...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?

waves Hi, Wombat. I'm thoroughly middle class and think everything you've suggested is entirely sensible.

I'd also like to see more schools built so that all kids are able to go to a local primary, more or less. 200 kids in our borough are sent elsewhere, and more have long journeys within the borough due to distorted catchments.

It is just a little bit possible to be both middle class and champion fairness for everyone.

One reason I object to faith admissions is precisely because they do disproportionately benefit the middle classes. And I felt that way even before it became clear I had a child who has little chance of getting into a local school unless we either pay or pray, because of the distorting effect of faith selections.

I'm not wedded to compulsory acquisition if it'd be cheaper to build a new school if any religious group decided it didn't want to stop religious discrimination. I think what to do about schools that chose not to continue educational provision if they weren't allowed to discriminate would need a hell of a lot of working out. Not a reason not to pursue fairer admissions, though.

Still interested in why I'm fascist, though. Quite an accusation to leave hanging there.

And it's entirely possible to build schools - there's plenty of brownfield land. A council care home just closed near us, the land would be perfectly placed for a new school, for which the local MP is campaigning.

Despite promising to build more schools, the council would prefer to sell this for housing, increasing pressure on school places, while waiting for free schools to magically pop up.

ChocolateWombat - I, too, think lotteries within a wider area than the current cachements, but still reasonably local, a good idea. Cuts the house-price thing off at the knees, and helps fill in those no-persons-land bits of big cities where various roads are in nobody's cachement at all.

So they can build houses but no schools.

Its crazy the school near us has doubled its intake now permanently so much more traffic, rude parents parking their (landrovers) over our drive.
To have built so many houses they should have also had a new school.
I think distance is the most sensible criteria, however it does seem to force you to take nearest school.
Parents have the choice if they move out of the area if they them try to get siblings into a school they are far from then nearer children should be prioritised. Not ideal for them but then they will already be choosing to drive whereas some people live close to school so that they dont have to drive (as they may not be able to) or use public transport (which in a village there may not be any)
So clearly someone living 20mins drive away shouldnt have priority over someone next to the school.
So also a lottery would be silly.
People buying at a certain distance in the village may have an idea when buying that they wont get into the school and accept they have to go to the next village.
Lottery could shake up the reason schools are better which is better MC parents (or religious)
I rhink it was this thread that said nearly 50% (or may have been 40%) state schools are religious so not a small percentage. Though i think the one near me doesnt discriminate which is how it should be.
Religion is so funny preaching love your neighbour, treat others how you would wish. Well thry wouldnt like it if the other state schools said please submit a form saying your religion. 'Oh youre (not child) not athiest so unfortunately we have to prioritise our own faith(none) and you can have any left over places.'

A large Scale, agressive policy carried out in the name of the 'greater good', targeting religious groups. Now we could argue about definitions but that's fascist in my book.

Annie can you see the difference in a CPO in the context of a high speed rail link based on some properties, including a church versus a CPO of thousands of schools on the basis that they're RC?!

Complex and expensive.

I've already said I think it would be unworkable, wantto.

How is it targeting religious groups? No one is saying they shouldn't be able to practise their faith, or indeed teach it to children. All I'd like is for them to stop discriminating against children of other or no faiths when it comes to access to state-funded education. Can you honestly not see the difference?

By your approach, it would be reasonable to describe large swathes of the state education system as theocratic. Which I wont, because it's ridiculously hyperbolic.

Why should religious groups, particularly the CofE and RC church, be placed in a privileged position when it comes to determining who should be able to access an education?

Do you think it is reasonable that state-funded schools are able to discriminate against children on the basis of religion? If so - what's your rationale for why it's a fair situation?

There are many unfairnesses in the system, and all should be tackled. This is one of them:

Want, I'm the one who suggested compulsory acquisition might be an option if churches didn't want to run schools if they couldn't cherry-pick their intake. I'm not an expert, I've said that, and others have (more politely and reasonably) pointed out the problem.

So it's me you're aiming at, but Annie seems to be a popular target on this thread.

I only brought up the RC in particular as someone else had been specifically talking about its position on admitting non-Catholic children. I put all faith schools in the same pot. If they want the state to pay for all their running and most of their capital costs, then the state shouldn't let them dictate their admissions approach in a way that is so clearly discrimatory on the basis of both religion and class.

Other countries have cracked this one. Perhaps a simple refusal to approve any applications for change of use of the property would incentivise any church that didn't wish to take the state's money if it meant holding their noses and being more inclusive, to continue to provide some form of educational provision.

not least because it's far from clear on who owns what

It is very clear who owns what. No need for any accounting sessions, mammoth or otherwise, to unpick anything. For the vast majority of faith schools the land and buildings are owned by a foundation or trust associated with the church or other religious body that set up the school. Contributions from public funds towards capital costs and running costs do not alter that. It is exactly the same as the government or the LA giving a grant to an organisation - the organisation still owns all its assets outright including any purchased using the grant money.

There are a few faith schools where the land and buildings belong to the LA. For any school both the LA and the school's governing body will be well aware who owns the land and buildings. Apart from anything else, the school has to insure the land and buildings itself if they don't belong to the LA.

