Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

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

668 replies

Bomper · 05/03/2007 16:06

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?

OP posts:
madamez · 07/03/2007 14:23

I do wonder a bit about this "good" schools business. It seems a bit as though some people define a good school as one where there are loads of petty uniform rules and an attempt to instill unquestioning subservience to authority - not my idea of a good education. Also, people are hugely different, so sending your DC to one of these brownshirt exam factories doesn't necessarily guarantee him or her a good time - or a good education. High pressure to perform academically can lead to utter misery for the pupil whose talents lie in other directions (sport, music, empathy with animals, whatever), and just becasue the kids don't swear or carry guns doesn't guarantee that the school isn't riddled with the sort of horrific psychological bullying that can lead to teens self-harming.
And if a school boast of high exam passes, is it possible to check how many of these passes are in things like maths or physics as opposed to basket weaving or being able to tie one's own shoelaces?
Just wondering, you know (and realising YET AGAIN that mops just are... different)

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 14:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Marina · 07/03/2007 14:41

Can't help you with that I'm afraid. I'm a Christian so very much disposed to see a school with a Christian ethos as "better" for my children regardless of academic success as measured by Government league tables.
I think I am maybe unusual on Mn in that I am not personally in favour of state-funded faith schools. I prefer the French system of faith-based education being in the private sector. But, there again, that's also hateful and divisive isn't it?
Perhaps we should emulate societies like Soviet-era Russia and drive all organised religion underground. That clearly made for an equal and fair society, with social justice for all.

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 14:43

madamez - I'm sure you're right - it's because people want to look at what is predicatble and measurable. The more "emotional" and "creative" side of a school is harder to gauge without knowing kids like your own who have been through it. I went to a school which routinely gets 99% A-C, but where you could get shoved against the corridor wall for wearing the wrong kind of shoes or having a poncy haircut.

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 14:46

The French system is far less divisive; if I want to obtain for my children an education which represents my choice of sky-god, I have to buy it.

I just don't see why it is a school's place to reinforce one set of tenuous beliefs over another; if you want to do it at home or in your church/temple/mosque, then fine.

DominiConnor · 07/03/2007 15:01

Madamez has hit a nail very much on the head.
Our nearest school is CoE, and the headmaster is scarily bad in a way that is nothing to do with religion.
He obsesses about sport and uniforms, standing outside every day and sending home any kid "not properly dressed". This is not draconian methods to save a failing school since Buckhurst Hill is a nice middle class area, almost all kids have English as a first language at home, except for a few ex-pats who are of course better educated than the Brits.
Should be above average simply by lack of major social problems.
Not so.
He has awful ideas on maths, saying to us that he didn't see the point of teaching it at all beyond 12 or 13. Yes really. I was there.
His "solution" to a kid who got sent there at 7/8 unable to read or write was to get him interested in sport. Yes... I asked about giving him extra tuition. He looked at me as
if I'd advocated injecting a silicon chip into his brain.
Even ofsted feels obliged to point out the bullying problem, though in their normal oblique terms.
But parents love him.
A lot.
They like uniforms and sport, and err that's it.
Possibly the worst aspect of his behaviour is religious, though as a symptom of his general flakiness, rather than cause.
One kid ain't a Christian. Headmaster was at pains to point out how he was separated, and the kids told not to treat him differently and that maybe he'd see the light one day.
Can you imagine how awful that kid's life is ?

HaHaBizarre · 07/03/2007 15:10

Those who are in favour of faith schools.... are you in favour of all state schools being selective?

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 15:18

good question, HHB - could I add "and if so, selective on what basis?"

Pimmpom · 07/03/2007 15:21

DC - is it actually in B.Hill?

SmileysPeople · 07/03/2007 15:34

All schools are selective.

All over subscribed schools anyway.

Most select on distance to school or catchment.

Some specialist colleges select on aptitude and some are acadwmically selective.

It is a fallacy that your child can go to any school.

Selecting on the basis that you subscribe to the schools fudemental ethos, seems fairer to me than selecting because you had the money and wherewithall to move into the catchment.

