...to be so angry and upset by this unfair school admissions policy?

[SchoolFury]

(Have namechanged as this is quite identifiable)

My DD just turned 4 in September, so is due to start Reception next year. Since Jan this year she has been at a preschool (nursery) which is part of a primary school.

It is our nearest school, and the only one for which we are in the 'priority area'. We actually moved to this flat in 2013 in large part because we loved the school so much

It's a non-denominational, community state primary school. We are in a part of London with a lot of faith schools (Jewish, Catholic, CofE) and we are a mixed Jewish/Christian secular family, so faith schools not for us. It's also got an Ofsted '1' (outstanding) in last inspection, though that is less important than the wonderful atmosphere, the sense of community and the fact that my daughter is really thriving in the preschool.

Under normal admissions rules, my daughter would be very likely to get a place there for Reception based on distance - we live less than 0.2 miles from the school. HOWEVER, last year the school decided to take a 'bulge' class, i.e. take 60 pupils in reception instead of 30. They took from a much wider area - up to 0.5 miles from the school - usually the limit is less than 0.3.

This means that siblings of those in the 'bulge' class will get offered places next year ahead of my daughter, and others in her nursery class who live closer, but do not have siblings at the school. I know personally of two families with one child in current reception, with a sibling a year younger, who will therefore get offered places ahead of my daughter even though they live much further away.

I am really distressed by this. The only other nearby school is a failing school (Ofsted rating 3) - not the end of the world, but we are not even in the priority area for it (very near, but wrong side of the road) so we may not even get a place there . And my daughter is so happy in preschool and has lots of good friends and good relationships with the teachers.

If my daughter had been a week older she would have started reception this year and would have got a place for definite. As it is, she almost certainly won't get a place, instead children living much further away will get priority for no reason other than the 'bulge' class taken this year. I have been told there is no chance of them taking another bulge class this year - so what's the point?

AIBU to feel really upset, resentful towards those who have got in this year, and most of all angry with the school for making this decision, which seems really short sighted and unfair on children in subsequent years?

And actually, I've just reread my post and realised I'd made two inadvertent errors I want to clarify - perils of posting on phone.

Should have said 'eg through compulsorily acquiring the premises of RC schools that didnt' wish to continue providing an education' - not state education, that wasn't my intent. I'd be absolutely fine with any system that enabled the state to take its investment elsewhere and the church set up private (and one would assume subsidised or means-tested) provision for those who did indeed want a faith education.

And I extend that to all faiths - but what had been discussed previously was the Catholic church and its schools.

If that's what prompted the 'fascist' comment then - well, I still don't agree with your definition of fascism, but I hope my intended meaning is more clear.

I don't think educational provision is any less vital infrastructure than a high speed rail line, but that's just me...

In Australia faith schools are fee paying, the RC ones are still funded by the Government, but they receive LESS funding than State schools.

As an example, in the State of Victoria the 2010 figures were: Per student - Catholic Faith schools $7,785 Government funds and £1895 other funds, and State schools: $9,821 Government funds and £887 other funds (I'm assuming general fundraising). (RC schools run at 90% of the cost of state ones)

The government funding to Catholic schools is based on the socio economic statistical background of the students based on the postcode of students attending and the affluence etc of the area they come from based on the previous census, so if they were to only take catholic children from affluent areas they would get far less funding.

The funding formula is quite messed up though, but that's because there's a mix of Commonwealth and State/Territory funding.

The RC high school I went to had less than 50% catholic students in it, and a significant number of children of Vietnamese refugees ('boat people'). A very mixed group. I'm not RC, by the way.

I think a similar system here would be fairer. Sure, send your DC to a faith school, but then you have to contribute towards it.

Make religious indoctrination in state funded schools illegal. People will say "but you can't do that" but of course we can if we choose.

If some churches who own schools want to withdraw them they can of course, but they lose the huge amounts of money they currently make by being a state school. They like to talk as if they are paying for it all, but that's just not true.

If they want to become a private school that's fine as that takes away the same number of kids from the pool we need school places for.

They can't use the school for anything else without permission that we don't need to give so it would be a drain on their resources to leave it empty.

That leaves us with a much simpler allocation system. I'd go with 'nearest to the school'.

As for schools that are so bad no one wants to go there they need to have their head replaced with someone who can do the job.

Umm if State RC or other schools in the UK take only students from more privileged backgrounds, then they also receive less money than another state school which takes more deprived students. This is because of something in the UK called the pupil premium. However there are increasing pressures to make sure that extra money such as pupils premium are spent to advantage poorer etc. children.
That is different to general school funding.
This shows that go to your local school policies can lead to greater inequality, not less.

I'm not quite sure how schools like Oratory can keep a more privileged in take when there are large influxes of poorer Catholic immigrants.

There's pretty clear evidence that faith schools take a more middle-class / privileged intake than their surrounding populations, meaning that the impact of affluence on school performance is further enhanced by faith-based admissions.

