Do they have the right to be angry?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4535507.stm

It is a 'church' school, the emphasis being on a religious education. Regardless of whether you agree we should have these schools, the criteria was this was the kind of education they practised.

So why are they upset at being turned down?

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

If it is a matter that they didnt ASK for a religious education, in the fact they had to specify that then it is stupid.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

But is it??? My kids go to a catholic school it is one of the best schools in Stockton, I have friends who live on the other side of town trying to get in and I know the waiting list for our school is very long. They were going to bring in a rule that the kids had to be baptised catholics, but the PTA went mad. We live a 1/4 of a mile away and I have only just found out that I am just to say in that catchment area, which shocked me. Plus the fact I want the boys to do well and have a good education.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

This could have something to do with itâ₠¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¦

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

But did they fill out the forms the same way?

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

well the forms could have changed, they like changing forms to confuse you!

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Well there is a major problem about this matter of choice for parents about schools.There are a significent number of parents who double or triple apply to schools that have a good rep and then find themselves with anything up to 4 reserved places.This in turn means that other children whose parents have applied later find that there are no places available locally for their child.This is selfishness of the meanest sort and I'm hoping that the LEA's will be getting to grips with this soon.. :mad:

So the next time you read of children having no place at junior or secondary school it may not be due to an actual shortfall in places but the sheer nastiness that seems to overcome some parents who think their needs should override others.


I've even read in one of the education papers of one family who sent their child to one school for half the week and to the other for the other half of the week.Beats me why they did it and how they got away with it.

I'll try and find the paper and article.. it was in last weeks issue... :erm:

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Some people will do anything to make sure that their child gets a place, it sickens me. I know some parents who use their parents address as their own , now that is utter cheek!

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

I have the opposite problem. My kids go to a CofE school because there's sod all else choice here. Whilst I firmly believe kids should be taught about different religions and cultures, I'm not in favour of faith schools.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

But what's wrong with doing anything within your means to get your child into a decent school? My sister used my address to get her children into a specific secondary school. She had two choices:

1) - send the kids to the catchment school, where pupils threaten teachers with knives...

2) Lie about where they live so they can go to a school which doesn't have such behaviour. I know what I'd do :shrug:

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Quite a lot. Why the hell should I have to go to the bother and worry of filling in forms and going to interviews and getting on bleeding waiting lists when AFAIK good state education is a right in this country. If you live in the catchment area the presumption should be that you go to the local school unless there's a good reason. If the school isn't up to scratch lobby your MP and don't take no for an answer.

Likewise the school shouldn't be able to refuse you if you live in the catchment area, so this school is out of order.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Hear Hear.
We have a similar problem locally with "new" schools being well over subscribed so children within yards of the school don't get a place where those who live across town do. There is now supposed to be a "common" waiting list!

I wonder how many of these selfish parents become School Governors?

Having said that my Mum lied through her teeth to get me into a local church school (many years ago now)!!!

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Not in favour as in 'abolish them', or not in favour as in 'I wouldn't send my kids to one'? The former would be quite illiberal. ;)

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

A school is a place for education ...... why can it never be as simple as that .... :shrug:

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Education is never simple - it is always politically loaded in one way or another.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

I can cope with being illiberal then! I do not believe in Church intervention - of whatever religion - in schooling. I do believe in learning about and respecting the world's religions (liberal credentials reinstated!) and the people who practice them.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Does your respect of world religions extend to respecting the fact that many people want there to be a religious dimension to their children's education that can't be obtained in a secular school?

Pholosophically speaking, it is an essentially Greek notion that the material and the spiritual life can/should be kept separate. It certainly isn't the view in Islamic, Jewish or Christian philosophy, which is firmly of the view that there is no such dichotomy.

By the way, I feel compelled to point out once more that without Church intervention in schooling, education in this country would be a wholly different ball game today, and a whole lot more kids would have died down mines and up chimneys.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

No. I see no reason why schools should be divided according to religious belief. For me there can be a religious dimension without a school following a single religious doctrine - we teach them about various belief systems. There's enough division in society. If parents wish to teach and inculcate their religious beliefs then that is entirely different.

