Should they lie on school application form?

vicwatson

Was talking to a pal last recently and he was asking me if I thought he should lie on a secondary school application form where it asks "religion"? He thought as the school has no religious "policy" or ethos that he could see on the website that he should just be honest and say "none", I really didn't know what advice to give him...perhaps its not best to lie, but he thinks it might go against him if he doesn't write some "organised" religion on the form.

Maybe he should just call them and see what the story is?

eviltwin

Why would putting down no religion go against him

Michael OBrien

Have you talked with the school about their policy? Clarify it before anything else. Perhaps you should leave it blank with a N/A on it.
There is some discrimination in schools, usually the primary schools need a baptismal cert if not ET schools. You could also contact Atheist Ireland as they are very focused on this issue at present and (once you get a better idea of the school policies) see what they say.

vicwatson

eviltwin wrote: »

Why would putting down no religion go against him

I don't know, might not fit in with their ethos or ideas on religion, I'm almost sure schools can discriminate if it's not fitting in?

pwurple

Is the school oversubscribed?

Schools can only discriminate based on their policy, if oversubscribed.

For example, our local school discriminates in this order if oversubscribed.

1) Siblings
2) children of past pupils
3) grand children of past pupils
4) children within catchment area (with an attached map)
5) religion.

So, even though we were not the religion of the school, or had a sibling or past pupil, we got in because we were in the catchment area.

looksee

I really don't get this 'children of past pupils' thing. Certainly give preference to siblings and catchment area, even religion makes more sense than the past pupils business.

The Bishop Basher

Go to the school website and have a look at their enrolment policy. Let your "friend" know said policy and advice them to do whatever feels right for them, in order to get their child a space in the school.

I know of someone who put down a work address to get their child into a local school. Probably morally and ethically dubious but we do what we have to do to get by in these situations..

evolving_doors

looksee wrote: »

I really don't get this 'children of past pupils' thing. Certainly give preference to siblings and catchment area, even religion makes more sense than the past pupils business.

It's kind of the same way Schools have a preference for past pupils as teachers. It preserves the ethos.... keeps it pure and undiluted from outsiders... and all that.

pwurple

looksee wrote: »

I really don't get this 'children of past pupils' thing. Certainly give preference to siblings and catchment area, even religion makes more sense than the past pupils business.

Ahh but how can you say "my father before me, and his father before him attended this school" blah blah blah otherwise. Seriously though, i can see both sides on that one. My family has lived in the same area for generations, and it means a lot to the oldies to see traditions like that continued. If it's a very old school with a bit of history, it's interesting to see the continuity with local families.

Luckily all the traditions in my family are with the boys, and we have two girls so we can do whatever the fook we want though! Mwahaha.

But yes, if they've moved out of the catchment area, what are you dragging the children across the city for a school one of your parents attended. If it means that much to you, move bloody nearer.

We did what loads of other people do with that catchment area thing though, which probably messes it up a bit. We moved house a few times after our eldest was born, so we applied all over the place, as we didn't know where we would be living when she started school. I used family and friends addresses if they were in the catchment area for the school she was applying for.

ted1

looksee wrote: »

I really don't get this 'children of past pupils' thing. Certainly give preference to siblings and catchment area, even religion makes more sense than the past pupils business.

Past pupils will have a tie to the school and get involved.

evolving_doors

ted1 wrote: »

Past pupils will have a tie to the school and get involved.

Are you suggesting that non-past pupils don't get involved as much?

seamus

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Are you suggesting that non-past pupils don't get involved as much?

Yeah, I'd say that's actually a pretty fair statement to make.

Some schools have very active past-pupil's organisations who remain heavily involved in the school, including volunteering for extracurricular activities and providing donations. That's even those who don't have kids.

So I would say on the whole, past-pupils would be more involved in school activity and more likely to get involved when they enrol their kids.

Schools are also a lot more about quiet backhanders and favours than many people realise. You can bypass practically any school's enrolment policy if you are friends with or can otherwise get a good word in with the principle or administrator.
The principle of a school is often a past-pupils, or at least a buddy of many past pupils, so puts his buddies' children top of the list for getting in.

Another good reason why a central authority for handling public school admissions is the way to go.

endacl

ted1 wrote: »

Past pupils will have a tie to the school and get involved.

Some will. Some won't. Same as any parents.

evolving_doors

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'd say that's actually a pretty fair statement to make.

Some schools have very active past-pupil's organisations who remain heavily involved in the school, including volunteering for extracurricular activities and providing donations. That's even those who don't have kids.

So I would say on the whole, past-pupils would be more involved in school activity and more likely to get involved when they enrol their kids.

Schools are also a lot more about quiet backhanders and favours than many people realise. You can bypass practically any school's enrolment policy if you are friends with or can otherwise get a good word in with the principle or administrator.
The principle of a school is often a past-pupils, or at least a buddy of many past pupils, so puts his buddies' children top of the list for getting in.

Another good reason why a central authority for handling public school admissions is the way to go.

Ya but from my experience in my school it would be about 40% who are past pupils who enroll the son. of those then about 1% would get involved and 'have a stake' in the school.. but on the other hand the 50% who aren't past pupils would also have about 1% who would get involved.. it's just that the past pupils would get more kudos because of confirmation bias.

It's like a colleague of mine who went to extraordinary lengths to get their daughter into a school (zero ties to the school whatsoever)... now after 2 years one spouse is on the parents committee (organising charity fundraisers etc) and the other spouse has another fairly important role as treasurer of some society associated with the school. So even though it's anecdotal I think people are just people, and the types that buy in to 'support the ethos' are equally split between past pupils and not. So in a sense the whole 'past pupils' thing is moot, and only serves the purpose of ego stroking.

But i don't see it being done away with any time soon.