I'd add to Anna Vignoles statement that both poor parents and non-religious parents (noting that there will be overlap) have fewer high performing schools available to them. That said there are really interesting questions about why those schools are higher performing and, in fact, how 'high performing' is defined. I don't think an Ofsted rating of 1 is it.

That's why I think a lottery system within a broader nominal catchment is better than a pure distance system. Where I am, the closer you get to a near-guaranteed place at any school based on distance, house prices go up by 100-200K, which is bad for fair admissions and bad for house price inflation. It's even worse near 'good' faith schools with tiny non-faith intakes.

Even after the adjudicator's findings on the Oratory the oversubscription criteria for 2015 are pretty onerous - weekly attendance at Mass from the child and a Catholic parent at the Oratory church for three years prior to application indicates that you must be settled (so not moving around too much), able to attend Mass at regular times with your child (so not working unpredictable shifts or similar, and to either live near the Oratory so that it's your local church, or have been switched on to school admissions enough that, three years prior to application deadlines, you started attending the right church.

And they've made it clear they'll challenge the Adjudicator ruling for 2016 admissions.

Make religious indoctrination in state funded schools illegal

It depends what you mean by that. There are already serious limits around what faith schools can do. In essence teaching around the faith should only take place in RE and collective worship, although I know some overstep the mark. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from RE and collective worship.

And they've made it clear they'll challenge the Adjudicator ruling for 2016 admissions.

I am pretty confident any challenge they mount will fail. I agree with the Adjudicator that their old criteria were blatantly in breach of the Admissions Code. And a challenge could open the way for the Adjudicator to take a look at their revised criteria. If that happens I think there is a good chance the Adjudicator would rule that the revised criteria are still in breach.

Oh, ffs, clam, if you don't get that women are as capable of buying into and passing on sexist tropes as anyone else, then I don't know what to do with you.

And you either didn't read my posts - or if you did read them you didn't understand them - so there seems to be little point in trying to explain how you've got the wrong end of the stick, again.

OP - all I'm saying is that the school seems to have extremely liberal conditions, which you could have fulfilled quite easily (in contrast to RC schools, which sometimes go back to birth). Clearly if you've no interest in the religion, and haven't even had a brit for your son, then it's the wrong school for you, but I don't see that that's the fault of the school, which seems to have bent over to allow entry to families like yours. Where does pretence come in? Who has asked you to believe in anything?

Heartisaspade - yoI was contrasting it with the RC system. You can go to the childrens' service, can't you? I don't think 45 mins of singing "Bim-bom - shabbat shalom" constitutes religious coercion. Most people who attend even the main services at the shuls set out in the admission criteria probably believe little and know even less.

You are now ranting, archery and in danger of derailing the thread. You seem to have some serious issues about not being heard, but that's not my (or our) problem. I don't need you to "do anything" with me, thanks all the same. I made no mention of anything to do with gender - you picked that up from who-knows-where and decided it was relevant. I was actually trying to prevent you from making an arse of yourself on the thread by picking holes in another poster's expertise, but it seems you've managed that all by yourself by deciding it was because he was male and you female, so I'll bow out.

schoolfury I'm sorry you're in this situation, I can see it is very stressful.

However, I've got a friend whose younger child has just failed to get a place at her older dcs' school and it is a total nightmare for them, so I'm afraid I don't think the sibling rule is unfair. Is there no limit on how far away the siblings can live? Here you only get priority if you live within the notional catchment which seems a fairer system to me.

In a single intake primary school, a bulge class would increase the school roll from 210 children to 240 so it really doesn't double the number of siblings for the next intake - in fact I'd have thought the intake immediately following the bulge class is the one likely to be least affected, as really not many families have children in consecutive school years. 2 or 3 years later is when it will really start to bite.

Don't write off the other school just yet - Ofsted rating of 3 does not equal failing, it means there are areas they need to improve - sometimes these can actually be fairly minor or not affect your child as such. The other thing to bear in mind is that they will be under pressure to improve this rating to Good, so there should be lots of work going on to improve things. My dcs have just left a school that was rated 3 and has improved beyond recognition since. You may well find it will be reinspected before your dd starts there anyway. In any case, I would try and keep an open mind.

Hope it all works out for you, there is often a fair bit of waiting list movement after the initial offers - very stressful I know but the first answer may not be final.

You've just proved my point for me, clam.

Is not unfair I ended up with 3 kids at 3 different schools (2nd DC didn't get into same middle as DC1 and DC 3 started 1st) for 3 years it was a nightmare.

Seems a bit as though you are worrying a lot about something that hasn't happened yet?

I thought it was interesting that recently it was proposed that all schools teach about two major religions. There was immediate opposition by religious leaders.

Amusingly one said that kids shouldn't have someone else's religion foisted on them until they were adult and could make up their own minds. I guess he didn't realise what he had said, but he'd presented the perfect argument for ending state funded faith schools.

Back - I just laughed. It sort of sets out what may be their true position, doesn't it? 'I would be quite happy with a system that allowed me to completely exclude children of other faiths from certain state-funded schools, even if we're not oversubscribed. Otherwise my public statement makes no logical sense.'

