Thread: Going through the motions for school admission Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028866
Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
I see Screwtape's counterpart in Heaven briefing the Heavenly Wormwood. "Right, you have 4 years to get 'em ..."
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
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:

That's at least 20 years! [Snigger]

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 ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...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.
 
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I'd close down all church schools.

If all the pushy parents sent their kids to the local comp., they'd get involved and the standards would improve for ALL children, not just those with pushy parents.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
What about abolishing state schools so all children go to schools with the pushy parents?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
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.
Call me cynical, but I can't see that happening. And not just because it would be hard or impossible to do. In my area, most people figure that the system will always be convoluted and bizarre--and boy is it!--because that makes it easy for the machine to game the system for whomever it chooses to help.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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]

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.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
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] about our apparent agreement.

[ 21. January 2015, 11:15: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
The Church in Wales secondary school on our side of the city isn't particularly prestigious. Since its foundation in the 1960s it has consistently achieved lower results than the secular school not far away from it. The secular school is right in the middle of a very affluent area; the church school is on the very edge of that area and draws its pupils from all over the south east of the city. It gives some kids an opportunity to escape seriously failing schools in the poorest areas, though there have recently been some attempts to reform the failing schools.
There are Muslim pupils at both schools. A few years ago the church school had a Christian head boy and a Muslim head girl. She wrote an article for the diocesan paper on how honoured she felt by this and the similarities she had discovered between the two faiths, and recommended a Bible app she'd put on her phone.
(Tangent: As this is Wales, you don't have to go to church if you don't want your child to attend the local school; you simply have to express a wish for them to be educated through the medium of Welsh, and they'll be bussed over to one of the three Welsh speaking secondaries. As far as I know you need no proof of any genuine interest in the language. It's not an option we ever considered.)
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Leprechaun:
quote:
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?
Well, as someone else pointed out, it is difficult to see how a school can claim to be a church school when it is neither run by the church nor includes any churchgoers.

And as BroJames has said (twice now), this is not really much of a problem outside London, because more than half of the C of E schools are rural primary schools (for those arcane historical reasons that you delight in sneering at) and serve their local communities. Those communities that still have families in them and haven't been completely taken over by yuppies buying holiday homes, that is.

quote:
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.
That's why most of these schools were originally opened, back in the bad old days when education was not compulsory. And as Tubbs says, Voluntary Aided schools still get some of their funding from the C of E. The rural primary school I went to (back in the days before computers ruled the earth) was Voluntary Aided.

quote:
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.
Well, as a Christian, I would prefer honest atheists like your friends over people who are just going through the motions any day. I can understand their frustration if their child is unable to get a place because of all the other children who live further away from the schools but have more hypocritical parents. But as Tubbs says, the real problem is not the admissions criteria. The problem is that there are not enough places at good schools. We should find a way of fixing that instead of complaining about how difficult it is to get into the local school (for whatever reason). Because there isn't a way of allocating places in an oversubscribed school that is completely fair for everybody. If you make it about catchment areas, the people who can afford to move into the catchment area get an advantage. There was one local authority (can't remember which) that really did introduce a lottery for school places - they were allocated randomly - and people complained about that, too.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
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.
If the school is asking its qualifying families to attend twice a month and participate fully in church life prior to the time the child is eligible for attending school, I can think of many 'ordinary' congregation members (whatever that means) who would find that expectation already more stringent than anything they'd like to commit to.

One CofE primary school I knew of, required certified proof - as in signed registers kept by the church - of regular attendance by those wishing to start their kids; as well as confirmation from parish clergy of the parents' contribution - as in time and participation - to church life. One thing the application forms did not ask was if the family contributed financially, or not.

If the registers and reference letters conformed to the school's criteria, the kid was admitted, if not, s/he didn't. Frankly, we resented the extra work this put US to, in having to set up registers and systems of people signing every week, and all that crap. Even to the extent that when families spent weeks away, they had to prove they'd attended church whilst on holiday.

However, we also took the opportunity to set up a special families service before the main morning act of worship, where the kids were given age-specific worship and teaching at the front of the building, and the parents (largely new to church-going) received similar at the rear of the building. We reckoned that if after four or five years of teaching and pastoring the family who participated in this regime we couldn't hang on to them, we at least had had a damn good try.

The nearest CofE secondary school required ten years 'proven' attendance. The school governers brought the rule in because they were getting fed up of parents requesting tribunal-style appeals when their children were denied entry. I've always wondered how that one worked out! Mind you, I did pity the clergy who used to get hauled in to answer questions about people's attendance. I heard it could get quite nasty. I felt that if the school wanted to set rules for its admission - which I can understand - it seemed unfair to make the local parish church do its dirty work. We were supposed to be pastors to the parish - whoever they were, however they did or didn't attend - not their judges when it came to where their children should go to school.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

And as BroJames has said (twice now), this is not really much of a problem outside London.
I (and my friends) are not in London.

quote:
That's why most of these schools were originally opened, back in the bad old days when education was not compulsory. And as Tubbs says, Voluntary Aided schools still get some of their funding from the C of E. The rural primary school I went to (back in the days before computers ruled the earth) was Voluntary Aided.
It is precisely this loss of vision that I am bemoaning. Now the funding goes from the church for the education of "our" children, and not anyone else's.

quote:
The problem is that there are not enough places at good schools. We should find a way of fixing that instead of complaining about how difficult it is to get into the local school (for whatever reason). Because there isn't a way of allocating places in an oversubscribed school that is completely fair for everybody. If you make it about catchment areas, the people who can afford to move into the catchment area get an advantage. There was one local authority (can't remember which) that really did introduce a lottery for school places - they were allocated randomly - and people complained about that, too.
Yes. I would expect the church to be making this problem better, not worse.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
If our village CofE school required evidence of attendance at the parish church it would have precisely zero children, at least since we moved our church attendance elsewhere. I am not exaggerating.

