|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Going through the motions for school admission
|
toadstrike
Apprentice
# 18244
|
Posted
A family I know with a 5-month old baby would like to see her enrolled in the very local and very good C of E primary school.
The school publishes on its website that it has a strict order for allocating places and the top priority is given to parents who "attend church at least twice a month or more and play a full part in the life of the church"
Despite having zero faith, probably atheist, they are talking of joining the local C of E church and going through the motions until she gets selected for the school (and then presumably drop out).
I have a lot of misgivings with this, I'm not a good enough liar to manage it for one week let alone 26 weeks a year for 3 or 4 years. Unless the clergy are stupid they should recognise the "time servers" when they see them.
I'm in two minds about whether it's right for the school to have such a policy in the first place, I have to say I can see their point of view but I can also see that the parents want the best for their new daughter.
Can people here please give their thoughts?
Thanks.
Posts: 24 | From: Welwyn Garden City, UK | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
I see Screwtape's counterpart in Heaven briefing the Heavenly Wormwood. "Right, you have 4 years to get 'em ..."
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
If we cant have any impact after 4 years we ought to pack up and go home.
"But wait." I hear you cry. "It seems possible for us to not have any impact after 40 years." Damn.
Pro-tip, make sure you get them on the standing order system asap and keep the Diocesan Secretary happy.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
To echo the other replies, I recently said that I wasn't keen on such 'time-servers' to which a more experienced colleague promptly rolled his eyes at my indignation and said, 'if you can't convert them in the years they will be forced to spend listening to you, then you really have to start rethinking your sermons.'
x
AV
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Presumably the number of places at the school would exceed the number of children of parents who regularly attend worship from a genuine faith in the area. Even if all those parents wanted their children at that school. So, if the parents who are only attending Church for "wrong reasons" (however you define what does or doesn't constitute right reasons to attend Church) didn't there would still be plenty of places to be judged by other criteria in the list.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
People start going to church for all sorts of reasons. Who are we to judge which are 'right' and which are 'wrong'? Welcome them unconditionally. They may yet surprise you.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
We have a different problem. People can attend our church very faithfully but of course that doesn't rack up enough Brownie point to get into the local CofE school. I suspect that some Nonconformist churches may have lost young families - keen Christians - for that reason alone.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
People start going to church for all sorts of reasons. Who are we to judge which are 'right' and which are 'wrong'? Welcome them unconditionally. They may yet surprise you.
I agree entirely, even if I don't really approve of the "system".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Trouble is this family may be keeping another family out of the school if numbers are limited which is very selfish. If they are dishonest in this then they are probably dishonest in other things. Why enrol children at a church school if you have no religious beliefs? Maybe the school should be more stringent in its admission procedures.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
To think that someone might become a faithful Christian by making them sit in church long enough seems to reduce Divine Grace to a sort of supernatural rising damp.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Why enrol children at a church school if you have no religious beliefs?
Because it provides a better education than the shitty comps or too-expensive private schools that are your only other options.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe the school should be more stringent in its admission procedures.
Or maybe the church should offer excellent Christian education to the whole community, not based on church attendance.
I find the system mystifying. If church schools are so great, and part of our ministry is to serve the world, why are they restricted to those who already attend church? Shouldn't they be specifically aimed at those who do not?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That is my view entirely. Incidentally, my wife taught at a church school many years ago, which followed the normal admission criteria - when they looked at the Trust Deeds they fond they were actually operating illegally, since the criterion stated there was not "church attendance" but "residence within the parish".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Why enrol children at a church school if you have no religious beliefs?
Because it provides a better education than the shitty comps or too-expensive private schools that are your only other options.
True this! "On your knees, avoid the fees"!
Given that the good secondary is often a church school as well, they may find that leaving when the small gets their place might not work as a long term option.
Secondary usually want you to:
- Show regular church attendance. (More than once or twice a month)
- Active involvement in the life of the church. (Just turning up on a Sunday won't cut it. You're expected to be involved in something - children's work; voluteering at the food bank; serving on the PCC etc).
