Possible primary school appeal

bestpud

silvercar wrote: »

May be better to look at why faith schools are so succesful and try to emulate those factors in non-faith schools, so we improve standards overall. Better than saying faith schools are good so they shouldn't be state funded, if that happened the gap between private and state schools would widen further.

Seems the green eyed monstor is talking. If I can't get my darling into the best schools then I will find a reason why they are wrong to receive state funding. "Oh look, a lot of the good schools are faith schools, so lets stop them." It is accepted, I hope, that faith schools aren't so successful because god is looking down on them and blowing good will in their direction; they are successful because their values/ education work. Spread the good work around, learn from other's success, rather than stop that success because it is not accessable to all.

I haven't actually said at all that faith should not be allowed. I have not said at all that my reasoning has anything to do with my children.

I agree many faith schools are better but I believe their 'right' to select is at the heart of this in many cases.

My argument is about some state education being fairly distributed and some being selective. It is a perfectly valid point - church goers don't pay higher tax do they?

Further, religion is less relevant in contemporary society and therefore it is questionable why it should still have a role in state funded education (which, by it's nature should be there for the good of ALL).

So, just to make myself clear - I do not think faith schools should all become fee paying. I just question why religion still affords any individual an advantage within educational choice when the church is clearly not the great power it once was.

Perhaps non religious families would benefit more from the values they promote in faith schools as they do not already get it within a church community? Then the faith families could spread the values into non faith schools?

poet123

Definitions of hearsay on the Web:

• rumor: gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth
• heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

…SEE ABOVE DEFINITION
St Thomas CE Primary School see criteria
Admission Policy 2010
Admissions to an Aided school are the responsibility of the Governors, in agreement with the Diocesan Board of Education and the Local Authority.
In September 2008 the Standard number for the new intake into school and for Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 is 60. The Standard number of 75 applies to Years 5 and 6.
Responsibility for admissions is delegated to the Headteacher, acting in consultation with one of the Governors.
When applications are received, the decision on which children will be admitted will be based on the following criteria:
Criteria for Admission to St. Thomas C.E. Primary School
1. Looked after children, (Children in public care), and Statemented children in whose statement St. Thomas C.E. is named.
2. Children whose medical or social circumstances mean that their needs can only be met at this school.
3. Children who will have an older brother or sister attending the St. Thomas C.E. Primary School at the time of their admission.
4. 12 places (20%) will be allocated to any children based on geographical proximity to the school. The remaining places will be allocated as follows:
5. Baptised children whose parent(s)/guardian(s) are in regular attendance at any of the churches within Any of the Anglican Churches within the Parish of St. Thomas with All Saints in Leigh.
6. Baptised or dedicated children whose parent(s)/guardian(s) are in regular attendance at a church within the parish which is a member of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, or a local Churches Together organisation.Children whose families are in regular attendance of another Church Of England church in the Leigh Deanery, and who live within the parish boundaries of Bedford St. Thomas.
7. Where there are more applicants for the available places within a category, then distance to the child’s normal home front door from the main gate of the school (Astley Street) in a straight line measured on a map will be used as the final determining factor, nearer addresses having priority over more distant ones. The ‘normal’ home of the child will be taken to be the home in which the child sleeps for the majority of the school week.


CHECK OUT THE CRITERIA,MO MENTION OF PROOF!!!

The issue of faith is irrelevant unless you are saying all good schools are faith schools? Which is a sweeping generalisation.

I think that is well known isn't it? Is that not why the govt are pushing for more faith schools and asking them to join with failing schools to share their techniques?

This is where you say non faith schools are not as good!!!

I do accept that some parents pretend to practice for a prescribed period to gain admission,this is why schools in this area do not ask for proof....if you are determined to get the proof there are always ways to do it.

If they are determined to convince you of their 'beliefs' then they will do that too won't they?

What does that mean??????????



Personally I think you are doing a disservice to many non faith schools who get excellent results. I would say (as I said before)that faith schools have the edge (in my personal experience asa lecturer in a FE College) in the behaviour and demeanour spheres. I can only speculate why this should be.

Well, I imagine it is because they select the pupils they want? ie the ones from higher socio-economic backgrounds?



Why only address part of the question? not the part about good results from non faith schools?



Selection on the basis of faith may be distasteful to you, but there is no question it works. Perhaps instead of railing against it you and others who oppose it should direct your energies to improving substandard non faith schools(of which you seem to believe there are many).

Works for who?


Hundreds of thousands of children of faith and not of faith,just children really.



Your link clearly illustrates my last point....Thank you



I will spell it out (since you did not address this) that your link said that after much consultation the majority of people (13,000)who responded wanted the transport facilities to be available and fully funded,then partially funded.

Democracy at work? current public feeling? you tell me!!! so it appears faith schools are indeed relevant in todays society. Maybe not to you, but still relevant

So we have both provided proof of our POV,the difference is my view is supported by law,tradition and parental will(as evidenced by your link).

