Didn’t get into any choices, placed into Catholic School - help

This thread seems to have been taken over by the verbal diarrhoea mob.

Unfollow

@ParentOfOne think what you want. It isn’t about dodging questions. It is about not engaging with someone who repeatedly misrepresents and lies about what I post. I don’t care what you think.

Where have I posted I don’t care what the Sutton Trust report said? Please quote exactly where rather than making up where.

I didn’t say statistics on EAL negate FSM/Ever 6 (the only other data I mentioned) data. I was merely pointing out there is more to diversity than (part of - FSM/Ever 6 data isn’t the whole story because some cultures and other cohorts are less likely to apply for FSM even if eligible) socio-economic status.

If something is unfair and wrong, it remains so regardless of cost.

My point was if you object specifically on the point of to the taxpayer, then it is hypocritical because the cost will increase if abolishing all faith schools. My point wasn’t about objecting for other reasons such as unfairness or perceiving it as wrong.

I am not saying discrimination which doesn’t kill is fine. I am saying they aren’t comparable because they aren’t. Comparing the two undermines your argument, IMO.

PS - apologies for typos & spelling errors. Im terrible at typing on my phone & too late to edit.

@KeepItSpinning Until you stop lying and making things up I will not be replying to you further.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not think (for now) that you are just making up excuses to dodge inconvenient questions.

I have not said I “don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.”

Then I do not understand. Can you explain?
If you care about social selection discrimination, you should be enraged by the Sutton Trust report. Why are you not?
You have shown data on other metrics, which do not negate the point on social selection.

Nor did I say I “want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations
Again, then I do not understand. If something is unfair and wrong, it remains so regardless of cost.

No-one is going to die by not being able to access a faith school.

Again, the inconvenient question is: where do you accept discrimination, where do you not, and why?
Surely you are not implying that any discrimination which doesn't kill the victim is fine?
I do not want to put words in your mouth, so I am asking you: if you didn't mean that, what did you mean and why?

Although I agree that perhaps this discussion should move onto a new thread as Im really pleased to hear thst @morozova89 has now got her preferred school choice, I would like to offer @ParentOfOne a bit of support. Although I dont agree with all the points made, I do also feel that religious based selection in state schools is problematic
Voluntary aided (VA) state schools are able to prioritise children who engage in religious practices or whose parents engage in religous practices. This means that children whose famîies do not engage in religous practices are discriminated against and have less chance of attending. You might suggest this doesn't matter. Why would they want to attend a school with a religous character? The point is that school choice is not based on a single factor. Parents have to weigh up everything (proximity, curriculum offer, behaviour policy, sports facilities etc.) Non-religous parents may be attracted by other features of the school. Furthermore, all state schools are supposed engage in daily acts of collective worship so this is present in most schools. You dont necessarily avoid this by choosing a non-VA school. A VA school could for example be the only school in walking distance.
People justify this religous discrimination by saying that the religious community pays for the school so they should be able to prioritise children of their faith. The problem with this is that typically general taxation pays 100% of the running costs and 90% of the capital costs. Only 10% of capital costs come from the religious community. It is problematic that the religous community gets to control the admission policy fully, but the state pays the vast majority of ongoing costs. Furthermore, some schools not only prioritise children of their own faith, but also children of other faiths. Take a look at some Liverpool schools admissions policies for examples of this. Non-religous parents are often the lowest priority.
This is the most central issue - the state is paying most ongoing costs, but non-religous families have reduced choices of state schools because they have less chance of admission to religous VA schools.
There are also additional problematic issues.
Some VA schools suggest that the religous character permeates school life and goes beyond daily acts of religous worship (from which a child can be withdrawn). Despite this the LA can discharge their respinsibility to provide education by offering a non-religous parent such a school. It seems unfair thst schools can prioritise religous applicants, but parents have no right to be offered a community school without a strong religous ethos. This was the original issue raised by the thread.

Furthermore, you cant assess 'faith' directly or objectively. This means that admissions criteria are based on engagement with religous rites (e. g infant baptism) or activities/services (e. g regular church attendance). Those with a strong faith may engage in these as a matter of course. However, others with knowledge of the requirements and a lack of barriers may do so in order to increase the possibility of accessing the school. A two parent family working 9-5 weekday jobs may find it relatively easy for one parent to attend church on a fortnightly basis even if they have no religous convictions. A single parent working weekend shifts with a couple of toddlers may find it more challenging. This leads to a situation where VA schools often have lower rates of lower income families than neighbouring community schools. Low income famîies aren't excluded, but requirements to provide additional evidence tends to deter those in already challenging circumstances.
I understand why some parents support religous selection, but there are also arguments why it is problematic.