Blu · 07/03/2007 15:35

BBS - as someone on MN has said before, if you have the family discipline / culture to be at Mass at an early-ish hour on a Sunday, you will probably have the same ability to get your children to school on time.
And if the majority of parents at a christian faith school live their lives according to their faith, there will be a lower ratio of kids who believe that drugs, neglect, domestic violence and general agression and lack of respect and affection is the standby response to any situation. Ergo a better learning environment.

HaHaBizarre · 07/03/2007 15:36

"Selecting on the basis that you subscribe to the schools fudemental ethos, seems fairer to me than selecting because you had the money and wherewithall to move into the catchment."

Fairer for those who go to church

Lio · 07/03/2007 15:39

If you're looking for a straw poll, my answer is No.

VioletBaudelaire · 07/03/2007 15:39

"Selecting on the basis that you subscribe to the schools fudemental ethos, seems fairer to me than selecting because you had the money and wherewithall to move into the catchment".

I agree.

HaHaBizarre · 07/03/2007 15:41

So should all state schools be allowed to select on the basis of parents supporting the 'ethos' of the school? And what would that look like on an admissions form?

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 15:42

Blu: that's a total non-sequitur, simplistic and quite patronising to non-believers.

smileyspeople: your premise - that all schools are selective and that it's a fallacy that your child can go to any school - may well be true, and for me it demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the "comprehensive" system. Im my opinion adding another layer of selection just makes things worse - it doesn't address the issue.

SmileysPeople · 07/03/2007 15:43

Haha, elitism is not about discrimation or selction, it is about superiority and using that as power.

Certainly in the Catholic case, when the schools were set up Catholics were prevented from any positions of power/authority. It's just now some of the schools are doing quite well.

Is a Catholic school on a sink estate in birmingham elitist?? There are quite a few of those, and not many people objecting to their admission policies.

As I said anyone can be a Catholic or a Christian, there are no financila/academic/social bars, it is a free choice. Totally unelitist (if there is such a word)

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 15:45

"Selecting on the basis that you subscribe to the schools fudemental ethos, seems fairer to me than selecting because you had the money and wherewithall to move into the catchment".

One big difference. The "money and wherewithal" needed to move into a good catchment is not an absolute requirement - it's just how it has evolved. Nobody stipulates that you must have a mortgage of over 250K to be in certain catchments - it just happens that way, which I agree is appalling, and should be addressed. But the requirement to follow a faith is just that - a requirement, not a side-effect of the rules.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

SmileysPeople · 07/03/2007 15:45

So how do all you anti selection in any form ever types, feel that over subscribed schools should decide who gets the places??

Cappuccino · 07/03/2007 15:46

"Blu: that's a total non-sequitur, simplistic and quite patronising to non-believers."

even if this was true, isn't it good to redress the balance eh when further down the thread there's a suggestion that Christians are mentally ill?

Blu · 07/03/2007 15:47

Unquietdad - It wasn't a non sequitur, I was responding to BBS question about how far the culture of the family contributed to the learning environment in schools.

And I am an unbeliever so I don't see why it is patronising.

It was also borne out by some of the things referenced in BK's link.

And as for simplistic, well some of the reasons catholic schools do well academically seem simple to me...the possibility that they are better led or governed is dispelled in BK's link, so it can't be that. Another possibility is , I don't know what to call it, 'godliness' perhaps, as an automatic pump-primer of academic ability or achievement. Which seems unlikely to me.

Blu · 07/03/2007 15:48

Actually, Unquietdad - wind your neck in!

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 15:48

OK - "anyone can be a [Scientologist/fairy-worshipper/crystal-healing-believer/ follower of Thor/ worshipper of Apollo], there are no financial/academic/social bars, it is a free choice. Totally unelitist (if there is such a word)"

Is that fair?

I think my point is clear. Why should I "choose" to be such a thing when I have no basis in fact for believing that any of it is true? And why should schools discriminate on a basis which is as tenuous as the existence of the Giant Spaghetti Monster? If schools segregated according to football team or political party, would that be fair and unelitist?

UnquietDad · 07/03/2007 15:49

I don't know what "wind your neck in" means.

Tortington · 07/03/2007 15:51

and blu - its also bollocks too - as a church going mum - kids altar servards - white cassocks brass candles catholic church - you get the idea. i have three teenagers - its simply not true

and one can go to church saturday night if you cant get your arse out of bed sunday.

Swipe left for the next trending thread