The poster above gives some historical insight into how faith schools obtained funding. now that they have fulfilled a purpose and excelled at it,would it not be a little churlish to renege on an agreement? or is that not important?


How can their right to select be responsible for their success?

unless you are saying children who want a faith education are inherently brighter at 4!!!!








Finally,if you consider my comment that you have" a bee in your bonnet"offensive,then I refer you to the original post from MUMSTHEWORD who directed the same comment at me. However in your judgement it was me who was being rude and personal in my responses to her.

aytch

bestpud wrote: »

Aytch - thanks, that explains the regional difference between myself and poet then!

As a matter of interest (although you may choose not to respond!), how would you account for the 'higher achievement' of many faith schools?

Hi
I can say faith is not a factor - I did look at that data (although we pray harder at OFSTED time ). Nor is money, I get as much / little as non faith schools.

I think, generalising badly here, that staff tend to be more settled in faith schools, as do children of the 5 faith schools I work with, most children join at YrR and stay to Y6 - this makes a massive difference.

We have parents who send their children and expect and support high levels of discipline and responsibility.

Out of interest the make up of my school is 70% of my parents (according to LA data) are either higher managerial & professional. I have no ethnic minority, no children looked after, no statements - we do have a variety of faiths, more girls than boys, and I plough any extra money (ha ha) into bodies so lots of in class support

All of these make an impact.

Hope that makes sense and is not too much waffle

aytch

poet123

In the school I am involved with we do have a few statemented children,many ethinic minorities,and a couple of looked after children. and we too pray hard at OFSTED TIME!!!

I think it boils down to community spirit, and maybe faith or the coming together of faiths, plays a part in that.

The staff are committed and the children happy, but that is not the exclusive preserve of a faith school,so it is an indefinable element which brings the sucess.

A combination of all the above and more.

Mumstheword

poet123 wrote: »

Definitions of hearsay on the Web:

• rumor: gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth
• heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Whether or not it is hearsay, it's rude to infer that she can't have a valid point because she has not personally experienced it.

…SEE ABOVE DEFINITION
St Thomas CE Primary School see criteria
Admission Policy 2010
Admissions to an Aided school are the responsibility of the Governors, in agreement with the Diocesan Board of Education and the Local Authority.
In September 2008 the Standard number for the new intake into school and for Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 is 60. The Standard number of 75 applies to Years 5 and 6.
Responsibility for admissions is delegated to the Headteacher, acting in consultation with one of the Governors.
When applications are received, the decision on which children will be admitted will be based on the following criteria:
Criteria for Admission to St. Thomas C.E. Primary School
1. Looked after children, (Children in public care), and Statemented children in whose statement St. Thomas C.E. is named.
2. Children whose medical or social circumstances mean that their needs can only be met at this school.
3. Children who will have an older brother or sister attending the St. Thomas C.E. Primary School at the time of their admission.
4. 12 places (20%) will be allocated to any children based on geographical proximity to the school. The remaining places will be allocated as follows:
5. Baptised children whose parent(s)/guardian(s) are in regular attendance at any of the churches within Any of the Anglican Churches within the Parish of St. Thomas with All Saints in Leigh.
6. Baptised or dedicated children whose parent(s)/guardian(s) are in regular attendance at a church within the parish which is a member of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, or a local Churches Together organisation.Children whose families are in regular attendance of another Church Of England church in the Leigh Deanery, and who live within the parish boundaries of Bedford St. Thomas.
7. Where there are more applicants for the available places within a category, then distance to the child’s normal home front door from the main gate of the school (Astley Street) in a straight line measured on a map will be used as the final determining factor, nearer addresses having priority over more distant ones. The ‘normal’ home of the child will be taken to be the home in which the child sleeps for the majority of the school week.


CHECK OUT THE CRITERIA,MO MENTION OF PROOF!!!

Neither is there any mention of proof of address.

your link said that after much consultation the majority of people (13,000)who responded wanted the transport facilities to be available and fully funded,then partially funded.

Democracy at work? current public feeling?

I'd be interested to see the info on this, showing who responded. I am not commenting here on the transportation issue, merely the survey itself.If you asked a group of people who had no use of the service whether they thought it was a valuable use of public money to transport kids away from their nearest school I should think the response would be less favourable.

The poster above gives some historical insight into how faith schools obtained funding. now that they have fulfilled a purpose and excelled at it,would it not be a little churlish to renege on an agreement? or is that not important?

Whether or not we think it would be fair to change the situation now, we can still hold an adult discussion about whether we agree with it or not

Finally,if you consider my comment that you have" a bee in your bonnet"offensive,then I refer you to the original post from MUMSTHEWORD who directed the same comment at me. However in your judgement it was me who was being rude and personal in my responses to her.

