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

[crymyeyesviolete]

If your other local options were dire?

Only morally bankrupt despicable individuals welcome discrimination based on religion. You are one such person so, no, I will not calm down. Again, shame on you.

One reason I might feel shame for my actions is if was ever so lacking in manners, morals, emotional maturity and emotional regulation skills as to attack somebody this rudely and aggressively for a difference of opinion. You are intemperate and ill-mannered. Quite shameful for any adult to behave in this way.

Yes, and as I've said, I don't think there is anything wrong with OP attending church to get her child into school under the current system.

That does not make it a just system.

The facts are the facts. State money is being used to discriminate against and segregate children based on the religion of their parents, with an indirect impact that it also discriminates disproportionately against the less well off.

Some of us find that quite reprehensible.

(And that's not getting into the "lots of other options" statement which is frankly laughable.)

There are other schools available that are not religious. And for CofE schools at least, in addition to the foundation places offered to those who attend church, there are also open places available. Children of lots of other faiths and none can - and do - attend CofE schools, the idea there is 'segregation' is laughable. If you were to hang around outside our local CofE schools you would see children and parents of all colours and faiths.

If you don't believe there should be faith schools, why complain of discrimination relating to the entry criteria? If you don't want your children to go to one, why complain they don't meet the criteria, when you could, if you wish, have chosen otherwise, so they did? Why would you want your child to go to such a school if you're not of the faith and don't believe faith schools should exist? "I don't think faith schools should exist, but I'm annoyed not everyone can attend one" seems like an odd attitude to me.

@BunfightBetty why does religion always get a free pass??

We would never accept anyone advocating open blatant discrimination (in services funded with everyone's taxes!) on any other kind of protected characteristic.

We would not accept discrimination based on the colour of the skin, the ethnicity, political views, etc.

You want all taxpayers to fund schools which are then not open to all. No, I will not apologise for calling out this discriminatory behaviour.

What is shameful is that there are morally bankrupt despicable individuals who advocate this discrimination, not that other people call it out.

We would never accept anyone advocating open blatant discrimination (in services funded with everyone's taxes!) on any other kind of protected characteristic.

Whatever anyone’s views about faith schools, you can’t seriously think ^this is the case. Disabled people are openly discriminated against every day.

@flawlessflipper I have no doubt that disabled people are victims of all kinds of discrimination.

The difference is that I am not aware of many situations which are comparable to the discrimination of faith schools.

It is one thing to say that a certain category is discriminated.
Quite another to have that discrimination coded in writing in the policies which determine who can access certain services, and to have people shouting that that discrimination is just and fair, like religious fruitcakes do for faith schools

You obviously don’t have disabled DC.

No because our local church schools both have a terrible reputation. Funnily enough as they are never full they will take anyone regardless of church attendance (or faith).

@flawlessflipper I understand that many parents have had to sue their councils for not providing the support they should supposedly provide. But, equally, I am not aware of powerful lobbies claiming that this is right and that the disabled deserve no support.

But I don't know a lot about the topic. I didn't mean to offend you nor to sound dismissive. Maybe you can help me understand what you meant?

Yes and did. For primary and secondary. The secondary was a complete disappointment and the most unchristian place I have ever encountered. We moved them after two years.

I am not aware of powerful lobbies claiming that this is right and that the disabled deserve no support.

@ParentOfOne you might not mean for it to come across this way, but this is utterly dismissive and wrong. Large swathes of society see nothing wrong with discriminating against disabled people.

Well I go to church anyway because I want to, but I see nothing wrong at all in attending church for this purpose. The school places are not specifically reserved for Christians they are reserved for people who meet the specific criteria of being in that building at a specified frequency across a specified timeframe, regardless of belief. The church and the school aren't doing anything wrong either - most CofE schools were founded as charities before the government decided to fund universal state education, and were founded specifically to educate the children of the parish. When the government decided to institute free universal education they had a choice to either buy existing schools and start running them as secular establishments or to incorporate them into the system to allow church families to keep doing what they were already doing, expanding their capacity where appropriate and building other schools wherever the church schools didn't already cover. Buying all the buildings from the charities that founded them would have been hideously expensive even if the charities were willing to sell.

It's not any kind of malevolence that has led to those church schools tending to have better results than secular, and it's not misuse of public funds. Churchgoers children are just as entitled to a state education as anyone else. If there's any kind of hoops to jump through to get a place at a particular school, then that school is going to have an above-average population of pupils from families who have a culture of doing what it takes to achieve something they want, and a lower-than-average population of pupils from families that don't give a shit and don't value education. It makes no odds whether the criteria used are about church attendance or musical aptitude or even getting together the organisation skills to get your child to take a "fair banding" test. It's the fact that some kind of effort is required that makes the difference. If you can be bothered to make the effort to do what it takes to meet the criteria then go ahead.