Alternatively, the church would suddenly be full, but every parent there would be there just to fulfil the school's criteria.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
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.
If the school is asking its qualifying families to attend twice a month and participate fully in church life prior to the time the child is eligible for attending school, I can think of many 'ordinary' congregation members (whatever that means) who would find that expectation already more stringent than anything they'd like to commit to.

One CofE primary school I knew of, required certified proof - as in signed registers kept by the church - of regular attendance by those wishing to start their kids; as well as confirmation from parish clergy of the parents' contribution - as in time and participation - to church life. One thing the application forms did not ask was if the family contributed financially, or not.

If the registers and reference letters conformed to the school's criteria, the kid was admitted, if not, s/he didn't. Frankly, we resented the extra work this put US to, in having to set up registers and systems of people signing every week, and all that crap. Even to the extent that when families spent weeks away, they had to prove they'd attended church whilst on holiday.

However, we also took the opportunity to set up a special families service before the main morning act of worship, where the kids were given age-specific worship and teaching at the front of the building, and the parents (largely new to church-going) received similar at the rear of the building. We reckoned that if after four or five years of teaching and pastoring the family who participated in this regime we couldn't hang on to them, we at least had had a damn good try.

The nearest CofE secondary school required ten years 'proven' attendance. The school governers brought the rule in because they were getting fed up of parents requesting tribunal-style appeals when their children were denied entry. I've always wondered how that one worked out! Mind you, I did pity the clergy who used to get hauled in to answer questions about people's attendance. I heard it could get quite nasty. I felt that if the school wanted to set rules for its admission - which I can understand - it seemed unfair to make the local parish church do its dirty work. We were supposed to be pastors to the parish - whoever they were, however they did or didn't attend - not their judges when it came to where their children should go to school.
Indeed. We attended a Baptist church and the clergy there hated doing the grey forms. There’s only so much you can say about someone’s attendance at church and, as we were Baptists, there was no guarantee that it was going to make a blind bit of difference anyway! All the Anglicans who wanted to places didn’t get them because the schools were so oversubscribed. However, should precious treasure not get into the school their parents were hoping for, it was obviously because the grey form hadn’t been filled in properly. Obviously.

It was ugly. Over the years, the church schools added more and more criteria that needed to be meet to reduce the number of applications they were expected to shift through.


All the changes caused huge resentment amongst the non-doms as it meant the only children who had a sniff of a place had parents who were clergy or deacons.


None of this impacted the schools - they were over subscribed and the glowing OFSTEAD reports kept coming.

But occasionally, there was payback. One of the schools had a big building project and appealed to all the local churches for funds on the basis that the local churches should support “the school that your children (will) go to”. All the local churches told them to get lost on the grounds that the changes in admission criteria had broken the links between the school and the local churches. Most of their children hadn’t gone to this school. And the ones who had often had won their place on appeal.

Then there was the year that the child of Very Well Known Christian got turned down for one of the schools for not meeting the criteria. They got into the other, but it did prove how farcical the system was. If this person couldn’t get in, there wasn’t much hope for the rest of us! [Snigger]

Tubbs

[ 22. January 2015, 09:38: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jane R:
[qb]
And as BroJames has said (twice now), this is not really much of a problem outside London.
I (and my friends) are not in London.

...

It's a problem where there is a shortage of good schools in the area. And, if you don't met the criteria for the few good ones - either living in the right road or attending the right church - you're screwed. That's why people are tempted to lie about either what they worship or where they live. (Yes, faking an address is also an option!)

Creating more good schools throughout the area will solve the problem, not fiddling about with the entry criteria for the existing good schools.

It's not a problem where we live now. But that's because most of the schools are either good or outstanding. We are very lucky.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[Then they asked for a letter detailing your church involvement and Christian commitment be submitted alongside the grey form.
I often felt that this discriminated against some Anglicans (never mind anyone else). If you went to a large church with many opportunities to serve as a Server or Acolyte, in the Choir, on the Altar Guild, as a Sunday School Leader etc. etc., then you ticked lots of boxes and racked up lots of points. If you went to a small "low" church (no servers, no choir etc.) then it was much harder.

Also, if your church had lots of services each Sunday, it became easier to fit attendance round football practice or visits to Granny. If it only had one, then it was harder to be a "regular enough" attender.

To me this means that strong thriving churches will attract more and more young families; small ones (often doing vital missional work in difficult areas) will lose out. There is also an implicit if unintentional bias towards High Church Anglicanism. In other words, school admission isn't a level playing field, even for Anglicans!

On a different point, admission criteria will vary between "Voluntary Aided" and "Voluntary Controlled" schools; the latter have fewer links with the Church. Small village schools are, I suspect, more likely to be VC but not always.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That's why people are tempted to lie about either what they worship or where they live. (Yes, faking an address is also an option!)
Yes, my wife - as a teacher at a CofE school - was once approached by her Head who was dubious about an application form from a parent who claimed to worship at our church, but (as my wif confirmed) didn't. She has also known parents who have put down a relative's address - nearer the school than the actual home of the prospective pupil.

The system is also subverted by clergy who lie, either because they particularly want a family to get into school, or because they fundamentally disagree with the system and want to cock a snook at it (can you still say that?) Trouble is, that creates (further) injustice for those of us who tell the truth.

[ 22. January 2015, 10:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[Then they asked for a letter detailing your church involvement and Christian commitment be submitted alongside the grey form.
I often felt that this discriminated against some Anglicans (never mind anyone else). If you went to a large church with many opportunities to serve as a Server or Acolyte, in the Choir, on the Altar Guild, as a Sunday School Leader etc. etc., then you ticked lots of boxes and racked up lots of points. If you went to a small "low" church (no servers, no choir etc.) then it was much harder.

