"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"

[eFestivals]

How are they doing this selection ?

I know it isn't the case at my local over subscribed school... At least if it is no one is telling me... Including the parents who currently go there...

if it's not over-subscribed then it's not an above-average school within your area.

Or, just perhaps, by a stroke of luck you happen to live in an area where the number of pupils is declining.

(such places do exist - primarily where wealth drives out the younger people who would have kids. But generally these are in the more remote areas where it's troublesome for parents further afield to get their kids to that remote better school)

At the point of applying will one day some car pull alongside side me and the kid and whisk us away to a secret location for a series of tests, before being drugged and put back into the local community as if nothing ever happened ?

It all sounds very exciting...

SATS.

[eFestivals]

Only if you accept that they are selecting on ability... Otherwise it would tail off given your trail of thought...

So they either are selecting on ability... Would be nice to see how they are doing that and not being sued for it etc by the middle class rich families who are missing out...

Or they are doing something right within their educational approach....

They very definitely do select on ability. This is constantly proven by research, but without the proof to be able to finger someone for doing that.

At any over-subscribed school some people HAVE to lose out. Suing cannot provide the proof for why a particular child has lost out, so it's just about impossible to successfully sue. But if someone had the money to spunk on suing they'd be more likely to spend that money on the certain success of private schooling.

It's long been known that, on average, the richer the parent the more academically successful the child. Everywhere in the country (tho of course not 100% applicable) you'll see that the better schools are in the richer areas - again, a self-sustaining effect.

An attempt has been made in more recent times to balence things out by providing more resources per child to poorer areas. The tories are abolishing this - to essentially give themselves private school standards without them having to pay private school fees.

(this whole 'steal the tax money for ourselves' idea is at the heart of the current tory govt policy. They've finally realised they can't destroy state schooling or the NHS so instead they are now diverting the resources of both towards themselves, and removing govt accountability for both so they can claim "nothing to do with us". It's been a transparent policy for anyone with half a brain since Dave Moron became tory leader).

[eFestivals]

You read that wrong... It IS over subscribed...

My apologies for having mis-read what you said.

Does the intake area for your school have at least 38% of children from rented homes, with 22% from social housing?

If not, then wealth is the selection criteria being used.

[eFestivals]

That isn't a factor in the admission criteria... I don't know any school that it is...

1. Children in care

2. Siblings

3. Proximity to school (as the crow fly)

(this is the criteria used by the vast majority of state funded schools)

We do have rented properties in the area... Not sure about social housing as with right to buy its hard to no these days whats what with social housing... There is an area which used to be social housing but I couldn't tell you how much is still so.

It's a factor against who is admitted, and that's a factor on how the school performs.

Those percentages are about right* for the average levels of all rented housing and all social housing within the country.

(* I read the figure the other day, from the latest research. I might be a percent or tow out on each, cos I've pulled them from memory of what I read).

If you don't have those levels of rented housing within your area then you are in a richer area and therefore it's just about certain that you local schools will out-perform the national average, which will cause them to be over-subscribed.

[eFestivals]

There is a reason why I moved to this area... To ensure I had access to better schools for my kid...

I shouldn't of had to do that though. And even now I am not guaranteed she will get a place.

They schools aren't being "selective' though. They are just providing schooling to the local area. And it should be this way. It can't be any other way... Unless you want kids travelling MILES to schools...

If the school isn't being selective, you are a parent (and many others too) are. Which has the same effect, because it's only the richer parents who are in the position to do that.

No, it should NOT be like that, because you are giving your kid a privilege over other kids. It's understandable that you want to, but an unavoidable consequence of that is that you are shitting on other kids to benefit your own.

But you're right, it can't be any other way.

Anyway, you've just proven yourself wrong by that admission. It gets to show that religious schools are not better because of religion, they are better because of the selection (either by the school or the parents) which takes place.

My local school has no more choice than another school in a crap area. They just get whats in the local area.

In this area though I have four schools she could have a reasonable chance of going to... Two clearly out perform the other two while having the same access to children of similar backgrounds...

So some schools do out perform others and its not just about the type of kids going there and its certainly not because schools are "selecting"...

are all those four schools on the same site with identical catchment areas made up of identical demographics?

