Incredible shananigans to get kids in chosen schools?

"If your child goes to a Christian school, they will get more God stuff"

Exactly. Many people don't want that from schools. Teaching "God stuff" is the job of parents and churches, not schools.

That's a mistaken argument, soon. Getting rid of faith schools would not mean that there were not equally good or even better schools for children.

Actually, if churches/religions want to run their own schools, they are welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned, but without subsidy from taxes that people who don't belong to those groups pay for the benefit of all children, regardless of their parents' religious beliefs.

What is wrong is not so much that faith schools exist but that people who want secular schools (which teach about world religions but do not assume any particular beliefs) have to help pay for them.

And

if your child goes to a Christian school, they will get more God stuff.
Then it cant matter to parents as much as getting a good education.

So even if those parents complain loudly elsewhere about Christianity, they are not that concerned about it, as they didnt mind their own children listening to it for 5 or 6 years.
Interesting.

As regards faith schools

People want them got rid of

but after they themselves have made use of them.
But the school must not carry on existing for others, after their own child or grandchild has left it.

What about your greatgrandchild?
Your own child's grandchild?

Your child doenst count as much as yourself?

Good points when.

I think that some parents do resort to fraudulent activities - e.g. renting a flat near the school when they actually live further away. But I would not pass judgement on them for doing that - I do not like it and it is dishonest, but maybe they feel forced into it by the low standards in their local school. They are not responsible for that. They are between a rock and hard place.

Believe me, having a child in your home who is not happy at school is a nightmare - been there, done that! I would resort to just about anything to avoid that. It is truly grim and brings the whole family down.

This is such an interesting debate (except for the unnecessary personal attacks on alea). My DD has just moved house and is now 6 miles away from the primary school my grandsons attend. They will be 7 this weekend, so a few years to go before secondary school. They aren't going to move to the nearby school for the time being, maybe not at all, because the children like their school and are doing well. Their local school has excellent Ofsted ratings, but the one they go to is smaller and they are happy there with all their schoolfriends, who will be going to the same high school in due course. So now my DD is pondering on whether she has taken two places that could be wanted by a family moving into the catchment area they previously lived in. Her children are her priority, and their happiness. If they make new friends nearby and would be able to get a place in the local school, perhaps they'll transfer, perhaps not. It's not all about who's got the money to buy a nearby house, profit-making in desirable catchment areas, or jumping through hoops to get church school places. It's a parent's wish to get the best they can for their child by whatever means within their power.

As others have pointed out, it's not an offence, calling it fraudulent is rather extreme, and it would be better if all schools were of a good standard, but blaming the parents for trying is missing the point.

I truly do understand and endorse the need for good state schools and for people to support them - but not at the expense of my children. I recognise the hypocrisy in that statement and fully acknowledge it.

My feeling was that I wanted my children to be happy and to have every opportunity that I could create for them. And, if we are talking about benefit to society as a whole, I think they have more to offer society if they are well-educated.

There are some very bad schools around sadly, and to want your own child to attend there seems perverse to me. There are of course also good state schools.

Another important point is that all children are different. My 3 children all went to different schools: state (both primary and secondary), Rudolf Steiner, private. It was horses for courses and the choices we made were designed to meet the needs of each individual child.

There was no lying or cheating in getting the children to any of these schools, so there was no bad example for them to absorb.

I am proud of my DDs - they are caring concerned people with social consciences and have no problem at all mixing with people from all walks of life.

I wonder at the credulity of anyone believing the stats on a programme on the tele. How about a bit of evidence based research? As for 'faith' schools being better, round where I live they are populated by Nigerians, Ghanaians and recent migrants. The posh whites go elsewhere.

Well said, nightowl.

From the minute our children are born we do our best for them. We worry about their development - are they feeding, sleeping properly etc? We try to ensure they begin their lives learning good manners and respect for others, we clothe them as well as our pockets will allow and we know we will all feel that 'pang' when they start school.

So.....Are we really expected to cheerfully enroll them at a school which has a poor reputation so that others might benefit?

Are we going to persude our friends to do the same because it's all a matter of principal?

Are we going to sit back watching their friends, whose parents had the good sense to seek out a better school, thrive whilst ours struggle with boredom and lack of focus?

I don't think so!

I don't think my reasons for settling in a 'leafy suburb' with a well-regarded comprehensive differ markedly from Alea's reasons for investing in private education for her DDs. 'Investing' is a better way of putting it than 'sacrifice'. In a sense, we paid for our DSs opportunities with a higher mortgage and council tax than we might have paid in a less salubrious suburb. It's strange to relate that my late FiL paid to have my exH privately educated when he somehow managed to fail his 11+. FiL (a schoolmaster) was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist but refused to allow his obviously intelligent son to be relegated to a substandard sec mod, the only available alternative. Fortunately the investment paid off as ex had a very successful career, and at least two degrees - I lost count after my divorce!

nightowl for you. Such similar experiences and the real world does have a tendency to reach out doesn't it. Good for Alea for seeing it before I did .

