Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    They are not allowed to discriminate on religion, if you feel you have been unfairly discrimnated take them to court
    From the Citizen's Advice Bureau
    There are certain areas of the law about discrimination because of religion and belief which don't apply to faith schools or colleges.
    For example, faith schools and colleges have the right to discriminate because of religion when they decide who to accept as a pupil or student. They can choose to give priority to pupils who share their own faith over other pupils. However, it's against the law for them to leave places unfilled if there aren't enough pupils of their own faith to fill them.

    Once you have been accepted as a pupil or student at the school or college, it's against the law for them to discriminate against you because of your religion or belief. For example, a Catholic school is not allowed to exclude a pupil who started off as a Catholic and then converts to a different faith.

    However, faith schools and colleges are allowed to restrict certain services and benefits that they offer to pupils sharing the faith of the school or college, or can offer them in a different way. For example, faith schools are allowed to:

    - Organise trips for pupils who follow the faith of the school to their local church or religious shrine. They don't have to organise similar visits for children of other faiths within the school.

    - Say that only pupils who share their faith can read aloud certain religious texts during assembly.

    - Mark or celebrate their own religious events or traditions without having to do the same for children of other faiths within the school.
    Also - Faith schools are allowed to discriminate against staff based on religion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    So if the parent is refusing to pay for a child's education
    That would be illegal, if they have the money.

    or cant afford to pay for it but earns £60,000+
    Presumably if they earn £60,000+ they can afford it.

    than the child should be without education?
    Of course not - that's like saying if a parent is refusing to pay for their child's food, then they should go without food.

    A parent is legally obliged to pay for the things that a child is entitled to, such as food, shelter, education etc. unless they cannot afford it, in which case the government does something to help out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I fail
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    That would be illegal, if they have the money.



    Presumably if they earn £60,000+ they can afford it.



    Of course not - that's like saying if a parent is refusing to pay for their child's food, then they should go without food.

    A parent is legally obliged to pay for the things that a child is entitled to, such as food, shelter, education etc. unless they cannot afford it, in which case the government does something to help out.
    as long as the bracket isn't too high and also takes into account bills of the family than its ok otherwise no

    also what about errors made?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Well, Christianity being the official religion of the country suggests we're not secular but that doesn't necessarily mean we're a country full of devout practising Christians. People keep insisting we're a Christian country even though various laws would smack in the face of Christian values (e.g. abortion).
    Of course it doesn't mean we are a country of devout Christians.

    Funny though. I'm sure enough people are fine with an Anglican or Roman Catholic school receiving state funding but will soon kick up a stink if Muslim schools did the same. Either all faith schools should receive funding, or none at all.
    I think quite a strong case could be made for Anglican schools being taxpayer-funded because we are an Anglican country. But now as Catholic and other religious state schools are given the go-ahead then the whole argument falls down.

    I'm not wild about the taxpayer funding non-Anglican schools. But given that so many of our state schools completely fail to give our children a proper education, let alone a moral/religious one, I can hardly be against such schools existing if they produce well-educated children.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    as long as the bracket isn't too high and also takes into account bills of the family than its ok otherwise no
    Of course, it would reasonably take into account the amount of money a family has vs. the amount of money a family needs to spend.

    For example, a person who earns £20,000 but has five children to look after might get a higher grant than someone who earns £20,000 but only has 1 child to look after - because clearly the second person is going to have more disposable income.

    also what about errors made?
    What kind of errors are you anticipating in particular? No system is going to be utterly free from error, is it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Of course, it would reasonably take into account the amount of money a family has vs. the amount of money a family needs to spend.

    For example, a person who earns £20,000 but has five children to look after might get a higher grant than someone who earns £20,000 but only has 1 child to look after - because clearly the second person is going to have more disposable income.



    What kind of errors are you anticipating in particular? No system is going to be utterly free from error, is it?
    paperwork errors, which may mean that a child wont get any education, current system is fine tbh
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    paperwork errors, which may mean that a child wont get any education
    That happens in the current system already anyway, where the government may take too long to pick up on the fact that a certain child isn't beng sent to school. We can't really escape from this!

    current system is fine tbh
    Well I personally think the current system is fine, although plenty of people find it unfair that rich children go to private schools and poor children don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    That happens in the current system already anyway, where the government may take too long to pick up on the fact that a certain child isn't beng sent to school. We can't really escape from this!



    Well I personally think the current system is fine, although plenty of people find it unfair that rich children go to private schools and poor children don't.
    lifes unfair, I went to a **** state school and came out with ok grades as did most of my mates
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    lifes unfair, I went to a **** state school and came out with ok grades as did most of my mates
    Well I would have it's perfectly possible to get excellent grades from a state school - after all, exam results are about how hard you work, and how intelligent you are, and not about whether your teacher was an Oxbridge grad!

    Maybe I'm not the best person to give my opinion on that though, having never been to a state school - so I'd probably want to take into account the complaints of all those who claim that the system could be made fairer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Well I would have it's perfectly possible to get excellent grades from a state school - after all, exam results are about how hard you work, and how intelligent you are, and not about whether your teacher was an Oxbridge grad!