Of course they're not. And you'll find - on average, by a large extent - that the poorer schools have a less wealthy intake.

[abdoujaparov]

one of the reasons my step son doesnt go to school is that the only choice for primary school was a CofE school. One of the things we didnt want was him being part of an education system delivered by organised religion. I dont like organised religion and I certainly dont like the indoctrination of collective acts of worship

[eFestivals]

It actually shows you are thinking about this whole subject the wrong way around... and now you are thinking about it the right way around. Schools do not select... Parents select...

yes, parents select. That's not new news.

But schools also select. There's been the occasional instance of a school being done for it, but it's exceedingly difficult to prove that selection is taking place at any over-subscribed school, because some have got to lose out anyway.

My cousin is a Catholic with 8 kids. His kids all went to a Catholic school around 15 miles from his home, while other Catholic kids much nearer to that school - and therefore more suitable for attending that school - didn't get places. Why?

Random? Nope, the school openly says it doesn't do random. So please do tell me what method they use to pick and choose who attends?

I'm smart enough to realise that once he's got the first kid into the school there's justification to give the others places. But that doesn't explain why the first got a place. But that first was a smart cookie, towards the top of their year. Co-incidence? That's what the school claims. How can anyone prove differently?

And oh look we are back to Parents and their choices being a key factor in their child's development.

And (on average) the more wealthy, the more brainy, and the more likely the parent is to try and find the best school.

So when I asked what the "faith" schools are doing the question I was proposing is what is the faith structure in society getting right.

PMSL - have you looked at the demographic make-up of CoE or Catholic congregations?

The arguments along the lines of "class" and "wealth" blow apart when you actually recognise my post above (which you didn't, you seem to have just ignored it) that faith schools are in poor areas AND out perform their state counter parts, with the same types of children....

1. weathy parents - who have brainier kids - are more likely to pick a school with care rather than accept the default.

2. Church goers are from the 'higher' deomgraphics.

3. faith schools generally have financial input from that religion meaning greater resources per child.

Join up the dots, just for once.

[eFestivals]

I do join up the dots...

But it keeps saying

NEILS DOGMA

If you want to call true facts 'dogma' you're more than welcome to if it makes you happy.

What you've yet to explain is why those true facts are not factored into your own thinking, with you instead dismissing those very relevant true facts as irrelevant dogma.

So you've failed to join up the dots. You have an opinion that doesn't reference the facts and nothing that anyone says will alter your opinion.

Which makes your opinion the worthless dogma.

[eFestivals]

Your "facts" are nothing more than dogma fuelled bullshit...

You are trying to suggest only wealthy successful people go to church... Which just isn't the case...

And if that is true then maybe you should be hired for marketing the success that faith brings to your life

You have turned into the churches number one cheerleader PMSL

Care to show me where I've said "only"?

For the major Christian churches* in this country it is certainly the case that the average demographic of their congregations is above the country's average. So overall they are more wealthy than the UK average.

(* it's a different scenario for those who are not 'ethnically British'. For example, the many newer evangelical churches that tend to have a black-skinned congregation fall the other side of the wealth line)

It's also the case that they are more the types who engage with society's opportunities - which makes them more likely to search out a better school for their child than the UK average.

Such things have a big impact on the success of church schools, rather than church schools simply being better by default which you are trying to present as true.

Edited February 17, 2012 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

You really are the pits... Again you just comment to stir and not to contribute... Then again, why break the habit of a life time?

[strummer77]

oh give over...

You just didn't like people pointing out the realities of your disgusting little football club...

Go back to the Football thread and deal with something on your level...

Edited February 17, 2012 by strummer77

[abdoujaparov]

Anyway...

Setting aside the issue of faith schools, the more general point is whether the state should have any role in promoting organised religion. In my opinion it should not. We dont live in a theocracy. Religious faith should be a personal matter, not something the state rams down your throat.

[strummer77]

Anyway...

Setting aside the issue of faith schools, the more general point is whether the state should have any role in promoting organised religion. In my opinion it should not. We dont live in a theocracy. Religious faith should be a personal matter, not something the state rams down your throat.

