It was noted.

Does anyone read those long (drunk?) rants? If it's more than a paragraph then I switch off.

Whoa, this really took off didn't it!?

It must be apparent to anyone, even those backing religious schools, that those fulfilling the criteria to go to those schools also have the option to go to non-religious schools. ie they have more choice.

The corollary of that is that the non-religious have fewer choices. Which effectively means that they are discriminated against.

While it may be true that this affects only a few schools in the borough, and people have the choice of all those other schools, the reality is that it affects particular people, because of where they live, more than others. This is because their nearest schools may be religious schools. There are certainly places in Battersea where it is the case that the nearest two schools are both religiously affiliated. There may even be places where it is the nearest three. We even have situations where two separate religious schools are across the road from each other (Sacred Heart and Christchurch in Battersea).

In particular cases we also have religious institutions taking over secular state schools. An example of that in Wandsworth is Sacred Heart in Battersea, which used to be Shillington Street school, and St Marks Church of England Academy which was Eastfields High school. In Merton one third of the secondary schools are religious - of the three of these two are catholic. I kind of doubt this fits the profile of the borough as a whole.

[quote="szczepam"]You said '4 of 8' schools in the area are religious, therefore, non-religious families are discriminated against. However, when you apply for a primary school when living in Balham you apply to up to 6 of the 61 total schools in the borough of Wandsworth and most families get their top 1 or 2 choice. Therefore, you have a wide choice of options both religious and non-religious. I would agree more with your view that non-religious families are being discriminated against if it really was 50% of your total school choice but it is not.[/quote]

Not quite:
[list][*]First of all, you apply to local schools regardless of the council they belong to. Balham residents can easily apply to both Wandsworth and Lambeth schools as most are on the border between the two.
[*]It’s true that in theory you can apply to any school in London, but it’s also practically irrelevant and meaningless. If you live in Balham you can theoretically apply to a school in Putney, but it would be stupid to do so because it would be so far that you’d have fewer chances of getting in than the NHS has of receiving those £350m that were promised!
[*]So, practically, the only schools where it makes sense to apply are the closer ones, and the fact remains that ca. 4 out of 8 in the Balham area (depending on how exactly you define Balham and where exactly you live) are State-funded religious schools.[/list]
Let’s make a more practical example: if you live near Chestnut Grove, the closest schools are: Ravenstone, Aldermore, Holy Ghost and Trinity St Mary’s. 2 out of the 4 closest schools are religious. [b]A religious family has 4 realistic school options, a non-religious only 2. Yet the religious schools are funded by everyone’s taxes.[/b] Yes, you have 2 more preferences, and you should use them, because you don’t gain anything by not doing so, but the fact remains that these 4 are the closest and therefore the most realistic ones.

In fact, London is full of other examples where the only local schools are religious and oversubscribed, so a non-religious family must send their children somewhere very far. Note that 3 miles in London can take much longer, and wreak more havoc in a family’s morning routine, than 10 miles in Nowhereshire.

[b]If most schools were not so ridiculously oversubscribed that you sometimes need to live within 180 metres of a school, this would be an objection in principle only. But since they are so ridiculously oversubscribed, the objection is against both the principle and the very practical consequences. [/b]

Again, the fact that they are mostly full doesn’t mean there is true demand for religious schools. It may also mean that people simply settle for what is available!

[b]It is very telling that many popular religious schools, e.g. the Oratory in West London, have an intake of children that is not even representative of the local religious population[/b] (i.e. only the richer get in). Between the hugely complex admission rules and the usual effect on house prices, it’s always the richest families that have an advantage, so much so that it becomes natural to wonder to what extent it’s religion that makes any difference to the quality of the school, and to what extent it’s the families. I strongly suspect that if the Oratory were to become a non-faith school, the quality of teaching would not change drastically…

[quote="szczepam"]
Teaching a child one's religion is just another value you attempt to impart on them. To describe it as a policial tribe which may be incompatible with 'British' values is, frankly, insulting.[/quote]

[b]You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented me.[/b] I never said that teaching your children about your religion is against British values. That’s preposterous. How could you possibly infer something like this?

[b]What I said is that British values and laws must trump religious teachings. If there’s a contrast, British values and laws must prevail. You cannot teach your children that women are inferior,[/b] or that they must be subjected to genital mutilation, or that they must tolerate an abusive husband, etc. And, guess what, this is exactly what has happened in *some* religious schools. A minority, sure, a small minority of schools, but it has happened, and must be monitored and stopped.[b] Read the comments of Ofsted’s chief inspector I quoted earlier[/b]. Could you please clarify what, exactly, you find insulting about this point I made??
I am not aware of anything similar happening in non-faith schools, but, should it happen, it should of course be monitored and stopped just as harshly and as urgently.