Also, if your church had lots of services each Sunday, it became easier to fit attendance round football practice or visits to Granny. If it only had one, then it was harder to be a "regular enough" attender.

To me this means that strong thriving churches will attract more and more young families; small ones (often doing vital missional work in difficult areas) will lose out. There is also an implicit if unintentional bias towards High Church Anglicanism. In other words, school admission isn't a level playing field, even for Anglicans!

On a different point, admission criteria will vary between "Voluntary Aided" and "Voluntary Controlled" schools; the latter have fewer links with the Church. Small village schools are, I suspect, more likely to be VC but not always.
There were plenty of jobs at the low Anglican I attended. They only broke out the vestments at the 1662 and the very early service! Just different ones!

But there is bias against children from single or divorced families and young carers. Many of them won't be able furfil the attendance / involvement criteria that many of the schools demand through no fault of their own.

This meant Anglican clergy would advise some families not to apply. They knew the school would just look the figure and ignore their accompanying letter giving the context.

Thinking back, none of the clergy I knew were keen on the grey forms or the letters. Most would have preferred that the schools select using some system that didn't involve them.

The letters were a lot of work. For families that attended regularly, it was fine. For others, it was harder. And the schools didn't have to deal with the fallout when people didn't get what they'd wanted. Particularly when someone who was preceived as being completely undeserving did.

Tubbs

[ 22. January 2015, 13:04: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That's why people are tempted to lie about either what they worship or where they live. (Yes, faking an address is also an option!)
Yes, my wife - as a teacher at a CofE school - was once approached by her Head who was dubious about an application form from a parent who claimed to worship at our church, but (as my wif confirmed) didn't. She has also known parents who have put down a relative's address - nearer the school than the actual home of the prospective pupil.

The system is also subverted by clergy who lie, either because they particularly want a family to get into school, or because they fundamentally disagree with the system and want to cock a snook at it (can you still say that?) Trouble is, that creates (further) injustice for those of us who tell the truth.
There are cultural pressures as well. One of our previous churches served a large black population. For some families, the grand-parent’s church was their church. Some of them came regularly as well, but some didn’t as grandma went for them. But everyone expected the clergy to write them a good letter.

Part of the annual joy of the grey forms was attempting to identify whose grandchild or niece / nephew they were being asked to write a reference for. With varying degrees of success!

The outcome depended on the school. But, when the answer was no, explaining to the grand-parents that although they had attended church faithfully for years, that wasn’t quite what the school had in mind was No Fun.

Tubbs
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<snip> as BroJames has said (twice now), this is not really much of a problem outside London<snip>
Other urban areas are also available (and experience this kind of problem).
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I have no issue with CoE-run schools. As to how they are Christian if they have mostly non-Christian pupils or even teachers, they are serving non-Christians and sharing the faith with them, and thus living out the Gospel far more than restricting intake to Anglicans.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<snip> as BroJames has said (twice now), this is not really much of a problem outside London<snip>
Other urban areas are also available (and experience this kind of problem).
Fairly rural around here, but still have this problem, at least with secondaries.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by toadstrike:
...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"
If that's the exact phrase they use on the website, I'd be very reluctant to put them in charge of my child's education in English grammar.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
The CofE school my sons attended (in rural Creamtealand) was oversubscribed - the criteria were only really biased towards church attenders for those living outside the catchment area. There was always room for those living inside as long as they didn't apply at the very last minute.

That particular school tried to appoint practising Christians to the staff if at all possible - as they usually had many people apply, that was not normally difficult to achieve.

In recent years, some non-Christian parents actively didn't want their child to attend a CofE school, as they feared them being brainwashed. So sent them to a popular county primary in a nearby village. Thus freeing up extra spaces for those who really wanted to attend the CofE school.
 
Posted by Wild Organist (# 12631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...

Alternatively, the church would suddenly be full, but every parent there would be there just to fulfil the school's criteria.
As a Wild Organist, I wander through rural and suburban and city centre churches. The one that sticks in my mind in this discussion is the suburban one which has a school and a "family service". The former is excellent, the latter is crammed with parents of little Damiens and Carries whose parents are never seen again once little D or C has got in. The other four or five services each month get about 20% of the congregation of the FS and are much more pleasant to play for.
This is not a deprived area - I can't afford to live there, only 4 miles from home as it is - and I have no children, so no axe to grind. But my instinct says this is wrong. These parents are lying when they profess the faith, say the Creed. The church should not encourage this because of fecundity. Ok, what's the solution?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If our village CofE school required evidence of attendance at the parish church it would have precisely zero children, at least since we moved our church attendance elsewhere. I am not exaggerating.

Alternatively, the church would suddenly be full, but every parent there would be there just to fulfil the school's criteria.
It is amazing how oversubscription to a very popular school gets the bums on seats!

Whilst the schools I'm thinking of were rurally located - and there were perfectly respectable alternatives within short-car-driving distance - many people wanted the convenience of their 'own' village school, as well as that much vaunted CofE ethos-thing. A parish with a church school without these problems is an enviable thing!

I used to wonder inwardly why non-churchgoing parents would want to, in a sense, compromise their agnostic/atheist principles, give up their Sunday morning etc, just to get little Penelope into St Penguin's. But some parents are very motivated to do what they consider to be the best thing for their children, by way of getting, apparently, the best local education. So long as I wasn't being expected to put my signature to a lie, I tried not to judge. It's just such a relief not to have to play those games any more.

