Faith Schools And Racial Segregation?

And, Talkinpeace, each and every one raises the moral high ground and sets a precedent for others that follow.

A third one is mentioned in the article (opened 2011).

I take your point, but the numbers of new CE schools being established are pretty small, so in that context three schools is significant, and a positive trend.

"two new schools"
that is not my definition of many

And, Talkinpeace, here's a Telegraph article on the topic: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10205477/No-places-for-churchgoers-in-newly-opened-faith-schools.html

define "many"

An optimistic, encouraging and vague synonym for "some"

Seriously though, quoting these FAQs:

"The Church of England is committed to reserving at least 25 per cent of places in new Church of England schools for pupils from the local neighbourhood regardless of faith background or none. In Free schools and new academies this figure rises to 50 per cent but in practice most new Church of England schools reserve less than 50 per cent for Christian applicants."

As an illustration, a new CE free school in my area is 100% open.

i live in south woodford (east london). there is a very good catholic school there that everyone wants to go to (not me mind'...). the school is REALLY strict about the criteria to get in (ie have to have been a regular church goes for years, etc). my dd wouldn't be able to get in even if i wanted her to go there. the jewish school has taken non jews for quite a while now. it is apparently a really good school although again, i didn't want dd to go there either....i wanted her to go to a school with a good mix although funnily enough it does now appear to have a good mix but i haven't brought her up as a practising jew (she is half christian too). i know/have known of a few kids over the years who go/went to the jewish school. it seems it teaches 'loads of jewish stuff' etc. just can't imagine people from other faiths sitting through it all. even as a jew i know i wouldn't want to sit through it all . i used to take dd to a jewish playgroup which was pretty hard going but they had lovely biscuits constantly on the go (plus tbh it did have a nice atmosphere, aside from the jewish preaching bit)

yes, many faith schools are opening up voluntarily
define "many"
none that I've seen outside the North Circular

Wintertimeisfun, yes, many faith schools are opening up voluntarily. The Coalition Agreement pledged to facilitate inclusive admissions in faith schools (see page 29). New faith academies are limited to a maximum of 50% of places reserved for faith applicants, and some have gone much further and are completely open.

As someone else mentioned earlier, the CE Diocese of London is encouraging all of its schools to open up, but many of them are ignoring the policy (each VA school is its own admissions authority, so they don't have to follow direction from the Diocese).

In contrast, the Catholic Education Service is vehemently resisting open admissions.

there is a jewish school near where i live that nolonger has only jewish kids, good mix there. apparently they still teach all jewish stuff/do all the holidays. no idea how the kids there feel about 'celebrating' all the jewish holidays. fwiw i am a jew and wouldn't much care about acknowledging/taking part in the jewish holidays...i do like the idea however of people all mixing and (hopefully) getting along nicely, just the way it should be

Angel nobody on this thread is banging on about getting rid of faith schools - just opening up their admissions so they can't be quite so selective about who they let through the door.

Surely the answer is to open more schools (not to bang on about getting rid of faith school)?

Nearthe On the whole parents want good local schools. Why else against all social trends and census information about people who profess faith are the pews full at certain churches that are in Parishes that are served by good exclusive church schools? Fifteen years ago in my borough a fair few of the church schools were undersubscribed and didn't perform particularly brilliantly either, but now that the pressure on places is increasing parents are doing whatever they can do to avoid being the ones without a school place (and I mean anything I am quite sure if juggling was required they would be on to it). And the community primaries and especially secondaries are still more popular than a lot of the faith schools, they have expanded but catchments continue to shrink.

As the London diocese have acknowledged it isn't even particularly healthy for a church congregation. I have several devout friends who get very annoyed at the parents who strategically attend their churches but do not take any consistent and constructive long term part in Parish Life and charitable activities. They want their schools to do the charitable work they were established to do, to educate the children of their community, and especially the disadvantaged, not have 4 by 4s choking up the roads around the school at drop off and pick up.

When I drove past a local church school recently it had a huge banner up outside saying "Park your cars in neighbouring roads, the walk will do you good and the area around the school will be safer for all our children" It is just a ten minute walk from as area of the borough where parents get offered no school place or one in a school that is a 45 minute walk / a bus ride away, a journey so difficult with a reception child and siblings that parents end up keeping their children at home. Where is the sense, and Christianity, in that?

"... and everyone seems to shut up about them"

Really? Not on Mumsnet they don't

"I wish there was a movement to ban private education and grammar schools. You'd soon see educational standards shooting up, once the ruling classes have to use state, comprehensive education."

I can't see any of them being banned in the foreseeable future, which is all the more reason why their admissions need to be fair.

The most effective way to reduce the impact of the private sector is to improve quality across the board in the state sector. There's no point in paying for private if your child can get the same grades at the local comp, especially if they're likely to be happier at the local comp. Private schools thrive where people are dissatisfied with their local state schools.

Grammar schools should prioritise children on Free School Meals. It looks like many of them are going down that path voluntarily, which sounds promising.