    Maybe I'm not the best person to give my opinion on that though, having never been to a state school - so I'd probably want to take into account the complaints of all those who claim that the system could be made fairer.
    it does depend a lot on your teachers as well

    I had no English teacher for 1 year and came out with a bad grade in English while had good grades in the rest
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drukarale)
    Personally, I don't think that private schools or religious schools should be allowed.

    You don't deserve an unfair advantage due to your beliefs.

    You don't deserve an unfair advantage due to your parents' salaries.

    You don't deserve an unfair advantage due to your postcode.

    I think state schools, with lottery allocated places determining which school (Though obviously if two people want to swap places, they can) would be the fairest system.

    In my opinion, it would also increase the levels of tolerance of people of different faiths and backgrounds, as children would be exposed to other children of different ethnicities to themselves from a very early age. This would help dispel the fear/lack of understanding of other cultures.

    If you disagree, please say why, and which points you don't believe are correct.
    You can NOT take away private schools, I mean, if I decide to work my ass of to spend MY money on MY child's education, why the hell shouldn't I be allowed? A lot of "state schools" are absolutely *****, are YOU going to make me send MY child to a ****** school where he wont learn anything due to over population of chavs??? Huh??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)

    Rich people would just get their children tutors.
    I never claimed that this would not be the case, it would be a fairer system, not a perfect one.

    (Original post by paella)
    It's not an unfair advantage, it's perfectly fair.
    You get a much better education than most due to the wealth of your parents or the religion you follow. Doesn't seem that fair to me

    (Original post by paella)
    YOu are taught the same knowledge for the exam, using librarys you have access to the same books. People will always have advantages over you. That's just how the world is.
    Null points.
    Education is about more than just passing exams.

    The discussion is about schools, not access to libraries. I don't know about you but I feel that my education was contributed to by teachers and lecturers. Books aren't the only, or even best way to gain knowledge and understanding.

    That's how the world is? Well then, don't you think trying to change it would be a good thing? Perhaps you would prefer to try to change nothing in your lifetime and just accept things as the are?



    (Original post by paella)
    Parents have an inalienable right to educate their children how they want.
    No they don't. I don't for a moment think that parents have the right to teach children that a certain race or religion is inferior, that homosexuality is a moral evil or that the holocaust never happened. Perhaps this is not what you meant? A little clarification would be nice.

    (Original post by paella)

    Rich people would just get their children tutors.
    I never claimed that this would not be the case, it would be a fairer system, not a perfect one.

    (Original post by paella)
    It's not an unfair advantage, it's perfectly fair.
    You get a much better education than most due to the wealth of your parents or the religion you follow. Doesn't seem that fair to me

    (Original post by paella)
    YOu are taught the same knowledge for the exam, using librarys you have access to the same books. People will always have advantages over you. That's just how the world is.
    Null points.
    Education is about more than just passing exams.

    The discussion is about schools, not access to libraries. I don't know about you but I feel that my education was contributed to by teachers and lecturers. Books aren't the only, or even best way to gain knowledge and understanding.

    That's how the world is? Well then, don't you think trying to change it would be a good thing? Perhaps you would prefer to try to change nothing in your lifetime and just accept things as the are?



    (Original post by paella)
    Private schools are not just about passing exams (well real private schools aren't). It's about a certain type of education, and I respect fully the right of parents to pay for it.
    Funny, this slightly contradicts one of your earlier points.

    Oh, and I do not respect the right to buy your children a massively unfair advantage.

    (Original post by paella)
    I don't want the government monopolizing the curriculum, who knows what crazy things kids might learn.
    A slightly poorly put point, but I agree with you on this one, though I do think that some choices should be left to the school, but ultimately, the government should have the final say.

    (Original post by paella)
    Life is full of unfair advantages, grow up.
    Not a reason not to try to ameliorate the situation. Well done! An immature end to a poorly argued post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People should have the right to spend their own money on their children's education if they want to. That's their own decision.

    I disagree. Why should the children of rich parents start life with even more advantages.

    (Original post by moregano)
    Catchment areas are there for a reason - to make sure the right number of children attend each school and to provide a fair way of regulating who can and can't go to certain schools. Your "lottery" idea wouldn't work; people would end up having to travel miles across cities to go to a school they had been randomly placed in, and what would happen if friends and siblings were allocated to different schools? The level of authoritarianism you're talking about is pretty scary.
    I agree to some extent. I'm suggesting a sort of 'larger catchment area', to avoid the problems created by extortionate house prices around very successful schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaceyThe)
    Again, wasn't really a problem untill Islam came along.....

    Then Muslim schools in Britain started poisoning young minds and teaching Islamic supremacy, and that Jews were "apes and pigs," as reported by Newsnight:


    and.......


    This is where the segregation is coming from. Wasn't a problem before, but now, to be fair and even handed, all faith schools are facing scrutiny, even though some of them have excellent academic results.
    The Jesuits were raping boys long before Islam came to Britain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moregano)
    The UK is meant to be a secular, multicultural society, so why are religious schools funded by the government?
    .
    we are largely a secular society, but we come from christian foundations and we should recognize those who choose to continue our traditions in this area.

