Paying for choice?

[observer]

Cheshire West Council are planning to cut subsidised bus travel to "faith" schools - but should tax-payers subsidise any parental choice to send their kids outside the catchment area of their nearest school in any case?

[Lt Kije]

No

[Bazj]

No.

 

I used to have to get 4 buses a day to go to and from the Grammar school in Latchford. It was my parents choice to take up the offer of a place (some from Bewsey Primary did not take up the same offer) and my parents choice to pay for the bus fares. We did not qualify for a bus pass as we were within so many miles of the school (as the crow flies)

[Dizzy]

I thought some subsidies had been cut already round here. Kids going to Lymm High lost theirs didn't they ?

 

But should parent's have the option to send their kids to schools outside of their catchment area... well yes they should especially if the local school is not of their liking or substandard in it's educational offerings compared with others.

[silverlady54]

I think it's a tough one, particularly on those students who have been at the relevant schools for some years. Bishop's in Chester was the only C of E faith school for miles around until Boteler became one a few years ago. Is the children's education to suffer by having to move schools because parents can't afford the bus fares? That seems unfair. The subsidy should remain for those already using it but could be stopped for any new applicants. This will affect many of the schools in the long run though, as parents have to make different choices for their children. I assume this will also affect the catholic schools who also bus children from a wide area?

[observer]

Ideally, all public service provision should be as close as practicable to the user, and of equally comparable standards of service provision imo. Thus there wouldn't be any need for "choice" and folk could attend their nearest school and who knows, the walk could improve the health of the kids! As for "faith" schools, think in the 21st century, we should be sufficiently enlightened to cease any tax-payer funding of them and their anachronistic dogmas, and move on to a wholy secular system of education based on reason and science, rather than superstition.

[silverlady54]

As for "faith" schools, think in the 21st century, we should be sufficiently enlightened to cease any tax-payer funding of them and their anachronistic dogmas, and move on to a wholy secular system of education based on reason and science, rather than superstition.

 

You are entitled to your opinion on faith schools, but some see these schools as providing a higher standard of education because of the care ethos and because their faith is important to them and part of their daily life. Perhaps the lack of a faith (whatever that may be),is why so many people have no way of expressing grief other than by mementos and flowers, rather than the quiet dignified way that used to be the norm.

[observer]

I'm aware that "faith" and "private" schools tend to have better reputations than many "state" schools; but I sugest that's down to a more conservative (even old fashioned) ethos; plus with parents going as far as changing their religion, in order to get little Jonny in "the best" school, there's clearly positive parental pressure on such kids to achieve. This, possibly in contrast with some long haired, bearded sandal wearer in a "sink" school, fostering anarchy rather than dicipline. But I wouldn't draw any correlation between religion and performance, many "private" schools have military, sports or music themes, and are highly successfull. One only has to look at N/Ireland to see the results of a secular education system, fostering anachronistic dogmas and social division; imo it is quite possible to improve secular education through an ethos of dicipline - should parents and liberal law makers allow. I'll pose the question again - if the disruptive bad apples from sink schools were transfered to boarding schools, would it produce different outcomes? As for the principle of funding, in a secular society, imo it is not the responsibility of tax-payers to fund the religious indoctrination of our young folk.

[silverlady54]

Who said we are a secular society? Not me! And, in a recent Government survey, they were very surprised to discover that the freedom to express their faith and religious beliefs was very important to a majority of people, over and above wealth.

[observer]

Would that be the 90% who don't go to church?!

[silverlady54]

The question appears to have focused on having a faith, not necessarily going to church.

 

In fact it seems that if you add the christian church attenders to other faiths, it will give you a percentage of approximately 21% of the UK population attending church/temple/mosque and if you include those who attend occasionally, that rises to 31%. A bit more than 10%!

[observer]

But still well below a majority!