Incredible shananigans to get kids in chosen schools?

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 .

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!

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

While what you say may or may not be true, I dont see what that has to do with I wrote.

I don't really see the connection Soontobe.
Many village primaries were once Cof E schools but are now LA with a very nominal connection with the village church if there even is one, we are not talking what you refer to as "God stuff"
I just don't agree with what you say at 10.37 about people wanting to get rid of them "after they have served their purpose". That would indeed be hypocritical.
That has not been my experience, small village primaries are constantly under threat because of low numbers and if they do not provide a caring atmosphere, a positive nvironment and an ethos that " every child matters" as well as a sound education, they just do not survive

soon - parents "make use" of faith schools because some of them have high educational standards. That is all.

The reason that many faith schools have higher standards at present is because they can tap in to diocesan funds that are not available to other schools - at the same time as we, the tax payers of every faith or none, are paying too.

Is that true of all CofE funds that they get diocesan funds? Having been a school governor at one, I dont recall that being true of ours, but I could be very wrong.

Not true.

When I, as a governor, sought funds to deal with a situation at school, I was told it was a shame that we not a CofE school or we could have applied to the diocese for funding.

Church schools are funded in the same way as all state maintained schools. Capital and revenue are devolved to the school via a number of routes.

Revenue funding for all schools is operated via LA formula devolution schemes.
Capital projects for voluntary controlled (VC) schools are managed by the relevant Local Authority.
Capital projects for voluntary aided (VA) schools are usually overseen and managed by the Diocesan Board of Education.
Devolved formula capital (DFC) is received annually by VA schools for small scale improvements. Schools can determine how to spend this money in line with their asset management plan.
Locally Controlled Voluntary Aided Programme (LCVAP) is an additional fund to support capital projects across a local area, co-ordinated by the LA.
Basic Need and Targeted Capital Funding (TCF) enables LAs to submit bids on behalf of the VA sector for funding large scale capital work (TCF), or for capital work to meet an exceptional growth in pupil numbers, usually referred to as Basic Need.

What is not true Anya? Our school did get funding?

x post.

That is the basic formula, but there are funds available to faith schools that are not to others, not from the LA but from their faith organisations.

The diocese has only specific additional funds available. They do not fund individual children's budget allowance.

I have campaigned for an end to faith schools since the 70's and would not choose onefor my children though I have taught in them. My DDs have limited choice for primary schools as majority in the area are faith schools.
DH & I did make educational choices for our DDs based on our political values. We have many friends who did the same. Not to would have been living hypocritically . We both worked hard in tough inner city schools.

It depends also if you are talking about capital funding or revenue.

The diocese has only specific additional funds available. They do not fund individual children's budget allowance

Ah that explains it. I couldnt remember seeing lines of figures in the budget from a diocese ever.
I think I am right in saying that in the 4 years I was a Governor, no money ever came from the diocese. It may have done afterwards of course.

I find it strange that people make use of, or use, be it teach at or send their children to, a belief system that they do not approve of, and are active in trying to do away with.

Perhaps that is just me, but I would be running away hard in the opposite direction.
100%.

If say I didnt like Nestle, I wouldnt then work there. If I was active against Amazon, I wouldnt work there.
I wouldnt have anything to do with them personally, no matter how many free gifts they gave me.

I suppose it comes down to how much you dislike something.