However, do make sure the school is actually right for your child. Just having great GCSE results is not enough, and some church schools embed religious practices into the school day in a way that a secular child may not enjoy.

This is a really good point about making sure the school is right for my child, thank you. I guess at least if I start attending church two years before application, as stated, I'm keeping my options open, even if we eventually decide it's not the right choice.

Ok, let's take a case study. Outer London borough. Three closest schools are faith schools. The closest non-faith schools have tiny catchments as a result because of the number of kids coming from further schools for the "desirable" schools.

When a child fails to get into any local schools, the one they're offered is a 30 minute drive away (as opposed to a short walk). Ironically, it's also a CofE school. So where's the choice?

("Fortunately" in our case, one of the local CofE schools had a less-than-stellar Ofsted and suddenly a lot of people who were dead set on faith education suddenly found they had other priorities, so there were places available.)

On to your wider point: I can hold two positions in my head at once. I can believe that the state should not fund faith schools, and also believe that if the state is going to fund faith schools (as it does), then state money should not be used to discriminate in school admissions and that all children should be treated equally in the question of access to state schools.

As you've said, plenty of under-subscribed faith schools don't use any selection criteria or filter as they don't have enough applicants.

Segregation by religion is a fact - particularly in Catholic schools where up to 100% of the intake can be selectively Roman Catholic children - what else do you call it when a school is entirely of one faith, regardless of the religious makeup of the community they live in?

This is less so for most CofE schools where the 50% rule applies. But any schools that apply selective criteria, including on faith, are ensuring a school population that is of a higher socioeconomic status overall than its surrounding community. So we're segregating by wealth.

Your posts demonstrate that you are arguing from a position of feeling rather than fact. It's unfortunate for you that the facts about the education system don't support the position your feelings think they should.

Failing a system where there were reserved faith places in direct proportion to the church's contribution to the school's running and capital costs, it would be interesting to see the reaction to a system where those who don't practise a faith got preferential admissions to non-faith schools.

It’s not unfortunate for me at all that you have a different opinion to me. As it happens, the status quo broadly aligns with my position, so happy days for me.

There’s lots wrong with our school system in general, and nobody has perfect choice, other than those who are wealthy enough to be able to afford the top private schools. It sucks. But taking away the faith school criteria won’t change that. All that would happen is the issue of being able to afford the inflated house prices near to good schools would get even worse. These would not be the only sought-after schools. A narrower field with fiercer competition, that would favour the well-off middle classes even more. The ultimate segregation by economics.

At least with religious criteria you are not actually barring lower income people from qualifying. You can be totally without a pot to piss in and attend church. Not so if the only means to get your child into a good school is to buy your way into living on the right street.

The underlying issue is the problems found in schools whose intakes draw from lower economic circumstances. No matter how you slice or dice it, there’s the rub. Until you solve that problem at root, nothing else is going to make a material difference.

Yes, your position aligns with the status quo - that makes you lucky, but it doesn't make some of the assertions you've been making correct.

Faith selection exacerbates the impact of house price selection - by reducing the number of non-faith places available at local schools, you increase the other drivers of selection - house prices being the main one.

It's also quite blithely arrogant to talk about the fact that anyone can go to church without acknowledging any of the factors that make it less likely for children from the poorest or most chaotic homes to have parents who attend church regularly - from mental or physical illness and disability to literacy levels that mean they can't even properly engage with understanding the hoops they'd need to jump through let alone jump through the hoops, to alcoholism and drug use.

Then you've got the kids of parents who don't understand the system and don't know they would have had to engage with it years in advance.

All of those kids deserve an equal chance to a local education as the children of (disproportionately better-off as a group) churchgoers. And right now too many of them are being squeezed out by reserved faith places, and then house prices playing a more extreme role in driving competition for the fewer non-reserved places on offer locally.

House prices - it’s the opposite. No school way ahead of the others because supportive parents are spread out in all the schools, not just the hot spot faith ones. It’s all about scarcity of housing and where the upmarket areas are.

Where I live, the sought after faith school doesn’t push up prices much. As it’s got a tiny catchment area you would think it would, but people prefer the grammars (if possible!!) ) and for them you can live anywhere in the LA and get allocated to one. All are fantastic. No faith required! Otherwise people do find faith and travel miles whilst still maintaining a home in a better location. Our old house was very close to the faith secondary but where we live now, houses are nearly double the price! It’s just better and has a good secondary but just not quite as good as the faith one. However most church dc don’t want the journey to the faith one. Overall people want to live where the school is good enough but there’s more to house prices than schools. A lot more. Mostly here it’s scarcity due to AONB and green belt. Little to do with education but if a school becomes inadequate parents want a good one but not necessarily a faith one.