Faith schools need to open up their admissions. Not everyone wants to go to a faith school, but those that do should be able to access them without having to jump through competitive worshiping hoops to prove their worthiness.

missinglalaland I understood that the reason for the baptisms within a year was to cut out the 'sharp elbowed' who were just baptising just to get into a school - so depriving all of the African, Eastern European, travellers kids a place.

icecreamsoup- I wish there was a movement to ban private education and grammar schools. You'd soon see educational standards shooting up, once the ruling classes have to use state, comprehensive education.

Once private and grammars gone, then let's ban faith schools.

It's just find it particularly irksome that faith schools, which do provide a stepping stone to social mobility for many are under fire, when the real causes of educational inequality rumble on, and everyone seems to shut up about them.

"Church schools are over subscribed because parents like them .... The answer ... is to open more church schools"

No, there's a step missing in that logic, and it's important.

Church schools are oversubscribed (in some areas) because they are successful. Parents like successful schools because they are successful. In many cases, the fact that they are church schools is much less relevant to their popularity than you suggest.

The answer is to create more successful schools, not necessarily more church schools. Church schools aren't guaranteed to be successful. It's just that they currently have the odds of success stacked in their favour because of their selective admissions policies.

So, my version of your solution would be ......

1. Open up the admissions of Church Schools so that they serve their local communities more evenly.
2. Then allow successful schools to expand, or bodies that are responsible for successful schools (including, but not limited to churches) to create more of them.

A few years back, I remember a Jewish secondary school in North London making the news because it would only accept children with mothers who were born Jewish themselves. It was effectively excluding children of Jewish converts. This wasn't allowed because it was deemed selection by race rather than faith.

The 6 month baptism rule isn't exactly same. But ithas similarly features. It would effectively exclude converts and make Catholicism a birth right.

Or perhaps, to use the old cliche, they could open a school that prioritised the children of parents who can juggle. It's likely to achieve results just as good as those of the local church schools, given that it will be full of children with parents who are willing and able to jump through the required hoops.

I think everybody looks at this from the wrong angle. Church schools are over subscribed because parents like them and the results they get. The answer isn't to ban the ones we have or to make them admit children from non practicing families. The answer (and yes I'm staring hard at you: London Diocesan Board of Education) is to open more church schools in areas where the existing ones are already over subscribed. For example Putney could easily absorb another church primary and it might just have the effect of making a badly performing LEA school close; H&F and Westminster could open another secondary each to compete with Greycoat and LMS and preferably something for the boys too. I'm not going to comment about Wandsworth bearing in mind the extent to which it screwed up its still relatively new church school by appointing a wholly inappropriate head and joining the race to the bottom in the early years.

sashh, yes, the relevant section of canon law just says "Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it".

That isn't specific enough to be compliant with the admissions code, so RC schools wanting to use strict baptism criteria have to set their own time boundaries. It is 6 months in the case of the London Oratory.

I am angry about the situation but there is nothing I can do.

You can call it what it is, racism.

It has been traditional in England to baptise early, my brother was born 30th November and baptised before Christmas.

But it has been tradition in Eastern Europe and some other countries to not baptise before 1 year.

I was not aware of the canon law of 'weeks' but there is no definition of how long 'weeks' is. I have attempted to look up the canon law (thanks prh47bridge for pointing that out) but age 1 is '52 weeks', is that really different to '26 weeks'?

Apologies for messing up the bolding

Prh47bridge yes,canon law is clear, what is not clear is how and when the requirement is relaxed in terms of admissions. As is implicit in the circumstances listed in the Oratory's new admissions policy as highlighted by icecream"'s post clearly the schools do entertain cases where that might not have happened but there is nothing set out for parents as to what consistent and fair criteria are used, and the immigrant communities in particular who may not meet the criteria for the reasons set out by jacketpotato are rife with rumour about what may or may not get a place, and as rightly highlighted by icecream* they intimidate "not Catholic enough" candidates. I don't agree with children being excluded by schools because of their parents faith but as someone raised within Catholic culture myself, and married to someone from a very privileged Catholic education / background, I find it even more unacceptable that parents get nods and winks from their priests (and we have personal experience) about their children's chances of a place, and that judgements are made about whether they are Catholic enough which appear lacking in cultural sensitivity. A system which already, as we have discussed, discriminates against those without the resources and knowledge to meet the criteria, is adding a layer of opaqueness to cement privilege. Hopefully it will be challenged.

The London Oratory has published its new admissions policy, following removal of the service criterion. It's heavily geared towards proving compliance with Canon Law.

I find it interesting that the Religious Inquiry Form that is used to provide the evidence, not only asks for the evidence, but also asks candidates to give reasons for why they haven't complied. Surely that goes way beyond what is necessary, and only serves to intimate "weaker" candidates!?

Example:

"Oversubscription criterion 3: The extent to which the candidate fulfils the Church’s requirements regarding Baptism:
Unless there is good reason, ideally Baptism must occur within six months of birth. Please give reasons if Baptism was not received at the appropriate age. Please attach any supporting documentation that will verify your claim. (Use additional sheets if necessary and attach them to this form). ..... Examples of “good reason” are a death or serious illness in the family at time Baptism was planned, residence in a country where access to priest is not possible or limited, parish circumstances dictating timing of Baptism classes for parents"

icecreamsoup ... I suppose I meant 'going about' in terms of getting more fairness in education, and more under-privileged kids into good school.

Primary school not up there, so I can't comment on my child's school.