I think I used the word aggressive to describe your posting style. I stand by that. More than 1 person has said the same to you. Can you not see it yourself? You have an inflammatory way of debating. In some instances, you have said 'if you think' or 'if you cant see' ...'then you must be...' . It's just aggressive, why not just say what you think? Rather than telling someone what they must be if they dont agree with you?



Thanks Aytch for the explanation of the historical reasoning behind faith school selection:)

poet123

I am sorry you feel my style to be aggressive, but actually respond in the tone set by those who answer my posts. I suppose that what is considered aggressive by one poster is not seen as such by another.;)

For example I consider using capitals to be quite aggressive and you began to use then to make a point in post 26.

I also consider the practice of using multiple quotes with a dissection of each comment beneath it quite aggressive; you began this in post 29, continued it in post 38 and demanded figures to support my points. The stats for most things are quite useless IMO as they can be presented any way the poster chooses so I don’t usually bother.

You then made a sarcastic comment in post 38 about children not choosing their own faith, but failed to see the irony of the post about your child choosing his school after weighing the options open to him,(how old was he? Younger than 10, which was the age at which you queried the faith commitment). I considered that rude and patronising.

In post 40 you continue your dissection of each and every point and then conclude with another sarcastic comment about the need for me to “persuade you with evidence”. Why would I need to do that when you presented none yourself? To include random smilies does not detract from the underlying barbs in your comments. Also in post 40 you used the term ” bee in your bonnet”, I did not find it insulting or personal, clearly Bestpud does though, as that was term she took exception to when I used it in connection with her.

Again this shows perception and probably who says what, is important

In post 42 you use caps again to shout your point
Post44 “Frankly I am bored” etc, is this not rude?

So, from post 45 I opted to reply in kind and perhaps my tone may have changed, but as I think I have amply demonstrated it was you who took the initiative, not me.

Post 46 use of CAPS AGAIN
Post 57 “how dare you suggest”
“You have been rude and patronising”

Finally, we come to you last post;-

I did not infer that Bestpud did not have a right to an opinion or a valid point. The fact is, that unless you have had a child who has been refused a school place, or sat on an admission panel (as I do every year) then you have obtained your information by word of mouth from a 3rd party and it is by definition hearsay.

The admission criteria I show for the school above was designed to illustrate that faith is not the only criteria for selection – I think you were one who doubted that? Proof of address is a given on any application, but published criteria are subject to law and appeal and so must be correct and comprehensive.

The survey you question was given as a link by Bestpud, I have no reason to question its validity, or suggest it was in any way skewed – you obviously do.

So I hope you can see that when using a forum such as this perception is everything. I have given specific examples of where your posts offended me and which I considered to be aggressive. If you would like to back up your argument by doing the same with my posts I would be happy to debate the point further. However I believe I have shown that I was taking my cue from you!!!

To address a couple of points posted by Bestpud:-

Churchgoers do not pay more tax per se, but we do pay an educational levy for each child in school. We also contribute by donating at every church service, a % of which goes to education.

Perhaps you have a point that religion is not seen as relevant today, viewed from the angle of church attendance that may be correct. However it would seem to me that the problems with (some) of today’s young people do not point to this being a good thing. You have agreed that in general (but not exclusively) faith schools produce a better behaved individual than others, so I think that shows relevance.

That said I certainly do not agree with Bestpud that those of us who are religious should force that on others for the “perceived” good of society. Those parents who choose a secular education for their child are fully entitled to do so without interference from me. ( If only the reverse held true!!) TBH I think this was a rather patronising comment.

How can their right to selection at 4 lead a faith school to produce better results at 10? Selection by faith is by definition random, or are you implying that all 4 year olds from religious families are brighter than their secular counterparts?

I have no axe to grind with choices made by any parent with regard to educating their child. If you want a faith education chances are you can obtain one. If you don’t then why argue about it?

Mumstheword

poet123 wrote: »

I suppose that what is considered aggressive by one poster is not seen as such by another.;)

on that, I agree

For example I consider using capitals to be quite aggressive and you began to use then to make a point in post 26.

your use of caps and bold began in post 11, and is a common theme in your posting style on other threads

I also consider the practice of using multiple quotes with a dissection of each comment beneath it quite aggressive; you began this in post 29, continued it in post 38 and demanded figures to support my points. The stats for most things are quite useless IMO as they can be presented any way the poster chooses so I don’t usually bother.

Your posts are quite long, and I find it easier to respond this way. I find it also makes life easier for other readers rather than having to trawl back through posts to see what the reply refers to. If you state something, then I'm entitled to ask you to prove that rather than just accept it as a given. I may disagree, but it would be a useless argument if neither could provide evidence

You then made a sarcastic comment in post 38 about children not choosing their own faith, but failed to see the irony of the post about your child choosing his school after weighing the options open to him,(how old was he? Younger than 10, which was the age at which you queried the faith commitment). I considered that rude and patronising.