You are lying. I have not said I “don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.” Nor did I say I “want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations.” Until you stop lying and making things up I will not be replying to you further.

No-one is going to die by not being able to access a faith school.

@KeepItSpinning Hospitals are different because it can be a matter of life and death. Faith schools aren’t.

I do not follow. I do not want to put words in your mouth, so I am asking you what you mean.

Do you mean that life and death services shouldn't discriminate, but other services can discriminate?
Did you mean this? Did you mean something else?

The question is very banal: which services should be allowed to discriminate and why?
My answer is: none.
Yours?

I haven’t said that at all. Stop lying.

I am not lying at all. I have simply stated that you are unable to disprove the data on social selection which the Sutton Trust used for its analysis.

They are only irrelevant in your opinion. They are no less relevant than your hospital and slavery points.

Hospitals are different because it can be a matter of life and death. Faith schools aren’t.

Yes, the comparison to slavery costs is ridiculous. It isn’t the same.

You want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations. I do not.

No, I don’t. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of objecting based the cost to the tax payer when those costs to the tax payer would increase if all faith schools were abolished.

I was the first to mention cost.

I know you were! That was my whole point. I have read what you have written. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I haven’t read or understood what you have posted.

A type of discrimination doesn't become any more acceptable just because... other types of discriminations exist elsewhere!!

I didn’t say it did. Try reading what is actually written rather than making it up.

That's a completely different point.

No it isn’t. I didn’t say it was right either, but it is accepted by the general population.

And? So what?

The point was related to the point about where else discrimination of state services is accepted by wider society. The general population accepts discrimination in state schools based on disability.

Again, I haven’t confirmed anything.

All you can say with the data you have shown is to say that you don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.

I haven’t said that at all. Stop lying.

@KeepItSpinning
Disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean bad faith, but mentioning irrelevant counter-arguments does.

Hospitals aren’t the same as schools, yet you repeating mention them.

Yet no one has been willing to explain why.
Many countries have it as a key written Constitutional principle that citizens / residents should not be discriminated based on protected characteristics, and that the state must provide services based on principles of fairness and equality, without discriminating.

I wholeheartedly agree with this principle. If you agree with it for hospitals but not for schools, could you please explain why?

It is nothing like slavery. Don’t be ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous at all. I am not saying that religious education is like slavery. I am saying that opposing getting rid of discrimination in state-funded schools because it would cost too much is like opposing the abolition of slavery because it would have cost too much.
You want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations. I do not.

Don't you forget that arguments of this kind have historically been used against activists fighting any kind of discrimination. The very same argument (it would cost too much) was used to justify women getting paid less than men for the same job. Bet you have a different opinion on that, right?

You want all faith schools abolished because you resent tax payers money being spent on it, yet you don’t understand abolishing all faith schools will increase costs to the tax payer.

Read what I had written. I was the first to mention cost. Quite banally, if principles of fairness and equality had to be subjected to cost considerations, we would still have slavery and it would still be legal to pay women less for the same job.
Not to mention that, if we can expropriate land for a train track, we can expropriate it for something even more important, like schools.

Some schools discriminate against disabled pupils &/or disabled parents. It isn’t only some outstanding schools.

Yes. I know. I have bee very vocal about it on here. And? So what? I don't follow.

A type of discrimination doesn't become any more acceptable just because... other types of discriminations exist elsewhere!!

I was pointing out “most of the population” “accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic” “without second thought”.

That's a completely different point. If you want to say that there would be little political support among the general population for abolishing this discrimination, sadly I agree. But this doesn't make it right.

I didn’t confirm anything, but you carry on saying I have posted something I haven’t.

You have confirmed that you are unable to disprove the data of the Sutton trust on how socially selective faith schools tend to be.
All you can say with the data you have shown is to say that you don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.
Which reminds me of the companies hiring rich African kids who spent hundreds of thousands of £ to study in the UK and bragging about their diversity, while ignoring that kids from poorer backgrounds, regardless of race, remain hugely underrepresented in their ranks.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are posting in bad faith.