But why the need for single faith schools? Surely the teaching of faith can be kept outside of an education system? I accept there may be some conflicts - the whole creationsim vs evolution debate for example - but why not teach evolution and teach that there are creationists that challenge that orthodoxy?

Well there's a whole cuts both ways debate there too. Religion and war are inextricably linked in world history - it is a viewpoint that better understanding and respect of different belief systems could reduce conflict and it is debatable whether single faith schools can deliver the understanding necessary.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Well, of course you don't, you're (apparently) not religious. I, on the other hand, see plenty of reasons why I would choose a faith-based education for my children if that option were open to me. But that's hardly surprising, as I have a faith-based worldview that I wish my children to share.

This just illustrates that you're not grasping what it is we're talking about here. You equate 'religious dimension' with 'religious education', as if the spiritual growth of the children is adequately catered for by serving up facts about various world religions. A proper religious dimension affects all aspects of the practices and the ethos of the school and gives a spiritual context to all subjects. Naturally that is more evident in some subjects more than others, although I expect there is probably a profound spiritual truth to be found even within 2 + 2 = 4 if you look hard enough. :p:

That old chestnut ... the problem with this rather glib (if you don't mind my saying) statement is that when there is no division, there must necessarily be unity. And the people who make this statement usually assume that the unity that will ensue is unity along their own preferred lines. You want a world in which religion is a hobby that sits in a neat compartment within a person's life and doesn't affect or bother anyone else, or cause that person to do or say anything that you disagree with, even if it doesn't directly harm you at all. Christianity and Islam, however, are evangelistic religions by their very nature. They are diametrically opposed to your point of view and elimination of 'division' would be impossible without either eliminating the religions, or having everyone convert to one of them.

But not if parents judge that the best way to do that is through the medium of the school education they give to their children?

Again, you are confusing the learning of facts about a religion with the living of a religion in daily life. Christianity is a way of life. When followed Biblically (as opposed to the nominal 'Christianity' many in this country still adhere to), It reaches into everything you say and do. It's not just about learning to recite the books of the New Testament or recalling who built the Ark.

IIRC some Christian schools in this country have tried that, to loud choruses of tabloid hysteria, and lofty derision from the likes of the Guardian. But again, you're missing the point, this is about ethos and principles more than it is about the teaching of facts.

It's not a cuts both ways debate at all, you're completely changing the subject!

You stated that you don't believe in Church intervention in education. I countered that without Church intervention there wouldn't even be education in this country - or at least not in the way we know it.

A discussion about whether, overall, religion makes a positive or negative contribution to the world would be interesting, but it is quite irrelevant to the original point about Church intervention in education.

Actually, starting a little closer to home, I think Christians would cause less conflict if they understood their own religion at all. Taking the Crusades, as a classic example, there is absolutely no justification in the Bible for what occurred. But then there is absolutely no justification in the Bible for a lot of things Popes have proclaimed. Similarly 'Christians' blowing up each other in Northern Ireland, or rioting or fighting against Muslims in Beirut, East Timor or wherever.

Beyond that, yep, a little understanding would be very useful. However I would be interested to see your evidence for the failure of faith-based schools to deliver a sufficiently rounded religious education.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

There's a lot to go at Chris amnd I'm currently short on time so just a quick riposte for now.

Evidence of lack of rounded religious education? Personal experience. My boys go to a CofE school. Their education is wholly slanted toward that Church's teachings, despite, incidentally, around 40-50% of the school population being Muslim. Most primary schools in Bury are linked to churches (mainly CofE and Catholic) and my choice to secure a secular education which teaches about various belief systems in an even-handed way is very restricted.

The cuts both ways thing. My point was related to schooling because the view can be taken that education, or the lack of it, can increase the chance of inter-faith conflict.

Creationism in schools: AFAIK The Guardian's position is against the teaching of creationsm over and above or to the exclusion of evolutionary theory. Mine too.

I take on board what you say about the differences of teaching and living a religion. However I still regard moral teaching (whether faith based or not) to be the primary responsibility of parents, especially in a secular society where so many different beliefs are followed.

This is, as you suggest, an intractable debate given our standpoints but I respect your right to be wrong ;) That was a joke. Not a very good one but hey, everone's a critic. Gotta go!

