Primary school choices

There's no parental choice where my little grandsons go to school. It's the church school or go further afield, meaning they aren't at school with the local children. My daughter had to take the children to Sunday school every other week in order to 'qualify' for a place. There are Asian children at the school, who live locally, parents not practising any religion. It's a small school and has good Ofsted reports, so no-one rocks the boat, but agree it's a nonsense.

Granjura - I wasn't offended by your post, but I do find the subject of faith schools difficult. My belief is it's important to acknowledge that some people live with a faith, and others don't. The issues being investigated in Birmingham couldn't happen if we abolished faith schools, as well as free schools, etc. I think there is room in a curriculum for discussion of all faiths, and the fact that many people live good lives without the need for a faith.

Most children round here travel 7 miles or more to get to school and a car is a necessity. 1.3 miles sounds good! But it does sound slightly mad that none of the chosen schools came up at all. Parental choice seems a bit of window dressing really.

I used to walk that distance to school when I was little - on my own - but nothing like the traffic around then.

Iam64, I am sorry if you saw my post as a criticism. It was not meant to be- the point I tried to make, is that not all people who send children to Church schools are particularly religious, or not at all- but have to go 'though the motions' to gain access. DD1 and Sil have done this too.

You were lucky you children were not 'indoctrinated'. Our DDs were both told at our village C0fE school, by the Vicar, that he did not believe they had not been Christened, as their parents couldn't possibly be so cruel and it means they would not be able to go to Heaven if they died. Which caused many tears, anguish and nightmares for a long time.

I'll also remember the first time Diwali was first celebrated at a CofE Primary school where I was on teaching practice. All the Asian parents were there to see the show put on by the children- many Hindus of course. And at the end the Vicar said something like 'What a wonderful evening of light and dance- now let's bow our heads and pray to the Good Lord Jesus who made such a lovely evening possible. I nearly died.

Apricot- you are so right. Had we wanted our daughters not to attend the local village CofE school- we would have had to drive them a long way away from their community and friends- which wouldn't not have been acceptable in our mind. But I did wish our local village school would not have been a Church School- where the elderly Vicar and the Elders would not have had such a strong influence on the education, and regular access to classes and assemblies. It was otherwise an excellent school.

My daughter's financial contribution is to their church, not the school. My son in law described the services there as "utterly joyless", even at Christmas.
In country districts the state primary schools are nearly all church schools so, if you did object, you'd have to pay for private education.

granjura, I accept your criticism of people who find going to church, cheaper than paying for private education. My daughters went to our local state primary school, and then to the CoE high school. They were christened, and attended sunday school, brownies etc. We went to church 'religiously' in order to gain the necessary points. We still go to church, but less frequently. Our excellent vicar commented that if the church could hold people for the period of time needed to get their children into the high school, it must be doing something wrong if so many people then dropped off. In fact, in the area we live in, church going isn't unusual - or intense. Our children have a large group of friends, made at high school, and have gained a great deal from their time there. We have christenings, funerals, but not always weddings "done" at the local church.
Having acknowledged that my children benefited, and were certainly not indoctrinated, by exposure to church linked activities, including high school, I share the concerns about the increasing numbers of faith schools. There are debates locally about our CoE high school becoming more of a community school, that is not taking children who have to make long journeys, and widening the criteria for local children to attend.
I felt safe sending my children to the church high school, because i knew they wouldn't be indoctrinated or pressured into religious experiences they didn't want. I wouldn't feel safe sending them to one of the Creationist schools allowed now. I'd prefer no faith schools if it rules out only one extremist educational establishment.

Sil and bil also bought a small house in the catchment area of a 'good' school near my niece, and she pretended to live in it (2-3 nights a week) and attended Church, until the girls were both in said school. They then sold it for a good profit to someone doing the same... (put 'good' as we all have different views as to what makes a good school).
Don't think she's ever been to Church again since, apart from Christmas service with the school.

Agreed Anno and mcem. However, my point above, was that many people I know are NOT religious, but yet 'pretended' to be, baptism and Church attendance- for the sole purpose of getting their kids into a Church school- and will then pay lip service for the duration.

I moved to London after graduating and worked in County Hall for the ILEA. My section dealt with the additional accommodation needed for raising the school leaving age. It was only then that I became aware of the existence of voluntary aided schools. There were always RC schools at home but I'd never come across schools particularly for C of E or Jewish pupils. Then I discovered that funding was quite different and that some dictatorial priests and parish office-bearers had enormous power over spending. It was an interesting time for me but being so involved in schools made me realise I'd rather be in teaching than educational admin.
I do believe these schools are divisive and would go so far as to say that I think religious teaching should be by parents and faith communities. There is however a place for teaching the facts about different world faiths in an effort to encourage understanding and tolerance.

I agree wholeheartedly, Aka. If parents wish their children to be indoctrinated, school is not the place for it.

Agree Mamie and Aka- I despair of the divisive nature of UK schooling, which is getting worse rather than better- as is shown with the current situation in Birmingham.

The situation in France is actually a bit 'hypocritical' as there are 1000s of minor very cheap Catholic private schools.

I agree Aka. I think church and state should be separated as they are here.

Church/faith schools should not be tolerated.

I may be misunderstanding Apricot's post, but isn't the contribution to the church rather than the school?

I expect it's suggested as a 'voluntary contribution' !!

Parental choice is an urban myth. I agree with others who say we'd all benefit from a government/local councils brave enough to say so. It's better for children to go to schools near where they live so they can walk there, and make friends locally.
I am unnerved by the growth in free/faith based schools.

Apricot I can sort of understand why a church school would expect parents to show that they have a commitment to the faith if they are so keen on getting their children into that school, but expecting them to pay is a different matter.

Yes, strange and ... wrong imho. Although I do know people who baptised their little ones, attended Church for a year or two and did a bit of fundraising, etc- to get the kids into their local CofE school.

Apricot I am astonished. If this is really true then the law is being broken. I've never heard if anything like this in my life.

So many unnecessary pressures on staff too! Was it really so bad when LEAs held more financial power and handled co-ordination? I don't think many of us in Scotland would choose to take on such unwieldy and potentially unfair systems.

it is to do with funding too! Schools get paid based on the number of children 'on roll' on and around 17 January.

If the funding system was not based on 'bums on seats' on a set date but on published admission numbers schools may be more flexible with admission dates. Schools could have budget adjusted in May if it has not been full.

Penstemmon that makes much more sense to me, so why do I often hear people refer to them starting in the term after their 4th birthdays? Don't just mean here on GN. Are there regional variations? Surely if they started at the official starting age there wouldn't be the same pressure on school places. Why do schools offer the option if it only causes problems?

soutra sorry I was not trying to be snotty..all I meant was that under the current system where schools have a set admission number for each year group it will not make any difference what term a child starts..it won't increase the number of available places. The official age for starting school is the term after the chil'd 5ht birthday. However most schools offer places to children for the September of the academic year they turn 5. As i have said before it is not the starting age that is the problem but what is on offer when they get there!

My second GS started school at 4 and three weeks. He was young for his age though quite tall which worked to his advantage. Reception class is little more than an extension of the pre-school curriculum. They do pre-reading and pre-numeracy activities. The said GS is now in Y4 and doing all right but has needed a lot of home input, especially in maths. He's a first rate reader - can read anything and everything.

* Soutra* my oldest GS started full time education just 4 days after his 4th birthday. He is an end of August birthday. It was far too young.