Hospitals aren’t the same as schools, yet you repeating mention them. If you don’t think single sex schools are the same because males don’t have access to female schools and vice versa, then your point about hospitals is also irrelevant because, just like schools, there isn’t a second option to access either.

It is nothing like slavery. Don’t be ridiculous.

You want all faith schools abolished because you resent tax payers money being spent on it, yet you don’t understand abolishing all faith schools will increase costs to the tax payer.

So despite wanting to abolish all faith schools, you don’t actually understand how they all work. The statistics about NMSS and how many have a religious character &/or religious ethos are all available on the government’s website if you actually wanted to understand.

I don't follow. Please elaborate.

Some schools discriminate against disabled pupils &/or disabled parents. It isn’t only some outstanding schools.

Surely you are not implying that discriminating school admissions based on faith is OK because... there is discrimination elsewhere??? Surely you cannot possibly be implying this, can you??

That isn’t what I said. At all. Please stop implying I have said something I haven’t. I was pointing out “most of the population” “accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic” “without second thought”. I was pointing out is no uproar from the general population when disabled people are discriminated against by state services in response to your question.

Thank you for confirming my point and for confirming that the data on how socially selective fait schools tend to be remains true.

I didn’t confirm anything, but you carry on saying I have posted something I haven’t.

@KeepItSpinning
Right, so back to my question, does your objection extend to SS? Because scrapping faith schools would result in an increased cost to taxpayers payers.

I do not know how many NMSS there are, nor how many of those are in any way linked to churches, nor how many have admission policies which discriminate based on faith.
If you are familiar with the topic, maybe you can help me understand the points above?

Regardless, I do not understand your logic.

If certain schools discriminate based on protected characteristics, we cannot say: "oh, yes, discrimination ain't ideal, but, you know, rectifying it would cost too much money". That's the kind of argument of those who didn't want to abolish slavery because compensating slaveowners would have been too expensive!!!

A cursory look at the policies of this school in Liverpool "for sensory impairment and other needs" seems to suggest that admissions are based on an assessment of the children's needs, and that there is no discrimination based on faith. I have no idea how representative this is. https://www.stvin.com/copy-of-curriculum

Do you also object to state schools who discriminate based on other protected characteristics. For example, single sex schools?

This is truly a bad faith argument. You know very well that it's not the same.
I am no fan of single sex schools (most countries have largely got rid of them) but that's irrelevant. They lead to discrimination only if in an area there are many girl schools and no boy schools, or viceversa, because the girls would have access to both co-d and girls only schools, while the boys only the co-ed.

Not comparable to faith schools, because families of a given faith have access to both non-faith and faith-schools, while families of other faiths or no faith only to the latter. Yet both are funded by taxpayers. Surely you can see the difference?

Or schools who discriminate based on disability?

I don't follow. Please elaborate.
I know very well that some of the "outstanding" state schools go to great lengths to discourage or manage out children with disabilities. I have been very vocal on here about it.

Disability is a protected characteristic. State services regularly discriminate against disabled people. Most of the population accept this without a second thought.

I genuinely struggle to follow you. Surely you are not implying that discriminating school admissions based on faith is OK because... there is discrimination elsewhere??? Surely you cannot possibly be implying this, can you??

As someone else pointed out, schools are not the same as hospitals.
Why? Why would you not accept a hospital discriminating based on faith, but you accept schools doing that? Why?

Not all the posts mentioned social-economic diversity in particular. Some must mentioned diversity. I was merely pointing out when considering diversity, there is more to be considered than social-economics.

Thank you for confirming my point and for confirming that the data on how socially selective fait schools tend to be remains true.

I am not familiar with the world of NMSS. What do you mean, exactly?

NMSS are non-maintained special schools. A particular type of SS.

I do not object to religious schools.
I object to religious schools being funded with everyone's tax money, because I object to everyone's tax money funding a service which discriminates based on protected characteristics.

Right, so back to my question, does your objection extend to SS? Because scrapping faith schools would result in an increased cost to taxpayers payers.

Do you also object to state schools who discriminate based on other protected characteristics. For example, single sex schools? Or schools who discriminate based on disability?

Tell me, did you i) fail to appreciate the difference or ii) did you understand the difference but intentionally tried to mislead with a bad faith argument?

Neither. Not all the posts mentioned social-economic diversity in particular. Some must mentioned diversity. I was merely pointing out when considering diversity, there is more to be considered than social-economics.