- A glowing reference from the vicar.
That's at least 20 years! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Depending on the local area, there might be other catches as well. My old LA used to only allow you to apply to your nearest church school on the basis of belief. If you wanted to put any of the others down, you had to apply on the same basis as everyone else.
All that OP's friends are getting is a chance. They still might not get a place at the school they want.
Tubbs
[ 20. January 2015, 13:49: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
This is obviously a Voluntary Aided school.
I'd say it is grossly hypocritical of the parents to intend lip-service only church attendance until the place is gained - especially if there is pressure on places and it is likely to mean that another child, perhaps from a genuinely 'church' family, is denied the place.
My own children attended a VA school and it was obvious that, among their friends at least, most of the parents were not believers or church-goers. But in our part of the world if at secondary level your child doesn't get into one of the faith schools then the alternatives are private school or a comprehensive which seems to have a revolving door in and out of 'special measures' and where GCSE results are dire.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
And given the funding for these schools is mostly from the state not from the church the priority should not be given to a religious elite.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leprechaun: quote:
I find the system mystifying. If church schools are so great, and part of our ministry is to serve the world, why are they restricted to those who already attend church?
Well, if you'd bothered to look into the question at all...
Church schools are not part of the church, or (nowadays) run by the church. They are part of the state education system (equivalent of public schools for US readers). However, most of the state education system was created by nationalising schools that were founded by the church - mostly the Church of England - before schooling was made compulsory. So a lot of primary schools have historic links with their local church. This may mean that some of the governors are nominated by the church and/or the church provides some funding.
Primary schools are more likely to serve their local areas than secondary schools; partly because a lot of the faith schools are in rural areas and are the only game in town, partly because there is less variation in the quality of primary schools than there is at secondary level and so less competition for places at the Best School in the Area. There are stories about people faking their faith to get their child into a good primary school, but I don't think it's a huge problem outside London. Certainly it isn't where I am.
Secondary schools, now - that's a different matter. As Tubbs says, you have to jump through a lot more hoops in the application process. Even then, the new requirements for faith schools to take a certain number of non-churchgoers mean that you don't HAVE to fake it to apply (provided you are rich enough to buy a house next door to the school). The C of E secondary my daughter goes to takes at least 50% of its intake from the local community (they don't have an official catchment area, so it's the nearest three housing estates).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
...oh, and there's nothing elitist about the C of E. We take anybody. In fact, you could argue that the entry requirements for faith schools are *less* elitist than proximity to the school and all the other criteria oversubscribed schools use to decide who gets a place. Because regular attendance at church is something even poor families can do; buying a house near a good school is not.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
First, it is a political scandal that there is such discrepancy between schools in the UK. Education by postcode lottery or religious affiliation is not the answer.
Given that some faith based schools do have such good reputations and performance, one could argue that this is self perpetuating because they select out pupils whose families / support circles are motivated enough to want them to be there. If such schools had to give fair dibs to local pupils regardless of ability or faith, I wonder what the outcome would be.
I used to be a church leader of a noncom church in an area with a very popular secondary school. I felt the same way as Leprechaun - wouldn't it be more like the Kingdom of God to accept the poorer students and give them a chance, regardless of background or church attendance?
I am also aware that the provision of education has often been seen as a major prong of Christian missions, but it tends to operate conditionally - we'll educate you as long as you conform to our belief system while we're at it, and ultimately we want you to convert to our beliefs. But I guess that's a whole other thread.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
On the subject of elitism and church schools: the single biggest thing to reduce the social mix at our local faith secondary schools has been the county council's deciding to stop paying for school buses for pupils travelling more than a certain distance.
Since the faith secondary schools are in areas where housing is expensive this limits the number of people of limited means whose children have a fair chance of going to the schools.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Jane R: quote:
Because regular attendance at church is something even poor families can do; buying a house near a good school is not.
Good point, that's the iniquity of the postcode lottery. But I still wonder if churches should be asked to validate people's commitment. Isn't it up to the school to decide, and for the applicants to demonstrate whether they are truthfully saying they are active in local church?
