Would you start attending church to get your child into a C of E secondary?

[crymyeyesviolete]

If your other local options were dire?

No, because I think the teachings of the church are not benign like most people seem to think.

i would however move and completely uproot my life to find my child a better school.

There's 40 something Jewish ones, a couple of Sikh ones, and 3 "other" (I'm guessing possibly Hindu? Or maybe something else)
Hardly Islam taking over the uks school system 😅

@RedLeggedPartridge Agreed. I think it’s good if children of atheists attend church schools - they can hear the other point of view and make their own decisions about whether or not they believe.

Can you please elaborate?

You seem to be implying that children of atheists who attend non-faith schools do not hear "the other point of view". That is patently false.

Religious education is taught in all schools; in all schools children learn about the various religions and their differences.

Maybe the difference is that in certain faith schools children are more likely to be told that one specific religion (out of the thousands in existence) is the true one. But that is not exactly "hearing the other point of view".

So can you please explain what you meant?

How dare you reply to fearmongering with facts and evidence? This is Brexit Britain, we don't do that here. We all know that those bloody immigrants are the root of all our problems... /s

When I was in school, this was pretty much what everyone would do, I think now in present times it’s more unheard of as they seem to be taking religion out of school branding, but like I say everyone used to do it

And why do you think that your child deserves a better chance than others? If they don’t get in they can go to another school surely? You can teach them the religious stuff at home.

People do this and then bitch and moan that the school “spends too much time teaching bible basher nonsense” “the school feels like a cult” etc and try and change the school

newsflash these schools are good because the majority of kids come from old school religious families so there’s less behaviour issues and more time can be spent teaching. You can tell the kids who are only there because their parents wanted a good school

And it also gives the children more of a chance to make their own mind up going to a non religious school (probably what that poster has a problem with) rather than having religion pushed on them as fact at home and school.

@Kanyekardashian ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

No, faith schools are not better because the families are religious.

Have you drunk the kool aid so much that you truly genuinely believe that nonsense? Really?

Faith schools are more socially selective. There is plenty of research, eg from the Sutton Trust and Humanists UK, to back this up.

Take the London Oratory: those hypocritical bastards had an admission policy that prioritised people who contributed (financially) to the church. It took a legal battle, but they were defeated and that policy was ruled unfair, discriminatory and illegal.
Even so, it remains one of the schools with the lowest % of kids on free school meals, certainly much much lower than in the area.
Let the children come to me. But only the rich ones, the plebs can ##@@ off.

But presumably someone who is so morally bankrupt that they welcome services funded by everyone's taxes discriminating based on faith would have no objection against that system, either.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/01/faith-schools-most-socially-selective-report-finds

You mention one niche example in London.
in my town the religious schools really are no different to the non religious schools exactly the same amount of kids with free school meals. Absolutely nothing to do with money.

I do not mention only one nich example (which should still make you think about the whole system, by the way).
I mention a Sutton Trust report which looks at the issue nationwide. See link above.

A humble suggestion for the future: it might be a good idea to read before replying. Just my 2 cents. Then you do you.

I didn’t want to fake religion but I never would say to dc that religion is mumbo jumbo either. That’s very disrespectful and a sad reflection of the uk today - intolerant. I don’t like faith schools selecting on religion and I don’t like duplicity but do I think we should accept others have different views about religion. Telling dc that religion is, in effect, a cult, diminishes the great religions of the world. We can strive to understand religion without believing it or trashing it.

Most religious schools will have a more overtly religious daily act of worship and have a religious ethos which is noticeable in newsletters and what the school does in its daily routines. The RE syllabus must follow the agreed syllabus for the area and that’s agreed by numerous religious leaders or advisers from a variety of faiths. I personally think it’s a fair reflection of society and promotes knowledge of other beliefs. None of that is a bad thing.

What do you think is stopping parents on lower incomes from attending church?

Time
Energy
Organisation skills
Being aware of the requirements early enough
Travel costs

Does being on a low income mean you have poor organisation skills?

There’s a church in every parish, usually walkable unless you live super-rurally. It doesn’t usual require transport and there’s free tea, coffee and often cake at the end.

Time and energy may be a factor for some, but this can also be the case for middle and higher earners.

It’s well-known that entry to check schools requires church attendance. They’re intended to have a religious foundation to provide education for those of that faith, so they set aside a proportion of places to serve the children in local congregations.

Add to that, fear of being judged by the congregation (or at least, not made welcome) and less likely to do something that they don’t believe in. Also, going to church is not something they might do that often and may feel it is out of their comfort zone. Also, if they're expected to give money for the collection, they may feel awkward about that if they don’t have much/anything to give. They may not have the money to get to church, buy smartish clothes to wear, and so forth. People with health challenge on top may find it difficult to get to church for a specific time.

@BunfightBetty You asked whether being low income means poor organisation skills.

Well not per se. But I would expect some correlation between learning difficulties and lower income (on average) and organisational skills are part of certain difficulties.

So I would expect it to be a reason why some low income people fail to attend church 18months in advance of their child starting school.

The more hoops, the more it favours the middle class.

I think that’s sad if true, as these are just perceptions, rather than holding much truth. If it’s something you feel is important for your children, edging out of your comfort zone is a small price to pay.

Yes

Ok, there may be a small proportion of children that this applies to.

But at the end of the day, these are church schools, offering places to children of that faith, who go to church. If there’s no link between church attendance and attending the school, it’s no longer a church school, is it? It’s fair enough that a proportion of places at the church school are allocated to children who actually attend the church.

It happens far more than you think. Parents that need encouragement to apply for FSM because of the shame factor. Assumptions that they will be looked down upon by others when going to church, not really surprising when you read some of the posts on places like this on social media. People on low incomes are judged for everything, much like parents are blamed for everything in parts of the press.

It's a fact that any school that applies faith selection criteria has a disproportionately better-off intake than is typical for the surrounding community.

It's important to remember that these are schools that have all of their running costs and most to all of their capital costs funded by the state. I've always said I'd be very happy for them to reserve places for children of their faith proportionate to their financial contribution.

It depends doesn't it.
Church schools pay a percentage of the cost (not sure what).
But the state pays a much greater percentage.

In some places there are only CofE schools within easy reach, eg in a village. They should I think prioritise local children above children of faith.

In other places there is more variety of schools so prioritising faith seems more reasonable.
Though I would argue at a minimum that any CofE schools that doesn't prioritise all LAC/Adopted children above faith isn't being very Christian, even though the rules permit it.

This doesn’t make sense at all. If the kids educated in the church school were educated in a non-state school, the costs would be the same. The taxpayer isn’t losing out. In fact, some church schools are funded by the church, and those that aren’t have at least part of their maintenance costs covered by the church and/or voluntary parental contributions. So for those schools it costs the taxpayer less.

It seems like you just don’t want kids at church schools because you think they have an advantage. Dog in the manger stuff. But nothing’s stopping any other person from taking that opportunity for their kids.

I don’t know of any church school that doesn’t prioritise LAC and other vulnerable groups over and above churchgoers. Certainly all the church schools in my area do this.