To be fair to the congregations I'm talking about, I can't recall any of these parents being particularly identifiable as monsters of depravity. Brazen chancers, some of them, perhaps. But I know, too, that more than a few of our families were genuine worshippers in that they would've been there regardless. But even for the folks who were there solely to qualify for school places; frankly, their motivations were hardly more Herod-like than some other motivations I can think of for church-attendance. Dammit, I even know some people who only get up on a Sunday morning and go along to church because they've been paid to <ahem>!

The issue of unfairness to other potentially qualifying families who are regular church people is, perhaps, the real crux of the matter. To gain advantages by attempting to claim you're something you're not, is hardly a great lesson for your kid. Though someone might argue that if the kid is actually the chief beneficiary, that's justifiable. It's a shame it's just so messy at times.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wild Organist:
These parents are lying when they profess the faith, say the Creed. The church should not encourage this because of fecundity. Ok, what's the solution?
Oh no! Naughty people going to church! Quick, panic! [Big Grin]

I know what you're saying. Explicit insincerity is not pleasant, and at worst is a mockery of holy things.

But, here's the thing. Lots of people in church are lying - to some degree, and at some stage in their lives - when they profess the faith, say the Creed. Lots of people in church are lying when they say the Lord's Prayer, share the Peace, take communion blah-de-blah. Why stop with parents? At least if they're in church, they might hear something that tells them why they shouldn't lie - or is that something God would rather not happen?

I do agree with you, however, that the church shouldn't encourage it. That's why I, for one, and many, many colleagues get so royally peed off with schools sloughing off their responsibility for admissions onto parish clergy in the way that so often happens.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Perhaps the CofE school motto should be Mark 9:24 "And straightway the father of the child crying out with tears, said, Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief."

Unless the parent of a child at the school, suffering from a temporary - or permanent - loss of belief, actually takes their child out of the school, thus giving up their place to someone else, then they should never judge those who have trouble believing in the first place. Perhaps.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wild Organist:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...

Alternatively, the church would suddenly be full, but every parent there would be there just to fulfil the school's criteria.
As a Wild Organist, I wander through rural and suburban and city centre churches. The one that sticks in my mind in this discussion is the suburban one which has a school and a "family service". The former is excellent, the latter is crammed with parents of little Damiens and Carries whose parents are never seen again once little D or C has got in. The other four or five services each month get about 20% of the congregation of the FS and are much more pleasant to play for.
This is not a deprived area - I can't afford to live there, only 4 miles from home as it is - and I have no children, so no axe to grind. But my instinct says this is wrong. These parents are lying when they profess the faith, say the Creed. The church should not encourage this because of fecundity. Ok, what's the solution?
Improve the education system so that access to a “good” school doesn’t depend on where you live, worship or the depth of your pockets.

If every school was of a decent standard, then parents wouldn’t be having a meltdown at the thought of Mungo having to go to St Midge's (special measures) rather than St Mary’s (Good with Outstanding Features). And they wouldn’t be willing to do whatever it takes to improve the odds.

Tubbs

[ 23. January 2015, 15:36: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
But surely St. Midge's is a church school too?

(Mind you, we have in our town a St. Helen's School which isn't a church school. This causes quite a bit of confusion).
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
There are three primary schools within about half a mile of my house, two are Church of England Voluntary Aided schools (named after the parish in which they are sited), and the other a regular local authority governed school.

The last used to be until very recently an infants school, which fed into one of the Church schools which was a junior school, each with three form entry. Both became two form entry primary schools.

The admissions policies for the schools are online. The policy for a voluntary aided church school is set by the governers, while that for the other is set by the local authority. They have similarities and differences.

In all cases policies on who can come only apply if there is over-subscription, i.e. there are more applicants than places (30 per class). So, it is not true to say that there is exclusion, no-one is prevented from applying. The schools all have a priority order.

In first place all of them have children who are or who have been 'looked after', which means children who are in care, or for whom accomodation has been provided by the local authority as the result of its social care responsibilities.

In second place each of the schools next considers those children with 'exceptional needs', which means the school is the best. There are some variations here: one church school only considers medical needs, the other considers medical and/or social needs, while the non-church school includes educational needs.

For the church schools, but not the non-church school, next to be considered are those with a sibling at the school.

Then the church schools consider 'foundation places', which is the first point where any faith association is considered. One school has 24 such places (out of a total entry of 90), and eligiblity is based on the child being baptised or dedicated, and either (at least one) parent attending the parish church of the school regularly (twice a month), or who live in the geographical parish, or two neighbouring parishes, and attend regularly another Christian church.

The other church school has 6 foundation places (out of a yearly entry of 60). These places are allocated to those children whose parent(s) are active members of either the parish church or another local Christian church. If these places are oversubscribed, then members of the local parish church take priority.

In last place for all schools comes geographical proximity. One of the schools specifies in detail how the distance from the home to the school is calculated. This is probably evidence of a lot of pushy parents arguing over matters of a few metres.

The policies for the schools refer to their ethos.
quote:
Governors hope that parents who have chosen this school for their child have done so
with the knowledge that it is a Church of England school with a distinctive Christian ethos. Governors, therefore, expect parents to give their full support to the ethos of the school.
quote:
The underlying ethos of the school
is Christian but it is a church school for the whole community and it welcomes applications for pupils of other faiths or no faith.
Sorry for the long post, but I think it is interesting to see some actual admission policies for church schools.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But surely St. Midge's is a church school too?

(Mind you, we have in our town a St. Helen's School which isn't a church school. This causes quite a bit of confusion).
But it's not a good one so the parents don't want Mungo to go there. [Razz] Darn, as you spotted it, I can't edit the St out.