    ... "meant" to be multicultural? whatever gave you the idea that we are "meant" to be multicultural?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiwiguy)
    Everything.

    1.) We should have private and religious schools. People should have the choice to pay extra to put their child in a school of their choice. Also, the parents are still paying tax, some of which will end up in the education budget, for which their child wont need

    2.) Unfair advantage because of your beliefs??! What do you mean? Not many companies are going to sit you down in an interview and say "omg you went to a muslim school! You're now the CEO!!"

    3.) So you think that all state schools are the same? And that if we all went to state schools we'd come out all on an exactly equal level? Get real!!!!! I went to school in winchester, followed by state 6th form. Now you compare the average marks from winchester state schools with others in the country, and you'll find that winchester is easily up there with some of the better marks. You'll still get postcode lottery with state schools, and invariably, the people with larger salaries will have the more influential pull.

    4.) A lottery system makes no allowance for talent. At least with schools chosen by parents, they can choose to put Johnny in a school where his exception physics talent could be put to good use, where in a lottery system, he may miss out on a place at a better state school, and end up in a chav filled hell hole.

    Im guessing i know which type of school you went to, based on your communist rose tinted ideas.... :rolleyes:

    1) Fed up of making my counter argument to this point, see other posts.

    2) Not the type of advantage I'm talking about. I'm talking about the trend of religious schools having much better results than similarly placed state schools. From an exam result perspective at least, religious schools provide an unfair advantage based partly on your religion.

    3) As I've said, not a perfect system, but fairer than the current one.

    4) The chavs would be spread about, there would be a roughly equal balance of social classes in each school. Not the division between chavy schools and posher ones.


    As for my school, I think it's pretty much irrelevant, but in case you're wondering in the year I took my GCSEs, my school was under threat of closure due to it's frankly appalling results. Now I'm at a university with slightly under half its students being publicly educated. I don't know how much weight personal experience adds to my argument, but seen as you've brought it up, I've sort of seen both sides of the coin.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drukarale)
    I disagree. Why should the children of rich parents start life with even more advantages.
    Because the rich (in general) worked hard for their wealth, and therefore they should be allowed to spend their money on what they want, within reasonable limits. I know it's not fair, but that's just the way it is unfortunately. You can't take away the rights of somebody to spend their money on their own children just to try and make it fairer for everyone else. If we kept going by this line of thinking, we would have to ban Disneyland (only rich people can afford it and that's not fair); make everyone wear the same brand of clothes (so nobody would have nicer ones just because they're wealthy) etc.

    Besides, the government simply can't afford to give all children a state education. People who send their kids to private schools are paying the same taxes as people who don't, but they're not taking full advantages of the taxes they pay. So essentially they're paying for another child to go to school free of charge. Is that such a bad thing?

    (Original post by drukarale)
    I'm suggesting a sort of 'larger catchment area', to avoid the problems created by extortionate house prices around very successful schools.
    Many state schools are overcrowded as it is. Making catchment areas even larger would be a disaster. I know it's not fair that not everyone can go to the best schools, but that's always going to be a problem. Society is always going to be divided by wealth to a certain extent, and there's not much we can do about that. If people want to spend money to move near to a certain school, then that's their choice. They've worked for their money and again, it's their choice how they spend it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moregano)
    The UK is meant to be a secular, multicultural society, so why are religious schools funded by the government?
    No it isn't
    Faith schools encourage segregation and exclusion. They are allowed to promote the idea that sex outside marriage and homosexuality are wrong; the government is supposed to be working to discourage homophobic attitudes. They are allowed to select pupils (and staff) based on religion; one of the best primary schools in my area was a Catholic school, but I couldn't have gone there even if my parents wanted me to. My mum is a teacher and has been unsuccessful in applying for jobs at several RC primary schools, all of which hired a Catholic teacher instead.
    Some might call it morals.
    If parents want their kids to get a religious education then they should be able to go private pay for it themselves, but it's not fair to spend taxpayers' money on something many of us are denied access to anyway.
    Not all can afford to.

    In conclusion this is a typical leftist attack which attacks anything that shows signs of success.
    The traditional lefist approach to education is this: Make education equal for all by dragging everything down to the lowest level.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    You can NOT take away private schools, I mean, if I decide to work my ass of to spend MY money on MY child's education, why the hell shouldn't I be allowed? A lot of "state schools" are absolutely *****, are YOU going to make me send MY child to a ****** school where he wont learn anything due to over population of chavs??? Huh??
    A truly well argued, carefully considered and eloquent point.

    Try actually making counter arguments instead of angry rhetorical questions.

    What about the people who can't afford to send their children to private schools? Do their children deserve this poor education you're talking of?

    I would give your child an education that is as equal as possible to everyone else's. Or perhaps you think that YOUR child deserves better than everyone else, just because he's YOUR child?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up sugar, or salt?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.