Not to mention what recular attendance looks like these days. I am now a once a monther, a fringe church member, but would be recognised as a born again believer active in ministry outside the church. Should my children be judged by that? Should anyone's children be assessed by their parent's claims to belief?
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leprechaun: quote:
I find the system mystifying. If church schools are so great, and part of our ministry is to serve the world, why are they restricted to those who already attend church?
Well, if you'd bothered to look into the question at all...
Church schools are not part of the church, or (nowadays) run by the church. They are part of the state education system (equivalent of public schools for US readers). However, most of the state education system was created by nationalising schools that were founded by the church - mostly the Church of England - before schooling was made compulsory. So a lot of primary schools have historic links with their local church. This may mean that some of the governors are nominated by the church and/or the church provides some funding.
Primary schools are more likely to serve their local areas than secondary schools; partly because a lot of the faith schools are in rural areas and are the only game in town, partly because there is less variation in the quality of primary schools than there is at secondary level and so less competition for places at the Best School in the Area. There are stories about people faking their faith to get their child into a good primary school, but I don't think it's a huge problem outside London. Certainly it isn't where I am.
This is typical response when you question any action of the established church - "you only think that because you haven't looked into it enough to understand our arcane and very important history."
Your answer seems to be - the church schools aren't run by the church any more, but by the state. In which case, why the hell should it be a bonus to your application to attend church? (and, as Baptist Trainfan points out, only kosher churches count.) How is this anything except elitism?
If, in fact, they are run by the church, the Gospel thing to do would be to offer the best possible education to everyone, regardless of faith commitment, and perhaps even aimed towards those who are not Christians already, and/or those who have only very poor provision where they live.
I have good friends who are atheist who live within walking distance of two church schools. Because they refuse to attend church for the required period, and they don't want to give their child a fake baptism, they will end up sending their child to a school over two miles away. These are people who are very open to their child having a Christian education - but not on the basis of them pretending to have a Christian commitment themselves.
How is this a good system? Surely these are exactly the sort of thoughtful, open, people who should be welcomed by the church, and for whom the provision of a great education might even help them consider the value of faith?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Jane R: quote:
Because regular attendance at church is something even poor families can do; buying a house near a good school is not.
Good point, that's the iniquity of the postcode lottery. But I still wonder if churches should be asked to validate people's commitment. Isn't it up to the school to decide, and for the applicants to demonstrate whether they are truthfully saying they are active in local church?
This is an interesting question.
I understand that many of the staff at these schools aren't practising and/or believing Christians; of those who are, they may come from a variety of different theological backgrounds. Some teachers may well be members of other religions. I suppose it just makes things easier if the 'rules' in question are drawn up in relation to a particular CofE congregation down the road rather than being decided on by a bunch of teachers who might believe in all sorts of things and have all sorts of biased assumptions about what 'Christian commitment' looks like.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mrs Shrew
Ship's Mother
# 8635
|
Posted
In the city I live in there is a slightly weird opposite dilemma for secondary school places.
About half of the secondary schools are faith schools, and applications are ordered mostly by catchment. This means that I have friends trying desperately to apply out of catchment for their son as they are an atheist or agnostic family and do not want him to attend a church school.
Where we are based, any shrewlets would also be in that catchment at secondary, although we are not in a faith school catchment for primary.
I find it really weird that based on where you live you might end up at a faith school, regardless of your own beliefs and potentially against your wishes.
--------------------
"The goal of life is not to make other people in your own image, it is to understand that they, too, are in God's image" (Orfeo)
Was "mummyfrances".
Posts: 703 | From: York, England | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
toadstrike
Apprentice
# 18244
|
Posted
Can I take the opportunity of thanking all the people who have replied, quite a lot of food for thought.
Particularly important to me was where Tubbs said:
quote:
All that OP's friends are getting is a chance. They still might not get a place at the school they want.
If they don't - what then? Will they storm out moaning about "moving goalposts" never to be seen again at the church and so underlining their deception?