I also said that there is a difference between teaching your children about your religion, and declaring that your child belongs to a given religion, participating in rites which signal as much, etc. That’s the equivalent of enrolling a toddler in a political party!

You said '4 of 8' schools in the area are religious, therefore, non-religious families are discriminated against. However, when you apply for a primary school when living in Balham you apply to up to 6 of the 61 total schools in the borough of Wandsworth and most families get their top 1 or 2 choice. Therefore, you have a wide choice of options both religious and non-religious. I would agree more with your view that non-religious families are being discriminated against if it really was 50% of your total school choice but it is not.

I would note I dont entirely disagree with you. It seems odd to me for the state to pay for religious education. However, it isn't #1 on my issues of what needs to get fixed and as per the above - there are a lot of options available which makes me more comfortable.

GOOD and POPULAR wandsworth primary schools are oversubscribed but not all and, yes, some of these high performing schools are Catholic. However, you arent forced to send your child to a religious school if you really dont want to. Also, it is not uncommon for people to move for schooling. Many people buy their first house long before children come into the picture.

I also know about a demographic of people who arent religious but dont mind sending their child to a religious school because they believe the education is superior or like the fact that their child will be taught basic moral values. Either way, they arent bothered. Yes, there are those that 'find God' which in unfortunate but again many parishes ask for church attendance records for many years making this more difficult. Note similar arbitrage schemes like short term renting have also been addressed by Wandsworth.

I know that there is high demand for Catholic schools in Balham because they exist and are mostly full. I sit on a board of a school in Croydon where families are moving away and local schools are consolidating and shrinking their numbers of classes. Schools get funded per pupil so if you dont have enough pupils to break even you need to close.

[quote="szczepam"] please get you statistics right.[/quote]
@szczepam, [b]I don’t see how anything I mentioned is factually inaccurate. Could you please explain?[/b]

I said that, nationally, circa 1/3 of state schools are religious. I have not found official data on the department of education’s site, but these (arguably partisan – by all means do correct me if this is inaccurate) secular sites confirm the same number:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/faithschools.html
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/faith-schools/
Wikipedia references this BBC article, dating to 2011, quoting that “Faith schools make up about a third of the 20,000 state-funded schools” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15985615

I also said that, like all averages, the true figure may vary wildly from area to area. There are rural areas with only one religious school nearby, so if a family lives nearby but is not religious, there’s a strong chance that little Johnny will be sent to a school a long drive away. How is this wrong?

[b]I then made the example of Balham, simply because that is the area I am most interested in and therefore most familiar with. Averages, whether at the national level or at the council level, are completely and utterly irrelevant to those living in a given area[/b]. Most State schools in the council may well be non-religious, but how does this impact your child’s application process if you live in Balham? Hint: it doesn’t. What does, and what does matter is that, depending on where exactly you live, ca. 4/8 of the schools which are near you (some of which are not even in Wandsworth but that’s completely irrelevant) are religious. Depending on where exactly you live, it may be 4/8, or 3/7, etc, but you get the gist. Again: how is this wrong or inaccurate? Please clarify.

A religious family, willing to bend to the rules, can apply to both State non-religious and State religious schools. A non-religious family, or a religious one that doesn’t want to bend to the rules (e.g. changing parish, or not missing more than x services, etc.) can de facto apply to non-faith schools only. De facto because all schools are so oversubscribed that, while atheists can apply to a religious school, in practice they stand no chance whatsoever. Again,[b] how is what I have said wrong or misleading?[/b]

[b]You claim it would be a “fact” that religious schools and places exist because there is demand for them. Why and how?[/b] You seem to ignore that most schools, at least in London, are greatly oversubscribed. It is therefore perfectly understandable that many families settle for a school which is not their true first choice, and this includes non-religious families sending their kids to religious schools (on your knees to avoid the fees). How they do it (donations to churches, at least in the past, faking newfound faith, etc.) is morally revolting but why they do it is rationally understandable. If most schools in London were not oversubscribed, and State-funded religious schools were popular nonetheless, your point might have some merit, but it does not because the reality is the exact opposite. Again, how can you claim that there is true “demand” for them?

Finally, even if the number and distribution of religious State schools were representative of the population’s true religious beliefs (and it’s not),[b] can someone please explain why on Earth the State should fund religious schools? [/b]This is a free country, with freedom of religion. In fact, some basic religious education is provided even in non-faith schools. What does learning about English, Maths, etc. have to do with religion? [b]What would be so wrong with learning about English Maths Geography etc in a non-faith school, and then attending whatever class/lesson/activity you may like at your local church/mosque/synagogue/whatever?[/b]

And the point about the fact that you should not teach your children your values is bologne. You do teach your children your values - to be kind, have respect for others, to work hard. They are YOUR children. This is our collective responsibility as parents. You, as parent, also make a number of choices on your childs behalf until they come of age and have significant influence thereafter - where to go to nursery, where to live, what to eat, what to study, what hour is their curfew, where to go to uni.