Tubbs
 
Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :
 
To answer a previous point where I had put a very abbreviated version of the school requirements, here is the full text of the requirements (in addtion to baptism certificate) which I have cut and pasted from the school website.

quote:

For the purpose of criterion 3, a child will be deemed to have parent(s) who are extensively involved in the work and worship of the nominated church if one or both parent(s) meet
all of the following requirements:
(i) Confirmed in the Church of England or a Church in Communion with the Church of England; or, being confirmed in another episcopal church, formally received into the communion of the Church of England, and
(ii)
On the Electoral Roll of one of the churches set out in criterion 3, or an ordained
minister of the Church of England licensed to or permitted to officiate in one of the
four parishes, and
(iii)
Frequent attendance at Sunday worship (at least twice per month) for at least the past two years, and
(iv)
If a lay person, regular and sustained contribution through one of the following
unpaid roles in the nominated church: Licensed Reader, PCC member,
Youth/children’s Leader, Musical Co-ordinator, PCC sub-committee member,
choir/music group member, pastoral team member, altar server.
I think the last bit is a pretty tall order and they'll have to get motoring!

[ 24. January 2015, 09:43: Message edited by: toadstrike ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Yes, that last criterion rather excludes those who feel that the best way they exercise their Christian commitment is in their work or some other sort of social engagement. What if the sort of commitment they give to being a doctor or a teacher doesn't leave them much time or spare energy to sing or be on one of the innumerable committees the average church manages to generate?

Worse, the list is not phrased 'such as'. The list of approved and recognised activities seems to be exclusive. No good if mother does the flowers or father digs graves for free. Or in these modern non-sexist days, vice versa. They don't count.

[ 24. January 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
toadstrike--

Hi, and welcome to the Ship!

Those rules sound like the preference program is basically for children of church staff, paid or not. (How in the world do they check church attendance??)

I initially thought, from my understanding of the OP, that the parents would simply have to go to church, and get heavily involved in some way. That they wouldn't have to actually profess belief. And, as others pointed out, church involvement might be to their spiritual benefit, from an evangelistic point of view. So I wasn't too worried about it--just concerned about the difficulties of getting into a good school.

But, looking at the rules, they'd have to be *seriously* dishonest, because they'd have to get confirmed. And you mentioned a baptismal certificate. If that's for the child, things could get complicated. OTOH, if the church believes that baptism is necessary for salvation, then that could be another good thing coming out of the situation.

ISTM that these are loving parents who want a good education for their kid, and don't have many options. As great as the school may be, is it really worth going through all that? And the possible consequences and ripple effects? How will they feel if the child chooses to be a Christian? Or if one of *them* does?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I have no issue with CoE-run schools. As to how they are Christian if they have mostly non-Christian pupils or even teachers, they are serving non-Christians and sharing the faith with them, and thus living out the Gospel far more than restricting intake to Anglicans.
That's one of my questions. How are they sharing the faith and living out the Gospel if they don't actually have the faith?

We've had lots of discussions here about corporations not having religion (with reference to Hobby Lobby and so on).

Sure - if what you have is a majority Christian community with some pupils of other faiths or no faith, it's easy to see the school as Christians sharing the faith.

But if most of the pupils and most of the teachers aren't Christian, I don't see how that works. The people supposedly "sharing the faith" don't have one.

Is there really anything that sets such a school apart from a secular school, apart from the fact that it is named after a saint and has the vicar on the board of governors? In what way does a school staffed and populated mostly by non-Christians have a "Christian Ethos"?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by toadstrike:

(iv)
If a lay person, regular and sustained contribution through one of the following
unpaid roles in the nominated church: Licensed Reader, PCC member,
Youth/children’s Leader, Musical Co-ordinator, PCC sub-committee member,
choir/music group member, pastoral team member, altar server.
I think the last bit is a pretty tall order and they'll have to get motoring! [/QUOTE]

This was the kind of criteria we had to contend with. Quite literally, so many points were alotted for each item: ie, 5 points for PCC member, 5 points for being c/warden, 5 points for leading Brownies or Cubs etc. And then the family had to get over, say, 45 points altogether to qualify for a school place. I wouldn't've believed it, if I hadn't seen it for myself.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
And if you've only got one parent that cuts the number of people capable of gathering points by half and if that parent has to work long or irregular hours in a low paying job (and possibly on Sundays) the time for gathering those points goes down. I wonder how much fudging goes on to allow children that look most likely to reflect glory on the school in and those that might be trouble out.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
To be fair, the real heart-searching was about which kids were likely to benefit most from attending that particular school. It is possible some clergy might've been thinking 'I should fudge this application so this little Einstein can attend St Penguin's and shine reflected glory on the school'. But the biggest difficulty I recall self and colleagues having to live with was knowing that whatever strategy - fair or unfair - the parent was playing, at the heart of it was a child who deserved attendance at a decent school, and whose potential happiness, short and long-term, could depend on a signature of an application. Whatever the admissions boards of these schools might've gotten up to, it was sometimes the parish people who had to cope with the fall-out.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
And what happens in the case where one parent is a believer and the other isn't? The whole situation isn't as neat and clear cut as you would think from some of the assertions.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Since the faith secondary schools are in areas where housing is expensive ...
I wonder why this is? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But the biggest difficulty I recall self and colleagues having to live with was knowing that whatever strategy - fair or unfair - the parent was playing, at the heart of it was a child who deserved attendance at a decent school, and whose potential happiness, short and long-term, could depend on a signature of an application.
But at the same time, another child with less-pushy parents (or less hypocritical ones) would be deprived of a place.

