Read what the latest Stupid "rule" is: Does this young girl go around with a sandwich board telling all and sundry about her religious status?
I think that is going to stay with her until she leaves school even If she was baptised tomorrow
and legally anybody can baptise you don't have to declare it on a piece of paper.. wonder how this issue came about and got blown up out of all proportions if they were unaware of this little ceremony
And does the same rule apply to other religions?

We may assume that some councils will apply the same rule for other faiths. We are talking of a faith school. As the Council points out, the child could go to a local school which is not a faith school. Faith schools are very much in the minority in Britain.

You should try getting a child into a private Catholic school. We thought for our daughter to go to a Catholic school, her mother being a Catholic, but the enquiry ended very abruptly. Their representative at the end of the phone was satisfied with the faith of her mother and then asked me what I was. When I said 'Quaker' she put the phone down without a word ! I should have said 'Satanist' to make it worth her while

I don't think it's right or appropriate. But if it's a private or religious school, don't they have a right to make their own rules and requirements with regard to who rides their buses?
And why would the mother have a problem with the child being baptized, if she wants her to go to a religiously-affiliated school anyway?
I wouldn't send my child to such a school, but if you are going to send your kid there, you should abide by the rules of the school you've chosen for your child...

"But Hertfordshire County Council said she must use public transport because she had not been baptised, reports the Evening Standard."

I seem to be a bit confused about this. Is it that a county government body rules on questions of parochial schools in re eligibility for access to a bus?

The 'fares' of children on the school bus, almost certainly just an ordinary public bus which is being used for schoolchildren,not some special yellow vehicle, are paid for by the County Council. The usual practice is for a season ticket to be provided for each child. I don't know this school but it is almost certain that it's funded with government money and so not thereby distinguishable in practice from any other state school. There are many schools which are Church of England schools. The school would not be a private school as such. The Council's argument is that the child could go to another school nearby which was not originally founded as a Christian school and which does not still maintain such a rule. As Elexina says, it may seem odd that the parents would want to send an unbaptised child to such a school. My guess is that they think that this school is better than the other one. It could be that they are not even Christians themselves They have applied for the child to go to this school and, by word or deed in so doing, have indicated that they want her to have a Christian education.The suggestion in that is that they do not want her to have the ordinary state school education provided by the other school, but something more evidently Christian in its nature. That ought to be because they are Christians of such a faith that they want that. Of course, they may not have thought of that when they applied for her to go there but that seems to me to be the only reason why she was not being sent to the other school

You may find this puzzling when you consider that, by law, every school is required to have a morning assembly which is broadly Christian in character However you should understand that this is Britain. Britain's law is based on pragmatism in practice, just like our 'unwritten' constitution, and is adjusted in use (just like our 'unwritten' constitution) and so nobody expects the 'letter of the law' to be followed where it is not expedient, politick or reasonable to carry it out. So the government allows any and every school to virtually dispense with it all. (This hardly matters to anyone as almost none of us Britons who are, supposedly, Christian ever go to a church, and very few would ever pray otherwise, so we are extremely unlikely to fuss if our own child isn't exposed to a hymn or a prayer in the morning at school ).

Thanks so much for your most informative explanation. Blame my ignorance on the fact that separation of church and state is so strong in the colonies, that the idea of a secular government body deciding on a church matter is, literally, foreign to me.

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz:
Thanks so much for your most informative explanation. Blame my ignorance on the fact that separation of church and state is so strong in the colonies, that the idea of a secular government body deciding on a church matter is, literally, foreign to me.

Yes, but it's ostensibly a C of E school so it's pretty close to being secular already . My bet remains that the parents, trying to pick what they thought a better school than the other one, never thought that anyone would pick this up. They probably never thought that they might have to justify the decision by some evidence

At a slightly more elevated (and blatant?) level: Mr Blair, who is not a Roman Catholic but whose wife is, sent his children to a Roman Catholic school which was not just a short distance away from their home but on the other side of town.Being a Labour politician he felt obliged not to put the children into some exclusive, private, school. So he ought to have sent the children to a state school in his own area. There must be many Catholic schools there too but he wanted the best in town and took advantage of a rule whereby this school could and did accept state pupils, if the school thought them suitable ( fully Catholic background essential, you might think, but evidently a matter for their discretion in individual cases ) At least one other, young, member of his government felt no such need: she simply sent her child to a private school, regardless He himself was educated at an exclusive boarding school (but that was not his fault).

"When I said 'Quaker' she put the phone down without a word ! I should have said 'Satanist' to make it worth her while "

You should have gone with Druid. That keeps the Mormons, Born Agains, and Jehovah's Witnesses from trying to keep a conversation going with me.

Just to complete the picture: A BBC programme about faith has just given the statistic that less than 3 per cent of the British population attend church regularly.

In the 2001 Census 94% of Britons who declared a religion gave 'Christian'. Only 37 million, from a population of about 55 million ,declared a religion . 3% declared 'muslim'.

Druid ? I would claim to be that but I look awful in white and a beard doesn't suit me

Faith and the bus to school again: Here's another example to puzzle JR and other Americans.

A boy was refused a place on a bus because he was not a baptised Christian. Thomas Rosevear, 13, a pupil at a Church of England Comprehensive School [ a 'comprehensive school' is a standard state school for all over 11 years] was stopped at the door of the bus to school as his friends got in.He had no bus pass for free travel. When his mother complained she was told that, if she wanted a pass, she would have to pay £270 (about $520) because her son was not a Christian. She is described as a 'lapsed Baptist'. She never had her son baptised.

Explanation? The school is outside the area in which the boy would normally be schooled. He would be expected to go to the local school (and would get free transport i.e. a bus pass to use on the local bus). This school is a faith school and outside his area. Here's what a spokesman for the local government said: " Children at faith schools who are baptised into the faith of their school and who live beyond the statutory distance are entitled to free home-to-school transport . Tom was previously issued with a free bus pass because of an error" Tom has been given a temporary pass valid until Christmas.

So, the short answer is, presumably, to have the kid baptised straight away Then he can claim to be of the faith of the school and get a free bus pass to this school outside the area.

You may wonder how he got into a faith school in the first place.The likely answer is that nobody in the school cared. It's a Church of England school and so pretty liberal, probably only a bit more Christian in its style than some schools that are not faith schools . It would never ask but assume that the parents wanted that school for some reason. We are not talking of a Roman Catholic School, where the faith of all concerned ; parents, family, children; will be examined. However the Local Authority, which has to pay for the free bus passes, is quick to stop what they consider a case which is not bona fide. It might be that the parents sent him to that faith school because they thought it a better school than the ones in the area and their faith or lack of it had absolutely nothing to do with their decision. (It may even be that there's another faith school inside the area so transport would be free to that) What intrigues me is how anyone found out he was not baptised. Did the local authority do checks of the parents or the school , or was the mother was boasting about how she was using the system?

I bet any schools that are 'faith schools' in the USA are pretty strong on the faith bit and do make enquiries.