Personally my hope is that they find some kind of faith and wholeheartedly join in in the end. Which must sound odd coming from a heathen like me.
I think though that there should be a clear, consistent and easy-to-understand admissions policy set nationwide which all state schools, including church-run ones, have to follow.
Posts: 24 | From: Welwyn Garden City, UK | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
What about abolishing state schools so all children go to schools with the pushy parents?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by toadstrike:
I think though that there should be a clear, consistent and easy-to-understand admissions policy set nationwide which all state schools, including church-run ones, have to follow.
But not all schools are equally desirable, so it would be difficult to have a nationwide policy.
What I find ironic is that some CofE schools have no particular expectations about church attendance, whereas others do. Of course, this is about demand; where a church school is in high demand, Christian piety is deemed to be important, but if it's not - or if the catchment area is dominated by Muslims, etc. - Christian piety is deemed to be irrelevant. There seems to be something a bit off about this, but I can't quite put my finger on it....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Seeing it as increasing your chances, rather than a guarantee, is key.
Whether or not you get a place will depend on what else is happening. Places are prioritised in a particular order - looked after, siblings, attendance and then catchment.
If the school is over subscribed, then the church attendees get ranked on catchment.
So, some years you’ll be fine even if you’re quite a walk away. Other years, you’re stuffed even if you’re next door!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I know two families locally who, with no previous church affiliation, 'stuck' in church having gone through the rigmarole of attendance initially to secure a school place. Both are now active C of E, and 'do things' in their parishes.
We have 3 local primary schools - C of E, Catholic and 'normal'. The first two are predominantly Black British, and the third draws over 90% of its intake from families of Pakistani origin. Their religious instruction and celebration of festivals etc reflects this demographic.
Our kids are at the RC primary, despite us attending a Methodist church. We take an increasing part in the life of the RC parish - the whole thing has been great for us and our kids, and I am very grateful for having been given the opportunity to be a part of it.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Felafool:
quote:
First, it is a political scandal that there is such discrepancy between schools in the UK. Education by postcode lottery or religious affiliation is not the answer.
Could I point out that there isn't, and never has been, a "UK system." In Scotland, state schools have a geographical catchment area and pupils within that catchment area go to that school, or opt out of the state system by going private. This does create a postcode lottery, and most of the most academically successful schools are located within affluent areas, but at least the system is easy to understand.
In Aberdeenshire, where I live, there are 16 normal state comprehensive secondaries and one state comprehensive with a specialised music department and that's it. No faith schools, no fee-paying schools.
Aberdeen City (separate council area) does have fee-paying schools, and also two Roman Catholic primaries, but almost all (over 90%) of pupils are in the state comprehensive system.
The North East Man and I put no time into thinking about which school our kids would go to, and sending them to the nearest state school involved zero effort on our part.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
A discussion of the issues from within the Church of England can be found here (PDF).
For Voluntary Aided Church schools, the church (locally) is still required to fund 10% of the cost of capital projects.
Mostly the issue of church attendance relates to some urban contexts. 57% of Church of England Schools are in rural contexts, and for most of them the issue rarely arises. People simply send their children to the local school. In many schools which do use church involvement as part of their list of criteria, it often expressly includes other denominations.
My impression is that most if not all Church schools do not see themselves as teaching faith, but rather teaching from within a context of faith. For this reason they can be a popular choice with people of other faiths, because they are a context within which the idea of religious faith is respected, and the various manifestations of religious faith. This understanding of their role means that some are quite unhappy with the term "faith schools' which seems to have been around for the last 20-30 years, and which often seems to imply that one role of the school is to impart the tenets of one particular faith or another.
Admissions policies are only ever an issue for over-subscribed schools (and may, therefore become more of an issue given the current squeeze on places). Even in urban settings, not all Church schools are oversubscribed. The issues are also very different between primary and secondary schools.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
If tax-funded schools discriminate against parents on the basis of their religion, I say good luck to folk who lie to get their kids the best education possible. It's wrong that they're put in that situation to begin with.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
If tax-funded schools discriminate against parents on the basis of [where they live], I say good luck to folk who lie to get their kids the best education possible. It's wrong that they're put in that situation to begin with.