The only answer is, abolish faith schools, or ensure that they operate an open admissions policy. To be fair, many church schools in rural areas and elsewhere, where it is the only or default school, do just that.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is also an implicit if unintentional bias towards High Church Anglicanism.
From the context of the rest of your post, you appear to mean 'large and flourishing suburban churches with many activities and opportunities for involvement.' Which these days tends to mean evangelical more often than not. 'High' churches tend to have small and struggling congregations and in fact fit your definition of 'low church'.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
For the purpose of criterion 3, a child will be deemed to have parent(s) who are extensively involved in the work and worship of the nominated church if one or both parent(s) meet all of the following requirements:
  1. Confirmed in the Church of England or a Church in Communion with the Church of England; or, being confirmed in another episcopal church, formally received into the communion of the Church of England, and
  2. On the Electoral Roll of one of the churches set out in criterion 3, or an ordained minister of the Church of England licensed to or permitted to officiate in one of the four parishes, and
  3. Frequent attendance at Sunday worship (at least twice per month) for at least the past two years, and
  4. If a lay person, regular and sustained contribution through one of the following unpaid roles in the nominated church: Licensed Reader, PCC member, Youth/children’s Leader, Musical Co-ordinator, PCC sub-committee member, choir/music group member, pastoral team member, altar server.
As a parent, I ticked all the boxes on this list - PCC member for a full term and Sunday school leader for 5 years. What I couldn't make was the requirement for the good local faith school which was 10 years of weekly attendance. Mostly because I'd spent some of that ten years in rural parishes when there were no appropriate weekly services to take a 3 year old to - 8am 1662 one week a month, for example.

That local school is a Jewish foundation school and is what fills several of the local churches with parents determined to avoid the school my daughter did attend. She ended up at the VC CofE school, which was the one everyone avoided as it was dodging in and out of special measures at the time, for very good reason.

[ 25. January 2015, 23:26: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I have no issue with CoE-run schools. As to how they are Christian if they have mostly non-Christian pupils or even teachers, they are serving non-Christians and sharing the faith with them, and thus living out the Gospel far more than restricting intake to Anglicans.
That's one of my questions. How are they sharing the faith and living out the Gospel if they don't actually have the faith?

We've had lots of discussions here about corporations not having religion (with reference to Hobby Lobby and so on).

Sure - if what you have is a majority Christian community with some pupils of other faiths or no faith, it's easy to see the school as Christians sharing the faith.

But if most of the pupils and most of the teachers aren't Christian, I don't see how that works. The people supposedly "sharing the faith" don't have one.

Is there really anything that sets such a school apart from a secular school, apart from the fact that it is named after a saint and has the vicar on the board of governors? In what way does a school staffed and populated mostly by non-Christians have a "Christian Ethos"?
A school isn't just comprised of pupils and teachers. In a church school's case, there will be links with one or more local churches, plus Christian governors, clergy on the board of governors etc etc.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is also an implicit if unintentional bias towards High Church Anglicanism.
From the context of the rest of your post, you appear to mean 'large and flourishing suburban churches with many activities and opportunities for involvement.' Which these days tends to mean evangelical more often than not. 'High' churches tend to have small and struggling congregations and in fact fit your definition of 'low church'.
I wonder how much churchgoing for the sake of school places happens at evangelical CofE churches. I have a feeling that the two agendas wouldn't work very well together, but I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is also an implicit if unintentional bias towards High Church Anglicanism.
From the context of the rest of your post, you appear to mean 'large and flourishing suburban churches with many activities and opportunities for involvement.' Which these days tends to mean evangelical more often than not. 'High' churches tend to have small and struggling congregations and in fact fit your definition of 'low church'.
I wonder how much churchgoing for the sake of school places happens at evangelical CofE churches. I have a feeling that the two agendas wouldn't work very well together, but I could be wrong.
Based on my experience, you are. One of my previous churches was a large, evangelical Anglican and there were people who attended because it was attached to a very good school.

The attitude of the clergy and staff was that it gave them an opportunity to build relationships with people and expose them to Christianity. The rest was up to God! A lot came to faith, but there were some who disappeared once the kids had started secondary school.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is also an implicit if unintentional bias towards High Church Anglicanism.
From the context of the rest of your post, you appear to mean 'large and flourishing suburban churches with many activities and opportunities for involvement.' Which these days tends to mean evangelical more often than not. 'High' churches tend to have small and struggling congregations and in fact fit your definition of 'low church'.
I wonder how much churchgoing for the sake of school places happens at evangelical CofE churches. I have a feeling that the two agendas wouldn't work very well together, but I could be wrong.
Based on my experience, you are. One of my previous churches was a large, evangelical Anglican and there were people who attended because it was attached to a very good school.

The attitude of the clergy and staff was that it gave them an opportunity to build relationships with people and expose them to Christianity. The rest was up to God! A lot came to faith, but there were some who disappeared once the kids had started secondary school.

Tubbs
Yes, I used to work at such a church - attached to the best school in the area. Usually it all worked ok, occasionally an odd parent would get cross and write to the local paper complaining that they were being "forced" to sit through all sorts of offensive sermons about the exclusivity of Jesus and repentance from sin simply to get their child's education sorted.

At the time I thought they had a bit too much of a culture of entitlement - now I feel a bit more sympathy.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Ah. I understand that CofE evangelical churches are often based in nice suburban areas, so perhaps good schools in those areas are more likely to be attached to such churches. In the more urban areas (outside London, anyway) are the good schools more likely to be attached to other kinds of CofE congregations?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ah. I understand that CofE evangelical churches are often based in nice suburban areas, so perhaps good schools in those areas are more likely to be attached to such churches.
In nice suburban areas, schools are generally better anyway. Usually the CofE schools are not noticeably better - and are often attended by people from out of immediate area anyway.
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
Hopefully this has already been said, but IMHO:

Any school with a religious foundation but funded largely through general tatxation should be obliged to take all comers from within it's catchment, no strings attached.