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

I think you have outlined a couple of problems here. One is that Religion, while not directly causing conflict is often used as the excuse.

The second is about quality of Religious education. I can't comment on Church schools, as I have not been to one, but I remember from my own RE lessons in school, that for the first four years, we were taught by a catholic who taught us that the bible was the truth and nothing about other religions. In my fifth year (my final year of RE), we had a Jewish RE teacher*. He taught us about ALL the major religions, as well as to question what we were taught. It sounds like some of the schools in Bury are following the "the Bible is the truth, anything contradictory is heresy and will not be discussed" method followed by the catholic RE teacher I had.

BTW, I know not all catholics are like that.

Interestingly, my mum (although not religious as such) joined an RE class in her local CofE church when she was a teenager, and the Vicar taught them about all religions as well, and actively encouraged them to find their own religion whether CofE or not.

* He never actually discussed his own faith, so I could be wrong

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

You can find the article I was alluding to in post 7 at http://www.sec-ed.com/

Although I see this thread has now turned into the usual Christian v secular debate... :erm:

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Er, sorry about that! Interesting article. There's too much emphasis on so called 'choice' which results in horrendous school run congestion and manipulation of the system as parents aim for the "good" schools. Scrap sodding school league tables for a start, and the SATS that go with 'em and concentrate on delivering uniformly high standards.

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Not at the school my kids go to, I sent them to that school because I went there and my brother and sister went there and we have all done very well for oursleves. Plus the school has a very good reputation with the LEA, they are one of the best schools in the Teeside area and have always come out tops at SATS.
They could have gone to another local school which is of a non religious kind and they are at the bottom of the SATS league. So tell me which school would you prefer your kids to go to?
I am glad they go to a catholic school as they are taught respect and manners, were as my friends kids who go to the other school, are rude and arrogant little idiots.
League tables have always been there and I think they are important, as it is your childs future you are mapping out here. If you really feel like the way you do, why on earth dont you home teach them?

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

I thought league tables were introduced in the 1990's - they weren't there when I was at school, but parents still knew which schools to send their children to!
Mine went to the local primary and secondary schools - both mid-table - and came out with 11 GCSE's (above Grade C) each - having been sent to a high achieving grammar school myself and hating every second, I thought it more important for them to go where their friends were, and not to spend hours travelling each day, like I had to. Their schools were not church schools, but taught them common sense and respect for others, which some schools don't seem to bother with much! And I don't really think that you can judge a school by where it is in the league tables or if it is a church school - I teach in all the 50 - odd schools in our borough, and the nicest kids (and teachers!) are in the rough schools on the council estates, that don't do that well in the league tables!
The primary school in our borough that is always top of the league tables is there because that's all it does - just teaches the kids to pass their SATS, they never go on outings, or teach cookery, or needlework, or anything 'off curriculum'. I'd never send my children there!
Going back to the original question - I think the parents were annoyed bacause they have been turned down and they live about a foot away from the school or something - and they didn't fill in the form saying they wanted the child to have a religious education. Surely they can go to appeal at a later date? :shrug:

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Chim our area has always had something like this. After going to the school my kids went to I went to private school and loved it, see not everyones experience is the same.
I do not agree with the last statement though, my kids go everywhere and I mean everywhere, they are always out on feild trips and are even planning a theatre trip to London, They all go away for a week towards the summer holidays and have won various awards such as arts mark and a lit one but I cannot remember which, they also encourage the kids to do after school activties, such as choir, music lessons and sports lessons, they have just started up a nature and art club. SO there is a lot going on and it is nice to see things like that, before I started my research post I used to go in and help with the hockey club as one of my big mouthed kids mentioned that I played for the county [about 10 years ago!].

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Ah - the school I mentioned that 'trains' kids to pass exams is not a church one allie - it's a law unto itself!

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

OHHH, so is it Colditz then???? My kids love going to school, infact the ickle fella is doing a play tomorrow and has invited the whole family!

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Colditz with straw boaters, caps and ties, yes! (And top good place in the school league tables too :D )

Re: Do they have the right to be angry?
 

Those poor kids, I mean the school is at the top of the league table, but they make sure that the kids have an enjoyable learning experience.