I actually agree with @BunfightBetty on this one. I know multiple families who have moved house to get into catchment for their preferred school (in the leafiest area of Liverpool).
And yes, catchment has one of the biggest impacts on day to day life in a school. That's inevitable.
In general, popular faith schools are not full of low income families though. They are probably more mixed than popular schools in expensive locations, but by siphoning engaged parents out of other local schools, they make those schools significantly worse.
I don't know how you address this. I heard a rumour our local leafy school is considering reintroducing feeder schools, because they'd actually prefer a more diverse intake. Catchments designed to cover a variety of areas would be helpful. But of course, any system is gameable by determined parents. (Except perhaps lotteries, which have their own problems).
I do agree the actual solution is reducing inequality, investing in poverty reduction and education, particularly SEN (both for children with emotional/behavioural problems and children with learning difficulties). But good luck with that.

I spent some time looking at the admissions policy for the secondary CofE local to me.

Their pupil admission number is 145, with other local schools having a PAN of 240 or more.

As mentioned before, the catchment area for this school covers several small villages; geographically the catchment area is huge. In population terms, with the four primary schools feeding into this secondary (all of which are at or beyond PAN) that leaves 25 places per year for admission based on LAC, prior connections and then religious affiliation.

I appreciate this is one school amongst many, but in this particular case religious affiliation is not the main driver for admission - catchment area is.

I'm wouldn't be totally against it.

Traditionally in this country, attendance at a 'place of worship' was the norm, or at least a norm, much or most of it by people who weren't at all devout but who valued the community aspect, the chance to do a bit of singing, maybe get involved with the odd outing, etc, letting the kids play together. It still is the norm within, e.g. Muslim communities. I definitely don't totally disdain this motive, being part of a religious community genuinely can be a good, very affordable, way to meet people and do something together as a family. I've done a little bit of this kind of attendance myself with my own kids over the years.

I suppose I'd be fairly dismissive of a family who started attendance and then dropped it suddenly once school offers were out, but I'm not really sure that this is as common as all that.

That's really interesting, as most of the CofE schools here put

Are the feeders themselves CofE schools?

I do think the admissions impact is greater in primary than secondary - the proportion of faith primary places is greater and PANs are of course much smaller. All the local CofEs here follow the 50% rule - so after LAC and other statutory obligations, up to 50% can be allocated by faith - first the linked church, then other CofE churches, and some will also prioritise other Christian denominations. So only after that is it on distance.

I'm pretty sure there was research done on the impact of faith selection on house prices and catchment sizes for nearby non-faith schools - essentially wherever you have a larger number of parents competing for a smaller number of places, the better off win. So if some of an area's school places are being taken up by churchgoing kids from further away, the pressure on local school places increases.

I think the whole admission system needs changing tbh, not just with regards to faith. Distance is also problematic, but the impacts on the socioeconomic character of schools is less pronounced with distance alone than with faith schools (a desirable faith school has two ways to filter out kids from the most challenging backgrounds as they can apply faith and then a smaller number of places are allocated by distance, their distance-based catchments are likely to be a lot smaller than a community school of the same size.)

This obviously only applies to oversubscribed schools - the socioeconomic difference and "better performance" of faith schools both disappear as soon as they are forced to take any child that applies to them.

The whole system needs a shake up and much better clarity and standardisation, as well as fairness. It won't happen because the system is too arcane with too many vested interests propping up different bits of it.

I was talking to one of the local vicars about this. She says they essentially encourage it - after two years it might stick for some and become a habit. And even for those who don't, it boosts church attendance and the number of children attending church. She said that from both a ministry perspective and a pragmatic perspective she saw it as net positive.

Two are, two aren't.

House prices in the village where the secondary school is located, are slightly higher than the local town, but not shockingly so. But considering that the surrounding villages are equally lovely, and within catchment, they aren't particularly expensive

Or perhaps allow them to qualify as specialist schools, where they could award up to 10% of their places to students who demonstrate the most faith ability. As 10% is more than a church typically contributes to a school's budget, that would be showing the Christian value of generosity🤔

Failing limits like that, I wouldn't mind school applicants splitting themselves into "faith" and "non-faith", where those ticking the "faith" box would be eligible for preference into faith schools but placed at the back of the queue at "non-faith" schools, and vice-versa. Note: a child from a religious family wouldn't be penalized at a non-faith school so long as they didn't tick the "faith" box in order to gain preference at a faith school as well. My issue is that we're all paying the same taxes but some children are allowed two bites at the cherry.