So determining ownership is possible and would cost precisely nothing.

OP, exactly the same thing happened to us a few years ago in our area - we'd have got into the school under normal circs, the school took on an extra class for about three years, then reduced its intake again, meaning that 2/3 of the places were taken by siblings, and we didn't get in. It's horrible and incredibly unfair, but in the end we weren't able to change it.

YANBU. I'm astonished that a state school has a siblings priority policy actually.

Contributions from public funds towards capital costs and running costs do not alter that.

I can see this being very expensively challenged, though.

....though, as I said before, very little point in this bit of the conversation as it's not going to happen.

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

I dont agree, although pupils should be able to get themselves to school by themselves and that shouldnt really inconvenience parents. Parents are still involved in their education up to 6th form and their could be conflicting events at different schools. Having been to 2 or 3 different events in a week sometimes, i can see conflicts happening.
My dd got into our dcs secondary out of catchment because ds had an apptitude place. I am eternally grateful for that.

That's interesting, ph47bridge, I hadn't thought about the buildings being in a trust. Presumably most of those trusts would have a covenant that the buildings can only be used for educational purposes?

So if the government said, for example, 'schools that discriminate against children on the grounds of their parents' religion will no longer be funded by the state'... they'd either have to open up their admissions to the heathens, or turn private?

Boulevard - most of the trusts would have a covenant that the buildings could only be used for educational purposes within the bounds of the religion which they were intended for. So a LOT would have no choice but to close down and give the money back to those who originally gave the money if they were prohibited from teaching within their religion, usually the local parish or perhaps the old baron/lord, whatever title of the landowner for the area was.

A lot of churches face this as well, you know. We have a local church that is beautiful but very underpopulated. But it MUST have a service once a month or the land goes back to the original owners. So a very tiny once a month service is held in the church, and for the rest of the time it is used for other charitable purposes.

Or just close boulevard leaving a load more children entering the state school system.

My LA closed one village school. It planned to sell the building off for housing, but then discovered (due to a local campaign) that the covenants say it can only be used for education. I believe it is now a "short stay" school for the neighbouring LA.

Our local infant school is a CofE, and I hold my hand up as one who is very pleased it is. It is my faith, and it is the one I want my children to grow up in. It has a close tie to the church, and the community/village have a keen interest in it and support its activities regardless of whether they currently have children in the school.

It is in a rural area, but very oversubscribed now, wasn't a few years ago though. However it's intake priority is those who LIVE within the boundaries of the parish - which can make for some oddities as it is located towards the edge of the parish, and many who live closer aren't actually located within the parish - which effectively means that the parish is the catchment area.

The second priority is those who live OUTSIDE the parish but are regular attendees of the parish church, then those who live outside and are regular attendees of their own CofE church.

But the FIRST priority (other than cared for children) is those who just LIVE within the parish.

I like that.

We also have grant money from the DIOCESAN Fund (NOT Government money) for 90% of the costs of a new building, and we have worked our backsides off fundraising for the remainder of the money - about £1,000 for each student in the school, so a LOT of money.

The community and the church have played a HUGE part in supporting the fundraising efforts, so I find it quite laughable when some of you say the government hands money over for building in faith schools all the time. They DON'T.

Do you think it is reasonable that state-funded schools are able to discriminate against children on the basis of religion?

No!

I think its an anomaly!

But the reason, I've become quite invested in this thread is because I don't like to see the finger of blame pointed at faith schools (and talk of compulsory purchase orders, threats to claw back historical money etc) for the massive shortcomings of our education system and the failures of central and local government. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

By failures I include - new housing estates, 50 flats where there were previously 3 houses, closed schools. This is rife.

And I do recognise the enormous financial contribution made by faith schools to our education system and that many children have benefited, including those from outside the faith (and yes I know that is not the individual experience of some of those here).

I like that yackity emphasis on the community.

I'd like to see, with immediate effect anyone (and this is usually those in a rural setting) without an alternative school in under 1.5 miles be treated as if they are a member of that church.

To stop this ridiculous situation whereby children are driven miles to the next town because they couldn't go to their village school. (and town children are coming the other way)

I think there are a lot of fingers to point at the failings of state provision of education. And faith-based selection (note: I am not saying faith education) is distorting and disproportionately benefits middle-class children.

There has to be a better way, and there have to be the voices shouting to try to make that happen. And I don't think 'well, they've made a big contribution' is a good enough argument not to tackle such a blatant problem in our education system.

I don't think that there are a lot of problems means that we shouldn't look at all of them. I campaign on a wide number of these issues locally but the distorting admissions practices, including faith based admissions, one is one of those that makes me incredibly angry, for the reasons I've stated - it entrenches privilege and disadvantages both the already disadvantaged and children of other or no faiths (when looking solely at faith schools; distance based admissions entrench class and financial privilege).

The sibling policy has been changed back to catchment in my area luckily. Going to your local school is much better all round. I know it isn't so simple in all cases, and some have good reason for moving which should maybe be considered. But many simply 'shop around' for the 'best' schools and get one in and then all the others above kids living nearby which also causes traffic chaos etc.