Why is the parents' ability to afford a house in the catchment area a less reprehensible admission criterion than the parents' beliefs - especially if the school is part-funded by their faith community.
[ 20. January 2015, 21:55: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Is there any principle against geographic discrimination? It's certainly not a protected characteristics in the English Equality Act.
That being said, on general equity grounds, I wouldn't really disagree. If a state provides grossly unequal schools, it should expect to have its system gamed.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Is there any principle against geographic discrimination? It's certainly not a protected characteristics in the English Equality Act.
Yes. The principle that a government should serve its citizens equally is rather stronger than the principle that we'll force businesses to do business equally with unpopular groups (which is what equality / anti-discrimination acts are all about).
The state has no compelling reason to force you to treat people with names in the first half of the alphabet the same as those with names from the second half. If you want to limit your customers to the early-alphabetters, we'll all think you're weird, but no law will interfere.
If governments decided that A-Ms would pay less tax, you would expect both a righteous outcry from the public, and a rash of name changes.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
As an Anglican, I am entirely with Leprechaun and Baptist Trainfan on this. Restricting church school admission to those who attend church seems baffling to me - surely it's not a very Gospel attitude? I would think that unchurched children need church schools more.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
The school system is obviously very different where I live. The standard of education is not much different in private and state schools. The main difference in private schools is that thet are fee paying and often chosen for the snobbery value by parents. I and my children went to state schools and have excelled academically. I don't feel that my kids have missed out at all by not attending exclusive schools. However, I would defend the right of private schools to control who they accept as students. It is unfortunate that people denigrate state school education without any real proof that it is inferior and in some instances may be better.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Restricting church school admission to those who attend church seems baffling to me - surely it's not a very Gospel attitude? I would think that unchurched children need church schools more.
One could argue, per the OP and following posts, that giving preference to church children is precisely a way of reaching out to unchurched children, by incentivising them to show up to church.
The other side of the coin is to ask how Christian a school is if it doesn't actually contain many Christians. In particular, due to the changing demographics of particular areas, there are now C of E schools where many or most of the pupils are Muslim. Do any shipmates have experience of such a school? Is it possible to have a "distinctively Christian ethos" when the majority of your pupils play for a rival team?
That's a special case, though - what about the more common case where the majority of the pupils and staff are functionally atheist (even if the no-nonsense MotR C of E place is the Church that they avoid going to)? Apart from (often) a better education, what of Christianity do these schools actually provide?
There must be some school governors out there. Educate me.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, as I said in my post, I agree in terms of fairness, but that's separate to protected classes. There's either a weak requirement for policies to be generally fair (U.S. "rational basis" test) or none at all (ECHR doesn't seem to demand it).
We all know why religion is entrenched in England's state schools: it's a historical remnant of when the church ran what public schooling there was. That doesn't explain why a religious test for access to public education is still tolerated. It's shameless, and unjustifiable, religious discrimination.
Pull the tax money, and let religious schools pay their own way, and I doubt anyone much would have a problem.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
As a non-establishment American I find state funding of exclusionary church schools unfair.
I do understand it's a different country with different ways.
However, churches restricting access to schools to those whose families attend church seems to carry it's own punishment. It's one thing to have a school full of non believers, it seems odd to want to make the church that way as well.
[ 21. January 2015, 06:15: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Why is the parents' ability to afford a house in the catchment area a less reprehensible admission criterion than the parents' beliefs
I wonder if it is that simple? In Scotland, the best-performing state comprehensives are in affluent areas, but simply bussing pupils to non-catchment areas is unlikely to have an impact.
My own state comprehensive took pupils from the complete spectrum; from farm workers children growing up in houses with no baths, to the children of a Lord (now an Earl). The children from the poorer areas were more likely to leave at 16; the most affluent primary school provided one-sixth of the intake in first year, but one-third of the pupils in the final year. (These figures were discussed with us in school at the time).