My contribution as someone still working with school as an advisor (2 LAs &a diocesan education dept) is that parents are ill informed if they think church schools better than community etc. I have seen excellent and dire in similar numbers in both. I personally would not choose,even if I had the choice, to send my kids to a private school. I firmly believe that to improve society as a whole the fewer divisive structures the better. I sent my girls to an unpopular school. They are fine!! Even outstanding schools that serve low socially economic areas do not attract many local middle class parents. We are a class ridden society. I currently work with a church school in a bit of bother. It was the school middle class families chose over the school where I was HT (rated outstanding) because the church school attracted a "nicer type of child" .

I did the same Iam because as parents we wanted our children to experience life and education with children from all backgrounds. Not the fault of the children but quite frankly the school was rubbish and my children paid the price in their different ways. They paid for the ideals of two very fortunate, grammar school educated parents. I wouldn't do it again either, because now I live in the real world

alea, .

Some people are just bitter and twisted naturally grumpy full on
negative. About pretty much everything.

Your arguments seem perfectly reasonable to me and never expressed in an unpleasant way.

I'm shocked by the level of unpleasantness being directed at Alea by Dj and Granjura.

Luckygirl puts it simply in her post when she says she wouldn't 'sacrifice' her children because 'they only get one crack at it'. I posted earlier that I feel my oldest daughter missed out on the stability provided to her younger sisters because they didn't attend a deprived, inner city primary school. I don't need to detail the difference between deprived inner city and ordinary smallish town schools, most posters will understand it.

I wonder what our adult children make of this discussion. I know my three recognise we did our best for them and in turn, want to do their best for their own children. Yes, of course all schools should be as good as the best. They aren't though and I'm no longer the idealistic 25 year old I was when I sent my much loved 6 year old to a deprived inner city school. I wouldn't do it again if I had the choice.

dj "If the brighter pupils are removed from those substandard state schools, they will be fined and end up even more substandard if that is possible.
But of course you do not care about them."

Firstly, it is not only 'brighter pupils' who are educated outside the state system.

Secondly, if all those who were educated privately were in the state system, it would be even more stretched than it is now.

Thirdly, the presence of these erstwhile privately educated pupils in the system would not magically help the children who don't attain C grades and above to get a higher grade and the schools would still be subject to the government's mad policies.

I will not comment on your nasty personal attack on alea other than that I think it is undeserved and outside GN guidelines.

I didn't think the issue was about private schooling either! But if you look back, the phrase

I would not "sacrifice" my children to a principle - they only get one crack at it
Was written by Luckygirl, although I agree in the sense that I said that until I had children I was teaching's greatest proponent of the state system. However, faced with a choice between a problem school closest to home and a better one (judged by whatever criteria, in my case visiting the school , talking to the Head, observing the ethos of the school bearing in mind the physical and educational needs of my own children and whether I was seeing happy stimulated kids) 10 minutes drive away, I defend my choice of the latter.
To extrapolate from that that I don't care or that I think other kids don't "matter" was frankly outrageous.

Alea I didn't think we were talking about private schooling. I thought we were talking about parents who dishonestly got their children into "good" state schools.

Nevertheless, when you describe parents as "sacrificing" their children - no matter what you intended that to mean - I think that is a very personal and unpleasant thing to say about other parents' choices so I'm not quite sure why you are so offended about the responses your comments elicited.

Unfortunately I think some people know only too well how to go for the jugular but sadly personal accusations of "not caring" or that "they didn't matter" seem to serve as a substitute for discussion.
It is too easy to pass negative judgements on nationalities or groups from "outside" or without knowing the full facts whether in issues of health, education, behaviour.
One person's opinion is still only an opinion and not necessarily handed down from the mountain.

Some people don't seem to realise how ridiculous their sweeping generalisations/assumptions are, and obviously don't care that they might actually offend or hurt others.

Thanks ana I didn't really think it was unlike comments from some other directions
<sigh>

But of course you do not care about them

And your evidence for this DJ is precisely ......?

My post wasn't aimed at you, Alea.

Not in my case Ana DH was just out of hospital and I needed a full time job.
But I take your point about the principle- and know of several cases where it has been an ideal solution. Our Chinese niece was home schooled in Singapore up to the age of 9.

Out of order.

In the spirit of not ganging up on other members, would you two find it possible NOT to pick on me on this issue?

What would you like me to say? That I still agonise over the fact that I was not really in a position to turn around a failing school during a 2 week supply stint 29 years ago?
Well actually, I believe in taking responsibility for my own family -at that time 3 DDs and a husband who might never have been able to work again,
So what did I do?
I got on my metaphorical bike and did what I had to do and if we chose to educate our children privately, that is our business and ours alone.
So don't accuse me of not caring in that sanctimonious way.
I was a da*n good conscientious and successful teacher in a variety of STATEyes, shock horrror statecomprehensives for the next 24 years workng my butt off for kids of all levels of ability, helping them to get the GCSE's and A levels which got them to university and on to good careers. So please don't get all sanctimonious and imply other kids didn't matter to me.

Stick to the argument, whatever it is as it seems to have moved on from a criticism of a English parents' aspirations for their children. Not Scottish, or Welsh, or Northern Irish, as the systems are not identical across the UK.