - but I'm not saying that this is exclusive to faith schools. Round here we have a good choice of perfectly reasonable secular & church comprehensives & I don't know anyone who's started going to (a C of E) church to get into a particular school - although I've been surprised that parents of some children in my dd's class have declared a hitherto unmentioned allegiance to the pope in order to be considered for the local (high-performing) RC school!

Can someone help me out please?? Are there really lots of faith schools that only take people who go to church & don't have a proportion of community places? Apart from anything else, I don't know how they'd be filled up as not a very high percentage of people do attend church regularly, even if you add on all those who suddenly have a Damascus-Road experience when they discover how bad the local secular schools are... I'm puzzled.

overthehill - I actually think there is a lot to be said for the basic love-thy-neighbour teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't disbelieve in him as a historical figure, although I'd doubt the veracity of a lot of the Biblical claims. I just don't think that his teachings were in any way divinely inspired, nor that there is such a thing as the "divine". (As a sidenote, it's dispiriting and shocking to read some of the examples of "YOU ARE GONNA BURN IN HELL, SUCKER"-type correspondence which Richard Dawkins gets sent to him - and makes public - from people claiming to be Christians but obviously having no empathy at all with the idea of Christian charity...)

And I'm glad we agree a caring ethos is by no means exclusive to faith schools.

I think the answer to your last question is - there probably aren't that many which entirely exclude non-believers. (I know a couple, but they are very small. )

The point, I think, is that they are state schools which have particular entrance requirements, the biggest of which is that they strongly prefer you to have an affiliation with religion, and to demonstrate this in a convincing way. Even if most faith schools now let in a token 10% or whatever it is of the children of non-faith people (I'm happy to be corrected on the actual figure), it's still vastly skewed in their favour. My issue with it is, and always has been, that religion is at best of debatable use and at worst an irrelevancy, and that it should have no place in a state school system.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that, if a faith school exists, it should let in anyone and everyone. I'm arguing that it shouldn't exist as a faith school in the first place. (NOT, as some seem to wish this to mean, that the school should close - merely that, if it's a state primary or comp, it should be a school with the same entrance criteria as all others in the borough and the same curriculum.)

overhehill, yes in parts of London. At 5 when our daughter sat for her private schools entrance she also applied to the church school attached to our church. Not only did you need to mass every week as we did (I should be allowed to sell on our attendance record to parents may be like farmers can sell on their right to receive EU farm subsidies.....) but also show you played a useful part in the life of the church which we did too. So just turning up wasn't enough such was the demand. I don't know if they had by law to reserve places for non Catholics. There was such demand from Catholics alone I think our area got a completely new Catholic primary at one stage.

I hate to say it, but the exclusivity seems to be more of an RC thing from what people are saying, & also round here: my dd who goes to (C of E) church every week would come 8th in the 9 categories of children allowed in our local RC comp - below those baptised RCs who don't go to church & those who are not RC but go to a Catholic primary school. Her friend, who is a baptised RC but only goes at Christmas & Easter, got in no bother. We went to look round because it's actually the nearest secondary school to us & dd wanted to go with at least one of her friends, but we decided it would be too risky to put it down as both it & the C of E school said you had to put them first to get any chance of a place, & the RC school said she may well not get in. The C of E school, meanwhile, has only 25% 'faith' places, which includes RCs, Jews, Muslims etc, & someone I know who's a Jehovah's Witness got her child into a local C of E primary, somewhat to her surprise. Some people would argue that it's because the C of E is wishy washy, but I like to think that it's more inclusive, & if you're trying to spread Christian values, surely it's more important to have non-Christians as well.

If it's any consolation to those who worry about indoctrination, my step-dd went to a C of E secondary school & came out as much an atheist as she went in - although she, her mum & dh chose it over the local secular school because of its caring attitude & she was happy there. It was also in a run-down area of the city & had a good ethnic mix of children.

Apologists for religious discrimination in schools say it's OK because churches founded so many schools.
Exactly how is this different from saying "white men", as in:
A large % of schools & universities were paid for by white men, built by white men, and even now white men are far and away the biggest single group of people paying taxes for the upkeep of schools. Many church schools and universities were created with money specifically for the education of men, and typically for english men and boys. The white men who founded so many schools specifically set them up to exclude girls.
Like Christians they would have said they wanted boys to be in an environment that supported them...

So if I said that white men should get the sort of preferential treatment that bulk christians want for their kids, would that be fair ?

Please tell me discriminating on the grounds of sex and race is different from discrimination on the grounds of religion ?