[abdoujaparov]

It shouldn't really... Unless there is a democratic movement for that to happen...

If we moved to a fully elected lords then I fully expect religious groups would get together to ensure religious minded people are elected...

(this presumes we move to something like PR / AV voting system for the Lords)

I think such a removal of faith from our democratic process would see religious people mobilised to fix the removal.

[Kyelo]

Anyway...

Setting aside the issue of faith schools, the more general point is whether the state should have any role in promoting organised religion. In my opinion it should not. We dont live in a theocracy. Religious faith should be a personal matter, not something the state rams down your throat.

[abdoujaparov]

Look at the number of people declaring themselves as having faith in the census...

Look at the number of people declaring themselves as Christian in the census...

During local and general elections MPs (and hopeful ones) will do the church circuit looking for support and gaining it. I went to one of the events last election and faith issues where being discussed and the candidates where giving their thoughts.

People with faith vote and do so with their views on certain issues as a major choice in where they vote.

The statements are being made by the current government the people can choose to remove at the next election....

So to say it wasn't voted for is hard to prove actually... and its even harder to say that faith issues shouldn't be part of a democratic system when the people are declaring faith.

What I will say is we should probably remove things like automatic seats in the lords and then leave it to democracy to decide who sits in governments, and hence what decisions are made...

There will be plenty of MPs in the commons their on a faith based vote...

[strummer77]

Look at the number of people declaring themselves as having faith in the census...

Look at the number of people declaring themselves as Christian in the census...

[abdoujaparov]

Politics and faith are not separate... They are tightly coupled... So faith will play a part in government for as long as the people want it...

[Kyelo]

Look at the number of people declaring themselves as having faith in the census...

Look at the number of people declaring themselves as Christian in the census...

During local and general elections MPs (and hopeful ones) will do the church circuit looking for support and gaining it. I went to one of the events last election and faith issues where being discussed and the candidates where giving their thoughts.

People with faith vote and do so with their views on certain issues as a major choice in where they vote.

The statements are being made by the current government the people can choose to remove at the next election....

So to say it wasn't voted for is hard to prove actually... and its even harder to say that faith issues shouldn't be part of a democratic system when the people are declaring faith.

What I will say is we should probably remove things like automatic seats in the lords and then leave it to democracy to decide who sits in governments, and hence what decisions are made...

There will be plenty of MPs in the commons their on a faith based vote...

Edited February 17, 2012 by BenchBuddah

[abdoujaparov]

So I see your statement as contradictory, to me children shouldn't be branded with a religion...it is not theirs, it is their parents. They should be educated on all faiths and allowed to choose for themselves. Of course theists don't see it this way so would disagree but I think everyone should be given the choice.

[kaosmark2]

So to take a leaf out your book...

You are saying that kids in a faith school won't have a positive influence on the world... That is just bullishit and probably doesn't hold up to the weakest of scrutiny...

Earlier I said so what are the faith schools doing right... It seems to come back to parents who give a fuck...

You know there is an argument of why the children of parents who give a fuck should be held back by having to be around the little shits spawned in other families. My education suffered because I had to attend such a school. God bless equality though... Everyone should have the right to a shit education I suppose in shit disruptive classrooms...

[eFestivals]

We dont live in a theocracy.

Well, we'd like to think that we don't, anyway.

Very amusingly, there's only two countries in the world that appoint unelected clerics into the heart of govt - and that's the UK and Iran.

[kaosmark2]

Only you come out with one line stuff like you posted that mean little, are usually wrong and offer nothing...

As long as you do that I will respond like that. Anytime you post anything of use I respond to it...

[abdoujaparov]

So it begs the question...

When we say we are a "Christian" country what are we saying ?

Everyone here goes to church and is a worshiper...

Or we like to do Christmas and easter... and are history / laws have a foundation in Christianity teachings...

I usually take the statement as the later...

[kaosmark2]

This stuff can not be denied (other than your claim its a factor in who is admitted which is not true)... There is a reason why I moved to this area... To ensure I had access to better schools for my kid...

I shouldn't of had to do that though. And even now I am not guaranteed she will get a place.