As I say, any decent school ought to be interviewing both child and parents in such a way that a frank exchange can take place and on that basis the school can advise either parent, child or both whether their desired course of action is a sensible one. I suspect most schools would not want someone who is adamant they don’t want to be there.

But that is wholly different from someone outside the entire transaction using politically vested power to set down rules as to when a minor child’s word as to her wishes should be taken over her mother’s.

I remain, however, convinced that the best way out of such arguments is for the state to have no place in delivering education whatsoever, then we cannot argue whether the state has a duty to provide different education for different groups of people or not. The differences are not, of course, all religious. Why cannot I demand a Montissori state school? Or a Summerfields type state school?

I am appalled in this country where in so many aspects of life we have what amounts to unlimited choice (such as in food and so on) we still cling to the idea that some kind of single type of education is appropriate for millions of different, individual growing minds. That is down to the state monopolizing it. And only nuances of difference, such as religious denomination, are tolerated – when in fact such issues are probably quite minor in comparison with actual teaching styles and content being tailored to individual learners.

This whole “stat funded faith schools” argument is a red herring that masks the real issues in our education system about choice and bespoke care for each child and their respective differences.

Your reference to sweets trivialises what I think is an important issue.

“not criminal abuse or negligence” – I’m afraid that for me, sending a child to a Catholic school who does not want to go there is not far off either.

Come off it, Jock. Are you really suggesting that it was her parents’ choice rather than hers?

A decent school of course should be holding interviews and should enable that child to state his or her views upfront and then perhaps should counsel the parents as to whether they think it would be an appropriate place to send their daughter. But ultimately, until she is of majority age, her parents are responsible for her and for making decisions about her future. Anything else begins to go along the road to “parental divorce” as has happened in America where the state takes the side of a minor against their parents on grounds that are certainly not criminal abuse or negligence.

I’m not suggesting that the state should make the decision (despite your misinterpretation of my words above). I’m suggesting that children should be given more say.

It would be interesting to know, however, whether said ten year old had had the benefit of the ontological or cosmological arguments for god before making her contrary pronouncement…

Educating: When you tell a child the facts.

What a grim view of education. Probably the best evidence on this thread that education should not be left up to political types. I had hoped we would have moved on from rote learning by now!

I would suggest a rewording – that education is the process of teaching a child to think and have opinions for themselves and to understand how to support those opinions with facts where appropriate. And that happens both at school and at home. The line is again blurred.

And by the way, I’m not sure you watching the same Oliver program as I did. He was *clearly* trying to force people not to feed their kids junk, calling on local fast food joints to be closed and children prevented from leaving site so they could only eat what the school gave them. Of course Redbridge have now taken him up on those ideas and are banning certain food outlets within a quarter mile of schools.