Can you answer the question of where else you would accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic?

Disability is a protected characteristic. State services regularly discriminate against disabled people. Most of the population accept this without a second thought.

Would you accept a hospital giving priority to Christians, one to atheists, one to Muslims, etc? Can you answer, please?

As someone else pointed out, schools are not the same as hospitals.

@KeepItSpinning Ca you answer the question of where else you would accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic? Would you accept a hospital giving priority to Christians, one to atheists, one to Muslims, etc? Can you answer, please?

I do not object to religious schools.
I object to religious schools being funded with everyone's tax money, because I object to everyone's tax money funding a service which discriminates based on protected characteristics.

Tell me, did you i) fail to appreciate the difference or ii) did you understand the difference but intentionally tried to mislead with a bad faith argument?

I am not familiar with the world of NMSS. What do you mean, exactly?

@Hereforthecommentz You argued a point and then facts were presented and instead of accepting it you are still making things up.

No. I have presented research and studies by the Sutton Trust and other organisations which back up my claims.
You have presented other stats on other metrics which do not dispute my argument nor my data.
Your failure to comprehend the difference is astonishing.

The Sutton Trust focused on free school meals as a proxy for social status. You cannot dispute those stats, so you have presented others, failing to appreciate the difference between ethnic diversity and socio-economic diversity.

A parent has the right to send their child to a catholic school if they want to

Strawman argument which can be explained only with poor text comprehension skills or utter bad faith. Which of the two is it?

Of course a parent has the right to send their children to a faith school.

That is not the point. The point is why on Earth should everyone's taxes be used to fund a crucial service like education which discriminates based on a protected characteristic.

I have asked you: in which other case would you accept the state discriminating based on protected characteristics? Would you accept a hospital which prioritises based on religion? A fire brigade which prioritises based on political affiliation?

Why did you dodge the question? Why??

I don't understand why you are so angry, are you jealous of our children? It's bizarre you don't like these schools and don't send your child there so why does it bother you so much

Because, unlike you, I have a moral compass and I think that crucial state services funded by everyone's taxes should not discriminate based on protected characteristics.

Like I said, I would oppose with the same vehemence a hypothetical school which prioritised children of atheists. Whether I agree with the view on which the discrimination is based is irrelevant: there should be no such discrimination. Failure to comprehend such a banal concept can only point to some kind of cognitive deficit.

It's clear you are a Christianaphobe hiding behind fake news and you've been proven wrong.

So opposing any kind of discrimination makes me a Christianopohobe????
I have not been proven wrong because the stats I have quoted were factually correct. The Sutton Trust based its research on publicly available data on free school meals and other metrics, which you have NOT disproven.

Also, there’s a memory of when Catholics were marginalised in this country. So they do have a strong focus on helping the poor and the outsider.”

If that were the case, then the London Oratory's policy of giving priority to families helping with flower arranging and with financial donations should have been denounced as an abomination contrary to Catholic values by the Catholic community itself. I do not remember this being the case. Maybe my recollection is wrong. Can you please point me to examples of such condemnation? Thank you.

@ParentOfOne if you object to schools being religious and want them abolished, does that extend to special/specialist schools, particularly NMSS? If so, do you realise that will result in increased costs to the state because more will be placed in the independent sector?

You are repeating the same points and ignoring the actual facts. There is no getting through to you. Read the damn post the facts are there! Catholic schools are more diverse ethnically and socially. Your ignorance is astounding. You argued a point and then facts were presented and instead of accepting it you are still making things up. A parent has the right to send their child to a catholic school if they want to. My other half came from a council estate like many other christians and went to one but people's lived experiences mean nothing apparently but you can quote two schools over and over. It does not cost you more taxes to send a child there than it does to a secular school. Most people in this country do not want to, like the op, because they aren't Christians. I don't understand why you are so angry, are you jealous of our children? It's bizarre you don't like these schools and don't send your child there so why does it bother you so much. It's clear you are a Christianaphobe hiding behind fake news and you've been proven wrong.

@Hereforthecommentz No. just no.