Your post mentioned 'perceived' ability and 'actual' faith. I asked if children at that age had actually chosen their own faith ( as opposed to following family tradition). It wasnt a sarcastic comment. I also pointed out that in our case my DS chose the school. I also accept that in some cases the parents choose the school.

In post 40 you continue your dissection of each and every point and then conclude with another sarcastic comment about the need for me to “persuade you with evidence”. Why would I need to do that when you presented none yourself?

My original point was an opinion. That something was unfair. There is no proof either way, it's an opinion. There was absolutely no sarcasm intended in my request for evidence to back up some of theissues you raised

To include random smilies does not detract from the underlying barbs in your comments.

those are there to tone down the thread and try to get it back to lighthearted discussion.

In post 42 you use caps again to shout your point
Post44 “Frankly I am bored” etc, is this not rude?

yes. It's rare that you will find me being directly rude to another poster.

So, from post 45 I opted to reply in kind and perhaps my tone may have changed, but as I think I have amply demonstrated it was you who took the initiative, not me.Post 46 use of CAPS AGAINPost 57 “how dare yousuggest”“You have been rude and patronising”

...yet you still continue with the bold type

The admission criteria I show for the school above was designed to illustrate that faith is not the only criteria for selection – I think you were one who doubted that?

No. I may have asked for figures to show how many non-faithers do get places in faith schools tho, can't remember now. Aytch kindly provided those stats for her school (her/his?? sorry if wrong:D:D:D)

The survey you question was given as a link by Bestpud, I have no reason to question its validity, or suggest it was in any way skewed – you obviously do.

You used part of that article. I made a valid observation of the part you used to back your argument.

I have given specific examples of where your posts offended me and which I considered to be aggressive. If you would like to back up your argument by doing the same with my posts I would be happy to debate the point further

My post above, where I said 'thank you' was originally quite long. It listed all the times I have considered your posts to be offensive/aggressive/rude/whatever. I deleted all of that. I decided that it would not progress this discussion any further.

Mumstheword

poet123 wrote: »

If you want a faith education chances are you can obtain one. If you don’t then why argue about it?

Sorry I missed this bit:)

I didnt argue. I told you my opinion. What we appear to have argued about is other issues raised by you.

Once you responded to my actual point, I merely thanked you.

iwanttosave_2

Mums, you see to get getting a rather unfair bashing here, for what its worth I agree with your points. If a parent wants their child to be educated in a certain manner such as religious based teaching , then they should pay for that right.

poet123

your use of caps and bold began in post 11, and is a common theme in your posting style on other threads

I was not responding to you in post 11,and as far as I am aware the use of bold complies with "netiquette". I do use bold to make a point but rarely caps.

Your posts are quite long, and I find it easier to respond this way.

So are yours, but to me a quote is one thing, but mutiple quotes smacks of trying to gain the upper hand,rather than debate.

Your post mentioned 'perceived' ability and 'actual' faith. I asked if children at that age had actually chosen their own faith ( as opposed to following family tradition). It wasnt a sarcastic comment. I also pointed out that in our case my DS chose the school. I also accept that in some cases the parents choose the school.

Ability is perceived until tested and proven by examination and by reference to peer groups. Faith is something which a child is born into, but then takes on for themselves in ceremonies at about the age of 7. Therefore by the age of 10 a child has made their own representations of that faith. If you are not religious that will mean nothing to you but I found it extreemly insulting that you should denigrate a child's choice with regard to faith,yet tell us how your own child at a much younger age had made a considered decision.


You used part of that article. I made a valid observation of the part you used to back your argument.

I read through the article and commented on the relevant points it threw up,that transport was available and being used as Bestpud had outlined, but that this transport issue had been the subject of consultation and been approved. What more is there to say on this issue? it was democratically decided either by majority or by default9people choosing not to respond)


My post above, where I said 'thank you' was originally quite long. It listed all the times I have considered your posts to be offensive/aggressive/rude/whatever. I deleted all of that. I decided that it would not progress this discussion any further

I took the same line,(as you will see from my posts at that time)but Bestpud reopened the debate,I merely responded,and have provided evidence as asked for. Although it is interesting to note you did not ask any other poster to provide evidence for their comments,such as the headteacher. you were prepared to take on trust her figures of the make up of her faith school.

You have made no comment about your usage of "Bee in the bonnet" and Bestpuds reaction it.

You appear to be searching out other threads I have posted on ,I hope you enjoy them.

I too, am very rarely rude to other posters unless it is warranted,I consider it warranted when their responses are sarcastic,denigrate my child's faith,are dismissive,etc. Perhaps you did not mean to imply any of these,but that was what I took from your posts,just as you have outlined what you took from mine.