I have seen the same pattern in my own children's comprehensive school; the school's place in the league tables is pulled down by the children who leave school at 16 with few qualifications and these children come from the poorer areas within the school catchment.
My impression is that
a) having parents who went to University themselves normalises University as an aim for children;
b) children from more affluent families are more likely to have somewhere to do their homework; social housing is designed so that children have bedrooms large enough for a bed, a wardrobe and a chest of drawers, but not a desk. If several children are competing for their turn at the kitchen table to do their homework, the homework will not be done so well.
c) if a poorer family has more than two children, the parents become not just money-poor, but time poor too, because e.g. using public transport takes more time than driving, and some quite simple activities for a family of two children with a car become unattainable for a family of three children with no car.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Restricting church school admission to those who attend church seems baffling to me - surely it's not a very Gospel attitude? I would think that unchurched children need church schools more.
One could argue, per the OP and following posts, that giving preference to church children is precisely a way of reaching out to unchurched children, by incentivising them to show up to church.
Well yes, and that is exactly how it is seen by my atheist friends - as a not very subtle bait and switch to get them into church, and use their money to fix up the crumbling parish buildings.
Authentic Christian witness would surely be about genuinely serving unchurched kids in the hope that would speak of the Gospel to them and their families over time.
ETA: the idea that the faith community funds the school and therefore faith community kids should get a leg up in, just about sums up to me everything that's wrong with the established church. It's behaving like some sort of club with membership privileges, rather than using its resources for the sake of those who don't believe and need serving.
[ 21. January 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
To echo the other replies, I recently said that I wasn't keen on such 'time-servers' to which a more experienced colleague promptly rolled his eyes at my indignation and said, 'if you can't convert them in the years they will be forced to spend listening to you, then you really have to start rethinking your sermons.'
Some random thoughts.
1. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
2. Everyone accepts that RC schools, Jewish schools and now Moslem schools within the state system are there primarily to provide a faith based education to those from those communities that are eligible and prefer to have it. Why is anyone arguing that this is different with CofE schools? I know this isn't the question in the OP, but it is being aired by some of the other comments on the thread. Why should anyone argue that there's something wrong about our giving a preference to the children of our own parents? And why is it seen as odd, or unfair, I suspect largely by people who aren't parents themselves, that we might prefer our children to have a Christian education in a school that shares our belief system than in an ordinary secular school?
3. If 'naice' parents are perceiving our schools as giving a better education or have a better ethos than the ordinary ones, any normal person would be proud of this fact and want to build on it. They wouldn't begrudge it, regard it as embarrassing or expect parents in stead to commit their children to sink schools so that they will somehow uplift them by being there.
4. Like it or not, this whole subject looks different depending on whether you are a parent or not. Once you've been one, it goes on looking different long after your children have progressed through the system.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Restricting church school admission to those who attend church seems baffling to me - surely it's not a very Gospel attitude? I would think that unchurched children need church schools more.
One could argue, per the OP and following posts, that giving preference to church children is precisely a way of reaching out to unchurched children, by incentivising them to show up to church.
Well yes, and that is exactly how it is seen by my atheist friends - as a not very subtle bait and switch to get them into church, and use their money to fix up the crumbling parish buildings.
Authentic Christian witness would surely be about genuinely serving unchurched kids in the hope that would speak of the Gospel to them and their families over time.
ETA: the idea that the faith community funds the school and therefore faith community kids should get a leg up in, just about sums up to me everything that's wrong with the established church. It's behaving like some sort of club with membership privileges, rather than using its resources for the sake of those who don't believe and need serving.
Bloody Hell - I knew it was cold today but didn't expect to see Satan driving to work in a snowplough, but there you go - I agree with Leprechaun. Had to happen one day.
And I am a parent. I still don't see why my children should be privileged above anyone else's. I might want them to be, because I'm biased, but I can't see a good argument why they should be.