Is there anyone who honestly doesn't see that this is state-sponsored religious discrimination? To the point where, in some areas, the effect is to deprive children who aren't of the 'right' religion of a local education?

Short of time but going to speed type a quick post...

the effect is to deprive children who aren't of the 'right' religion of a local education?

This I agree with. But I absolutely disagree with your proposal for solving it. Its not an easy one to fix. The powers that be have made a pact with the devil (no pun intended) government gets money, buildings etc. Schools get their own admissions etc

The oratory is one example which is in no way representative of the vast amounts of RC schools in this country (I'm not sure why this thread has become so RC focused, interesting)

All state faith schools teach the National curriculum including education about other faiths.

They are obliged to take children from outside their faith if they have places available. My experience is that they do, all the time. They have to!

My friends children attend a school with only white children. Its a state school, its just the (rural) area they live in.

Mine attend a very mixed RC school. I don't recognise the descriptions people have made of some faith schools and their admissions (here on this thread). Some of them sound very exclusive. I find it hard to believe they're legal and if it affected me I wouldn't hesitate to find the correct channels to challenge them.

There are lots of personal experiences cited here (including my own, I know!) which are interesting but its also good to hear from someone like PRH who has a bigger overview annie, not so personal, not better, just more general. I honestly think that's all that was meant by the earlier post. Lets not derail an interesting discussion by getting hooked up on that!

"My daughter has come home from nursery today really excited to have learned about Eid from one of the Muslim mums. Last week I went in to talk to them about Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year for those who don't know). i love that, I think faith schools are divisive and awful. " That happens at my local C of E school!

Building new Schools is not an option in London and the SE of England, there isn't the land available!

if you weren't all so keen on derailing by telling me not to derail, then we'd save a lot of time.

Anyway, I think that the compulsory purchase of faith schools would be nigh-on unworkable, not least because it's far from clear on who owns what, when you take into account running costs, rising property values, etc. An essential first step would be the mother of all accounting sessions, attempting to unpick existing ownership, who owns what land, who paid for what capital costs, who has paid for running costs and maintainance over the years, who thus has ownership of property value increases, etc etc etc. I don't know if it is even possible or how much it would cost to do.

(I saw upthread that compulsory purchase of faith assets was implied to be "facist" by another poster, which is ridiculous. Compulsory purchase of faith property isn't particularly unusual, and often for mundane things like development.)

The simplest and cheapest way would be to let the faith schools continue as is (although that pains me), but to forbid any school which takes money from the state to discriminate for or against any child on the basis of faith. Some schools would go private, but I bet most couldn't or wouldn't.

Of course, the ones that did withdraw might usefully be asked to repay any capital costs paid for by the taxpayer in the last ten years or so.

Sadly, none of this is likely anytime soon, and in the meantime, large numbers of children are mixing only with children of their own particular worldview, which is not healthy either for them as individuals or for society as a whole.

mummytime, with the increasing number of children needing places, not building schools is not an option. I've seen some quite imaginative solutions to lack of space in London - one Academy, for example, on a tiny plot, which has a round, tall building in the middle, and a running track which goes around the building - I thought that was genius!

Other schools have replaced sprawling low-rise classroom buildings with high-rise ones, just to fit everyone in.

I think the priority should always be priority/catchment/distance first, before siblings - especially when families have since oved out of the area.

In Sheffield it is:

1. LAC/Statement with named school
2. siblings within catchment
3. catchment
4. siblings outside of catchment
5. outside of catchment

This seems far fairer than having 3 and 4 swapped.

For secondary I don't think siblings should come into it at all though.

I find the objection to faith schools rather a middle class hypocrisy.

The reason (most) people want their children to go to them is because they are good schools, not because they are faith schools. The reasons hey object to the faith element, is that their children are excluded from them.

However, few middle class parents object to the distance rules for admission. This is because their children would be advantaged by this criteria and get in, because they live in the nice, expensive areas around the good schools.

So they object to the rules which dont benefit them and keep quiet about the rules that do benefit them.

In terms of fairness and equal access to good schools, the distance rules are probably more discriminatory than the faith rules, because there are so many more non-faith schools. The poor person who does not live near to the good school in the middle class neighbourhood has no chance of getting in there. They are stuck with the less good school, which they meet the distance criteria of.

The only 'fair' approach I can see is lotteries for all schools. So, no Church schools and no distance criteria either. I think a sibling rule does need to apply, but is should have some kind of distance criteria attached to it too, as some schools do now....ie siblings have priority as long as they live within a certain distance.

I think the fact that people get their knickers in a twist about Church schools is mostly because they feel outraged that there is a system of entry criteria which they do t have any control over. They can move house to ensure they get the 'right' school,so feel a sense of control. But what about all those who cannot afford to do that and so have no choice........surely that is a greater evil than the presence of Church schools (which I also disagree with)

Top solution is for all schools to be good. That means it won't matter what your religion is or how rich you are.
Until then,the only 'fair' solution to me seems lotteries. Totally unpopular I know,as removes any sense of control from the middle classes and can involve longer journeys, however it still seems fairer to me.