Teaching a child one's religion is just another value you attempt to impart on them. To describe it as a policial tribe which may be incompatible with 'British' values is, frankly, insulting.

I think you are entitled to your opinion and there certainly other countries where the state funded schools are only non-denominational. However, please get you statistics right. There are 9 CoE schools in Wandsworth along with 9 Catholic, 1 Jewish, 1 Muslim and 41 non-religious primary schools. Another fact is that the existence of religious schools and places is because there is demand for them. If nobody Catholic or CoE lived in your area these 18 schools would quickly shut down or convert to non-religious ones. To say that 'I have 50% less choice that a person attending CoE or Catholic services' is misleading.

Whilst I dont have the stats nationally I presume the number of non CoE schools is pretty high in relation to the rest of the country and the product of, big shocker, the fact that you live in a very global-centric and diverse part of London.

Also, [b]there is no such thing as a Christian, or Muslim, or atheist child.[/b] Religion (or the lack thereof), is, just like political affiliation, a matter that one can decide on only when he/she is mature enough, not as a child, and certainly not something parents should decide for them. How would you feel if I started saying that my toddler is a pro-EU labour supporter, and I started talking about my right to educate her in the pro-EU and the social democracy values I believe in? Methinks most people would probably call child protection services and have me sent for some kind of psychiatric evaluation, and rightly so! Why should religion be any different? It’s one thing to expose your children to your beliefs, and quite another to make them participate in rites which signal their belonging to a specific religious group (think of baptism).

[b]None of this is to say that the current admission-by-distance system in state schools is ideal. [/b]Many supporters of religious state schools love to repeat this, saying that discrimination (no, sorry, prioritising) by religion is no different than discrimination by distance. This is utter nonsense. [b]In religious state schools, religion is the first criterion, before distance, and would continue to be so even if distance were replaced by some other criterion (e.g. random lottery). [/b]

It is also important to note that [b]religious schools, whether state-funded or not, are at risk of instilling fanatical views[/b] which might maybe be representative of how a part of the local population feels, but are most certainly in stark contrast with British values and laws, and cannot and should not be tolerated. [b]To be clear, this applies to Christian schools, too; not all, a minority, but it applies.[/b]
[quote]
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/rogue-faith-schools-spread-nonbritish-values-says-ofsted-a3718546.html
Launching her first annual report as Ofsted’s chief inspector, Amanda Spielman said [b]inspectors have found texts in faith schools that encourage domestic violence and the subjugation of women, and schools where there is a “flat refusal” to acknowledge lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
She said: “When I see books in schools entitled Women Who Deserve To Go To Hell, [/b] children being educated in dank, squalid conditions, children being taught solely religious texts at the expense of learning basic English and mathematics, I cannot let it be ignored.
[/quote]
Religious schools must be monitored rigorously to prevent and stop these follies. Religious freedom cannot trump British values and laws. I have the right to believe or not believe what I want, but not to teach that women are inferior etc.

This is also why I am sceptical about free schools. There have been plans by Christian fundamentalists to create free schools that would teach creationism. Come on, this is Darwin’s homeland, not Texas!
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/17/creationist-groups-approval-free-schools
(AFAIK this didn’t go ahead, luckily, but the incident remains worrying).

[b]No, it’s not only Catholic schools which I contend are discriminatory (what gave you this idea?) – it’s all kinds of State-funded religious schools[/b]. From memory, State religious schools are about 1/3 of all State schools, but, as with all averages, this figure must be taken with truckloads of salt, as it will be lower in some areas and higher in others (up to 100% in rural areas with no non-religious State schools).

Let’s take Balham. I can think of:
[list][*]Alderbrook, Henry Cavendish, Telferscot and Ravenstone which are non-religious State schools, and
[*]St Bernadette, Holy Ghost, St Bede’s and Trinity St Mary’s as religious State schools (3 Catholic, 1 CofE).[/list]

So, 4/8 (50%) of State schools in the area are religious. You may add or remove a few (4/9, 3/7, etc.) depending on how you define ‘Balham’, but you get the gist. This means that:
[list][*]ALL taxpayers fund ALL schools, but
[*]Religious families who are willing to bend to the rules (baptism, attendance, etc.) can send their children to ALL schools, or almost (I’m not sure if Catholic schools accept Anglican families and vice versa – some do), while
[*][b]Non-religious families, or religious families not willing to bend to the rules, can only send their children to half the schools, even though their taxes fund ALL of the schools[/b].[/list]

[i][u][b]You asked how discrimination can exist: here’s how!! [/b][/u][/i]

Again, could someone be so kind as to enlighten me on why this would be fair and acceptable?