If it prefers to offer preferential places to the children of those who profess the requisite faith, then the memebership of said faith should jolly well get on and fund it.

If these schools are established to turn out 'believers' they need to admit it and act accordingly. If they are there to offer an education in line with national standards, while the teaching staff draw on a personal faith as a foundation for being able to face the ravening horde each day, and the school provides a faith based ethos to guide behaviour, but each child is welcome on their own terms regardless of family background, with no agenda to 'connvert' them; well that's good too, make it clear and do the job.

But the appalling fudge that seems to blight the field of play today in England is a disgrace to the adults of the nation, and ill serves the children who deserve much better behaviour.

E-
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
... But the appalling fudge that seems to blight the field of play today in England is a disgrace to the adults of the nation, and ill serves the children who deserve much better behaviour.
That really is overstating things somewhat.

The present situation is not perfect. It has a number of flaws. But what changes a person wants to see depend on what one thinks is wrong with it, what one thinks education is for, who decides, how far one trusts the state, what you think taxpayers are and are not entitled to get for their money and whether one is entitled to ignore deals previous generations thought they had committed themselves to.

The equation, 'this is funded partially from general taxation - therefore the state is entitled to insist on my priorities rather than those of other taxpayers' is very, very unsound.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, I don't know, I'm largely with Alisdair on this. May I point out that:

1. Many "Church Schools" were founded to offer education to children of the parish, not the congregation. Attendance at church was not, AFAIK, a criterion for admission.

2. There was great resistance among Nonconformists to the 1902 Education Act, as they believed that they were have to pay for "Sectarian" (i.e. Anglican or Catholic) schools from their local rates. In a campaign of "passive resistance" many refused to pay the precept and were fined, imprisoned or had goods sequestrated as a result.

3. The present system is a "fudge" deriving from the 1902, 1906 and 1944 Education Acts - just as the ability of doctors to work in both the NHS and privately was a concession in the 1947 Health Act.

Personally I would like to have either "State Schools" - with good RE and a recognition of the place religion has played (and continues to play) in our country's life; or private Church/Religious schools, funded by their respective bodies. But I'm not too sure of the latter since they are hardly likely to promote community cohesion. I don't like the present situation.

[ 28. January 2015, 16:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:


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.
Are the RC schools part of the state system, or are they also private, fee paying schools, as Catholic schools (and Episcopal schools for that matter) are in the United States?

Incidentally, in some dioceses American Episcopalians send their children to the local public (state) schools without a thought. In other dioceses the Episcopalians seem to have a system of parochial schools almost as well developed as the RCs.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Are the RC schools part of the state system ...
Yes. They are usually VA schools in the same way as CofE, Methodist and Jewish ones.
This is wikipaedia's description of what a VA school and how it differs from a VC school.

Traditionally, RC schools have always been quite open that they are there to provide state funded schools for Catholic parents, in a way that some of the comments on this thread have deprecated for CofE parents and schools.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Try:
quote:
Are the RC schools part of the state system,
Yes, but unlike other state schools which have a specific catchment area, and every child within that catchment area gets a place in that school, the Roman catholic schools take children from across the city, if the parents opt for a RC school rather than their catchment area school.
 
Posted by Pasta (# 5635) on :
 
I worked as a school chaplain in Surrey with strong competition for church school places. At the local chapter meeting there would often be moans "it's really irritating getting all these parents coming and joining our churches just to get a school place. They all leave after a couple of years". I could never be certain they had seen the irony, that it was the local church's responsibility to engage them so that they would want to stay!

I did quite often wonder if the truth was that they saw church as a place for either the insider or the person they'd nabbed. Outsiders flooding into their churches was definitely bad though.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Do these churches get any support or advice as to how to adapt their ethos and their traditions in order to make things comfortable for newcomers who don't have much experience of church life?

It seems a bit harsh to criticise churches that find themselves in this position but haven't been given any guidance. Let's be honest: most historical churches have very little recent experience of sharing the gospel with non-believers, and some congregations have become inward-looking because they've grown used to being ignored by everyone else.
 
Posted by Pasta (# 5635) on :
 
I find it hard to sympathise with churches' whose complaint is that they are getting newcomers. But yes, I know the "local church for local people" syndrome.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Churches like the idea of newcomers in theory. But in practice, unless the newcomers are just like the oldies a large number of new people will entail a change of identity for the church, and that's hard to deal with.

It must be even worse if you know that the newcomers would rather not be there at all, except that they need the vicar to sign a form for them.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Schools are generally seen as being about educating children - and the parents need to be aware of/accepting of the nature of the education their child will get at a church-run school.

But it seems to me that this attendance requirement is an attempt to 'educate' the parents first, to effectively enrol them as a condition of enrolling the children.

Which seems a bit problematic. No-one ever told my parents that before they could get me into piano lessons, they too had to study piano.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pasta:
I find it hard to sympathise with churches' whose complaint is that they are getting newcomers. But yes, I know the "local church for local people" syndrome.
Yes, especially when they make a point of publicly saying they're welcoming, but ignore newish people to the point of a) intensely gossiping about all sorts of church people and business, as if no one else is around; b) pretending as if the volunteers they're directly working with don't exist; and c) are usually only interested in people who are rich, famous, or are both in need AND unusually talented.

If you don't want anyone but The Right People in your church, don't pretend you want the general public to join.

(Me? Issues? [Biased] )
 
Posted by Pasta (# 5635) on :
 
Most of these newcomers are very supportive of the church in a vague Queen, Tradition, Jerusalem and Midnight Mass sort of way. They will have been to church a number of times anyway in their life. In the whole post modern "belong before you believe" world I would have thought the system is perfect; but only in church can you preach forgiveness while hating your brother and frantically organise mission weeks whilst resenting the newcomers that come from the school.

