Right, I can finally get back to Steve's larger post now. As what we are about is an exchange of views, not saying one of us is right and the other wrong, I think it would be silly to go through it point by point, then have Steve respond to that point by point, and me do the same until one of us dies of exhaustion. So what I will do is pick out one or two points where I don't think there is actually very much disagreement between us, but would benefit from being fleshed out a bit.

You are unconsciously conflating two very distinct groups of people here under the banner "non-religious." There are those who detest religion of any kind and who would not on principle send a child to a faith school. Then there are the couldn't-care-lessers about religion. I know that church attendances are dire and I don't think that we are exactly overrun by militant atheists either, so let's be outrageous and estimate that the vast majority of people couldn't give a stuff. In that case, I think that very few people come into your category of thinking that faith schools are "a price worth paying". Whether it's a faith school or not doesn't really come into their thinking at all, does it? They want the school with the local good name, and principles don't come into it.

That may be. But what I was really trying to do was say that it is hardly surprising people of a given faith would want to go to a school of that faith, so we cannot regard them as particularly relevant for the popularity stakes. Removing these from consideration gives what I meant by non-religious: everyone who actively chooses the school for reasons other than religion. And, true, a great many don't give a toss at all. I'd be astonished if many people who hated the whole idea of religion actively chose to send their child to a faith school but the world is a weird place sometimes and there can be reasons even for that. And as I said in the bit you found convoluted, we can determine if there is a correlation between faith schools and ones selected because they see them as 'good schools'. That's correlation, not causation.

Successive governments have encouraged a sickening atmosphere of competition by publishing league tables, which are just about the worst measure of whether a school is giving children a worthwhile, happy and edifying experience. You appear to have been suckered into that ethos, unfortunately.

We are getting a heck of a long way from the Pope in America here, I know, but before I can answer that, we need to have covered a bit of preparation. I am confident Steve could write this bit better than me, but here goes.   There are a number of conflicting things a school is supposed to do, and most people do not have a settled view on what a 'good' school is because of that.   Picking three things out of many: (a) 'Educate': That is, if I remember correctly, from the Latin 'educare' which means to draw out. In essence, this is getting the child to develop their innate skills. If they are artistic, help them to be better artists. If they are interested in poetry, to be better poets, or be able to explain poems to others well. It is essentially nothing whatsoever to do with being employable except by coincidence. (b) Be Employable: This is all about grades in the 'right' subjects. Concentrate on getting the child to be able to do things, by rote if necessary, to get a high score on the test. Understanding what it is about, or whether they have a talent for it, is not really that important. Results are what count. (c) Be socialised: Be able to relate to other people, understand how 'the system' works, know what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Again, this is not really much do to with the other two.

Now back to Steve's opening point: league tables.   They are all about the grades: a school is considered highly performing if it has excellent grades even if every child turns out a sociopath and none of the student's actual abilities have been noticed.   The grades are also very susceptible to rote learning rather than understanding. Moving away from schools into Universities, there are now stories every year about students feeling aggrieved that there are questions on papers that were not covered on syllabus. The year before last there was such a complaint from final year economists for a question I reckoned I could get at least half marks on despite having never studied any economics. But what bothered me more was that these graduates hoped to get employed within a month or two. Did they imagine their employer would be happy with the answer "Sorry, can't help you there, it wasn't on my syllabus?".   That's an illustration of why we need to be careful not to be suckered into treating grades too seriously.

But ultimately it means we have this choice. Either we look at the league tables and results and degree level , holding them at arm's length and wearing a nose-peg if we have to. Or we have no guidance at all. And as Steve says league tables, which are education type b, are an extremely unreliable guide to types a and c.