It is very frustrating to me that the secondary school around here with far and away the best results is Catholic. I could probably say the right things and coach Boy #1 to say the right things to be in with a chance, but it wouldn't be because I wanted a Catholic education; I'm not one. It'd be because I thought it was otherwise a good school. Fortunately we've decided that its Bondage and Discipline ethos wouldn't work for him anyway.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. Everyone accepts that RC schools, Jewish schools and now Moslem schools within the state system are there primarily to provide a faith based education to those from those communities that are eligible and prefer to have it. Why is anyone arguing that this is different with CofE schools? I know this isn't the question in the OP, but it is being aired by some of the other comments on the thread. Why should anyone argue that there's something wrong about our giving a preference to the children of our own parents? And why is it seen as odd, or unfair, I suspect largely by people who aren't parents themselves, that we might prefer our children to have a Christian education in a school that shares our belief system than in an ordinary secular school?
I am a parent. My answers to this are:
- Because you are the state church and thus have a responsibility particularly to parishioners not just attenders. That is, I thought, the point of the parish model. Secondly because you are Christians, and the key moral commandment of our beliefs is to love those who are "Samaritans" rather than "already in." This is precisely the way that Christians, and particularly the C of E (according to your own precepts) should be different to other religions.
quote:
4. Like it or not, this whole subject looks different depending on whether you are a parent or not. Once you've been one, it goes on looking different long after your children have progressed through the system.
As I said, I am a parent of a primary school aged child. This is why this matters to me.
ETA: Karl. I also feel ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) about our apparent agreement.
[ 21. January 2015, 11:15: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Parents want the best education for their kids. Some schools are better than others. That’s why parents are tempted to pretend to believe or borrow a grand-parent’s address if it’s in the catchment area of a good school and their real one isn’t. That’s not down to the application system.
The real issue that some schools are better than others. How about fixing that so all schools offer a decent education to a similar (high) standard?!
That way, it won’t matter which one your children get. They’ll still come out being able to do all the things that you’d expect – reading, writing, adding up etc – and with decent academic qualifications.
Whilst I don’t have a clue how you’d do that, I don't understand the logic of blaming the application system for the problem.
Tubbs
[ 21. January 2015, 11:25: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The other side of the coin is to ask how Christian a school is if it doesn't actually contain many Christians. In particular, due to the changing demographics of particular areas, there are now C of E schools where many or most of the pupils are Muslim. Do any shipmates have experience of such a school? Is it possible to have a "distinctively Christian ethos" when the majority of your pupils play for a rival team?
That's a special case, though - what about the more common case where the majority of the pupils and staff are functionally atheist (even if the no-nonsense MotR C of E place is the Church that they avoid going to)? Apart from (often) a better education, what of Christianity do these schools actually provide?
There must be some school governors out there. Educate me.
Several church primary schools with largely Muslim intakes are present within walking distance of where I live. I know of a Baptist pastor who sends his daughter to such a school. He once complained to me of how difficult it was for him to find children from nice Christian families for his daughters to play with! Some Christian parents aren't quite so community-minded, and decide not to send their children to such schools, for linguistic, cultural and educational reasons.
On the positive side, the claim is that church schools can provide a supportive ethos from which children of all faiths can benefit, and I can certainly understand that. Also, I suspect that if the church involvement in these schools disappeared it wouldn't look good; it would send out the message that Christians are only concerned about their own children, rather than the wider society. In some places it would look as if the churches were abandoning education in the inner cities.
There's an interesting article by a CofE vicar who bemoans the lack of practising Anglican teachers in these schools (particularly'first schools', which are for children aged 5-9 years) and generally feels that the CofE school is unfit for purpose. His concerns might not be shared by many here, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
And I still think it's important to say that (for primary schools, at least) the "religious" test for admission to Church schools is only relevant in a fairly small proportion of urban primary schools. Even for secondary schools, there are only two CE secondaries in the county I live in, and only one of them with a sixth form. Only one of them is realistically within reach for parents outside its catchment area (urban), the other, being rural, is really only accessible to those who live in its catchment area anyway.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