I do wonder if the real issue is that the church is secretly miffed that they didn't get the new family in; because if they'd done it then that would be kudos to them!
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Tangent, but why is 'belong before you believe' seen as being post-modern? Surely that was what characterised the great majority of Christians at least from the time of Constantine until the last century.
 
Posted by Pasta (# 5635) on :
 
Enlightened modernity emphasised the power and supremacy of reason. You could be intellectually convinced that God was real or not. In the church it had its heyday in the evangelical preachers from 1850 to 1960. Even though it was tailing off in the 70's and 80's, the idea was still prevalent that we just had to get them to a talk by Billy Graham or a wannabe like Michael Green. Then they would believe and go on to belong.

Post modernity was the re-discovery of the supremacy of relationship, you were invited to hang out at some socials, get to know the believers, if they were authentic you would move from belonging to believing. Very much the pattern with church school selection. I went to church to meet girls, I was equally good at belonging before believing and with no better motives than Mr & Mrs Gimmie-a-school-place.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tangent, but why is 'belong before you believe' seen as being post-modern? Surely that was what characterised the great majority of Christians at least from the time of Constantine until the last century.
I don't think it worked like that in the Bible, but from the point of view of a state church I suppose it makes sense to enculturate people with religious rituals rather than expecting them to arrive with ready-made evidence of a particular spiritual or intellectual state. After all, such churches don't normally go out to evangelise; they expect people to come to them.

I think the problem is that in the current situation the self-serving aspect is so blatant. We live in a solidly secular culture, and AFAIK there's little sense that these people are coming to church out of any curiosity about Christianity, or a desire to give their children an understanding of their religious heritage, or a vague notion that it might provide them with some spiritual benefit. It's simply about acquiring an educational and social advantage over other people.

But I suppose you could say that most of life is like that anyway; we all want to beat other people to that place at Oxford, to that great job, to that desirable marriage partner, etc., or to ensure that our children do. Since this is human nature perhaps it makes sense for the right churches in the right places to be realistic about it and possibly make a few converts by participating in the process.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Since this is human nature perhaps it makes sense for the right churches in the right places to be realistic about it and possibly make a few converts by participating in the process.
Let the little children come to me... so long as their parents come along too, are in good financial standing and fill out the correct forms.

Doesn't really have quite the same ring, does it?

On one level a church school is an enterprise that needs some form of running like any enterprise. But it seems to me there's a fairly fundamental collision between values of status-seeking and business-running and values of doing good just because it's good.

And I don't think this is the only area where the collision occurs. Too often, churches act like they're in the conversion business. It's as if God set them sales targets. And so they don't do something just because it will help the community or is a service that needs providing, they'll do it because they see it as an opportunity to upsell people on becoming a church member.

Such behaviour is uncomfortably close to the more sneaky and underhand versions of what commercial businesses do. I'm sure we've all had a telemarketer say "would you like a free phone (or something)", and then if you say yes, they will then tell you that actually, to get the thing that you want you've got to also have other things.

If the church is offering to provide children with a high standard of education which reflects Christian values, then it should provide children with a high standard of education which reflects Christian values. It should not engage in bundling. It should not say "ah, well, if you want us to educate your children, the only way to get that is in a package with our regular Sunday attendance program".

[ 30. January 2015, 23:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let the little children come to me... so long as their parents come along too, are in good financial standing and fill out the correct forms.

Doesn't really have quite the same ring, does it
Indeed! My comment was made with a certain sense of resignation about the whole thing. (But the parents don't exactly have to be in good financial standing, just not in the kind of poverty that goes along with chaotic lifestyles.)

quote:

If the church is offering to provide children with a high standard of education which reflects Christian values, then it should provide children with a high standard of education which reflects Christian values. It should not engage in bundling. It should not say "ah, well, if you want us to educate your children, the only way to get that is in a package with our regular Sunday attendance program".
Regular Sunday attendance is only required when a school is ridiculously popular. Most CofE schools aren't in that position, which, ironically, seems to be a good thing.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should add that my mother tried to get me into such a school when I was little, but she failed. But I was interested to discover recently that the CofE church I now attend signs in forms for parents who want to send their children to the very same school. I don't know what the rules were when I was of primary school age, but if my mother had raised me in the CofE rather than as a Methodist things might have been a bit different!

[Biased]

[ 31. January 2015, 00:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by squidgetsmum (# 17708) on :
 
Late to the party, but we've just had this moral debate as the Squidge will start school in September. Since he's been at church since he was in utero, and we're between two church schools, our choices seem pretty easy. However, we've actually chosen the school that doesn't prioritise church membership, figuring that we couldn't see why this should make a difference. I hope to hell he gets in, as it's a good school, but the admission policy was a definite part of our decision.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
We tried to get our sons into the local CofE High school which gets outstanding results across the board. We had full Churchy points - as many as it's possible to get, plus a letter from our Minister etc etc. They didn't get in - we are Methodists so the CofE kids were way up the list.

My sons went to the local comp which had just failed its Ofsted. They were thrilled as al their friends went there too. It's in the worst ward in the country on all statistical counts.

My two both got 4 A* A levels (two being maths and further maths) They went on to University, Masters degrees and excellent jobs (Airline pilot and Nurse)

Both still say they much preferred the local comp. It taught them well with the added bonus of many life-skills lessons they would never have had at the highly selective school.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Indeed. We are in the process of secondary school application for Boy #1 at the moment - the school he's most likely to get allocated to has appalling results, but the issue that bothers me is that they don't offer triple science, and I consider double science (never mind, God help us, single award science) to be a mockery of the subject. I'd have no problem if they remedied that. Oh, and took IT seriously.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0