Also, [b]I don’t agree that there can’t be any ‘finding God’[/b] at the Holy Ghost. I know more than one family in North London that baptised their kids straight away to meet the baptised-within-6-month rule of most religious State schools, and who started attending mass purely to send little Johnny and little Eve to one such school. Need I add that these families I know didn’t care about religion in the slightest, and stopped attending after their children were admitted? And that one family even had a standing order to periodically donate to the Church (this was before ‘admission by flower arranging’ was outlawed)? Is this impossible at the Holy Ghost? Maybe it doesn’t happen much and the connected parish is one of the very few in the country where parents are truly pious and continue attending even AFTER their children are given a place at school, but, still, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

[b]Education is (should be…) a public service, publicly funded by all taxpayers and made available to all residents. If you extend this line of thinking to other public services, it’s easy to realise how paradoxical, unfair and illogical the current approach wrt schools is. [/b]

Imagine your car gets stolen. You call the police and you’re asked to prove what religion you are. You have called a “Catholic” precinct, but you’re Anglican (or Muslim, or atheist, or whatever…), so you end up at the bottom of the queue.

Imagine you need surgery. Your local hospital is “Anglican” but you’re not, so you end up at the bottom of the waiting list.

Imagine you are on the list for a council flat. The local district/housing association/whatever belongs to a religion other than yours, so, again, you end up at the bottom of the queue.

Imagine that, in all of these cases, the State (i.e. everyone’s taxes, including yours!) pays for 100% of the salaries and for at least 90% of the maintenance of the building. Imagine that other people would tell you: “oh, but why worry, religious hospitals/police precincts etc. are only a minority”. Would any of this make you feel any better? Would any of these justifications make the situation any more fair or acceptable?

South London Daddy,

Is it just Catholic schools that you contend are dicriminatory because they favour their parishoners? What about state funded CoE schools that also favour regular church attendence? There are significantly more of those than Catholic schools. What about Jewish faith schools? Islamic schools? How can discrimination exist when all faiths are allowed to open schools with state help?

And there is no 'finding God' manuevering by parents at Holy Ghost. You have to submit proof of regular church attendence for 3 years.

[quote="twomonkeys"]You could argue that as most faith schools are 10% funded by the church, they are doing us all a favour. Those children need to be educated somewhere! If they were abolished then that's a decent lump of cash to find from meagre budgets.

Also, isn't it discriminatory to prevent those faiths educating children as they wish? - there seems to be a market for it and seemingly not enough people find it a problem. Do new free schools offer parents an opportunity to set up schools with their own ethos in mind if they wish?

I'm all for diversity and freedom of thought. :D[/quote]

People of religion can educate their children however they like, within the law. But I don't see any reason the state should fund such discriminatory practices.

Petal, I'm not sure what you meant with voluntarily funded.
My resentment is not against independent religious schools, but with State religious schools, which use everyone's money (taxes) to provide a service to a minority only. Could I please ask you to elaborate why on Earth this should be fair and acceptable?

Two monkeys, You say 10% funded by the Church. I'm not sure that's quite true. AFAIK salaries are paid entirely by the State, and the Churches, which own the land, pay something like 10% of the upkeep. Someone more knowledgeable will clarify, but AFAIK the Church does not pay 10% of the salaries. Biiig difference.

I made the example of a hospital. You'd have no objection against that?

This is my objection against the principle. Let's not even get into how so many families "discover" religion just for the schools. Isn't this blasphemy, ie kind of a biggie? On your knees to avoid the fees? All fine, all fair, nothing to complain about?

Or into how these institutions can legally use everyone's money to discriminate against non-religious employees in hiring and promotions.

You mention discrimination. Why???? Please, do explain why. Maybe parents who attend non-religious State schools are in any way prevented from giving children the religious education they want? Again, the objection is not against giving children a religious education, but against using everyone's money to provide a service which is inaccesible to the majority of the population.

You could argue that as most faith schools are 10% funded by the church, they are doing us all a favour. Those children need to be educated somewhere! If they were abolished then that's a decent lump of cash to find from meagre budgets.

Also, isn't it discriminatory to prevent those faiths educating children as they wish? - there seems to be a market for it and seemingly not enough people find it a problem. Do new free schools offer parents an opportunity to set up schools with their own ethos in mind if they wish?

I'm all for diversity and freedom of thought. :D