• An environment can be ethnically and culturally diverse, while still remaining socially selective. The London Oratory in Chelsea is a perfect example. Another example: I have seen companies where the intake of new graduates was diverse from an ethnic standpoint but not from a social one; I vividly remember multiple juniors who were citizens of African countries and who had studied in the UK. Judging from their clothes and accessories, they were not on scholarships. The company in question was bragging about its diversity, but the truth is they were hiring rich kids from poor countries, they were not hiring non-white kids from council flats in run-down estates. If you come from a poor country yet afford to spend £30-40k per year in tuition fees + living cost, you are in the top 0.1% of that country.
• Drill down, and you will probably see that the most academically successful faith schools tend to be the more socially selective ones. The tale of two cities that emerges comparing the London Oratory with St John Bosco College 2 kms south is not an isolated case. So faith schools stress the academic results of its more socially selective schools when they want to brag about academic performance, and to stress the diversity of the worse-performing often undersubscribed but more diverse schools when they want to brag about diversity
• Again, read what the Sutton Trust (which, unlike Humanists UK and the National Secular Society, is not a partisan organisation) has to say: https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/selective-comprehensives-2024/

Lastly, even if faith schools were more successful academically (they are not) and/or they were more diverse and inclusive (they are not), the fact remains that everyone's taxes are being used to finance a crucial service like education which discriminates based on a protected characteristic.

Again, we would not accept a hospital or police force or fire brigade discriminating like this. Why we accept it with schools beggars belief.

The two most common objections are utter bs:

• It is bs that the system must carry on because the land belongs to the Church. it would be like saying that we should have never abolished slavery because we couldn't afford to compensate slaveowners.
• It is bs that the churches contributing to part of the costs justifies this abomination. Again: would we accept a hospital that discriminates based on faith or political affiliation, because a certain group contributes to part of the costs?

If you disagree, could you please explain what, in your view, other than moral turpitude and/or mere self-interest, makes you think that using everyone's tax money for this kind of discrimination (which would be unconstitutional in many countries) is justified?

From TES

@ParentOfOne

'More than one in three pupils attending Catholic schools come from an ethnic-minority background, new figures reveal.
And in London the proportion rises to seven out of 10, according to data from the Catholic Education Service (CES).
Nationally, 37 per cent of pupils at Catholic schools come from a minority background, compared with 30 per cent of pupils in all English state schools.
Pupils attending Catholic secondary schools are also more likely to be from disadvantaged families than children at other schools. More than 18 per cent of pupils at Catholic secondaries come from families who are among the lowest 20 per cent of earners in the country. Nationally, 14 per cent of pupils come from similar homes.
Paul Barber, director of the CES, was unsurprised by this. “The Catholic community in this country is very diverse,” he said. “One of the challenges is that often those very diverse communities come from poorer, more disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Professor Linda Woodhead, a sociologist at Lancaster University, pointed out that the single biggest religious migration to Britain at the moment is Christian - and, specifically, Catholic.
“Historically, the Catholic Church has largely been a church of migrants and the disadvantaged,” she said. “They had to climb their way into English society through education. Also, there’s a memory of when Catholics were marginalised in this country. So they do have a strong focus on helping the poor and the outsider.”
In London, 71 per cent of Catholic-school pupils come from a minority background, compared with 60 per cent in all state schools across the capital. The CES figures also show that one in five black children in London attends a Catholic school'

Delighted now that you don’t have to endure the Catholic school. I hope the place goes to a child who appreciates it.

I'm not religious and didn't choose faith schools for my kids, who were are nearly grown up now. I'm still a governor at a community school and how to deal with falling rolls though growing special needs, and the financial impact of that, is a constant issue. Schools have to plan well ahead to match places and therefore staffing to likely numbers of students, for budgetary reasons. Large numbers of unfilled places are not sustainable.

My understanding is that schools in my area and in other parts of London have been hit by demographic change, for a number of reasons including housing unaffordability and Brexit. Schools that were previously very popular and oversubscribed are affected too. If anything, some of the local Catholic schools, even those with a good reputation etc, are worse affected by some of these demographic changes than nearby non-faith schools. It's not a reflection of those schools' quality.

That said, I am pleased to see that OP's son has a place at the wanted school, and with his friends from primary school.

Oh yes. I think the OP is quite misleading then as it says different faith rather than atheist!

OP has updated to say they have been given their first choice now – looks as tho the LA made an error and has corrected it.

You can appeal the first choice and also ask to be on its waiting list.
you can also probably opt out of a lot of the Catholic stuff at school too

Oh that’s fantastic OP!!

FANTASTIC!

Really pleased for you @morozova89 !

Well done for questioning, investigating and following up with the LA.