To think secular groups should be allowed to object to faith school admissions?

[RockUnit]

The education secretary, Nicky Morgan, wants to ban organisations from objecting to faith school admission procedures, to “stop vexatious complaints against faith schools by secularist campaign groups”.

link here

According to the article linked to above, the government will carry out a public consultation on the proposed changes.

You do know there are Hindu, Muslim and Jewish schools in the state sector?

I do hope this isn't going to polarise onto one faith.

And all children should have a good education.

The question ought to be 'What is it about schools with these ethos that makes them popular and successful? How can we make all schools that good?'

Because even the deprived faith schools frequently outperform demographically-matched other schools. And the way to make a change, without having to fanny around with property and charity law, is to improve schools.

The two most sought-after primaries round here are both community schools, and their successes should perhaps be studied (and replicated) in the same way.

Right. A few facts for you. Faith schools are only "better" when they are oversubscribed and can there become de facto selective schools. Faith schools that are not oversubscribed do no better and no worse than other schools in the catchment. It is not "faith" but "selection" that makes them better.

The covert selection process means that disadvantaged children are likely to be selected out. So selected in are more children from supporticpve involved families who will do well anyway.

Bertrand - we all know by now that you want all schools to be identical, on grounds of "fairness".

As we all know, people are not identical and do not have identical needs.

Your biggest problem in life, Bertrand, is that you won't face facts. Life is one big competition - face it.

If I remember correctly, for example, the London Oratory has about 7% FSM, against about 35% in the catchment. Jewish schools are even worse. I'd have to look up Muslim and Hindu schools.

"Your biggest problem in life, Bertrand, is that you won't face facts"

Perhaps someone may care to cost a policy of enforced purchase of school grounds from church trustees?

"The question ought to be 'What is it about schools with these ethos that makes them popular and successful? How can we make all schools that good?'"

Easy Peasy. Selection.

Selection is a massive driver of pupil performance. Why therefore would anyone in their right mind prevent selection?

Surely even if you are in favour of selective schools you think it should be a fair, open and accountable process? And not reserved for families of a particular religion?

I don't know, Bertrand. We have just got a place for DD at a school on the basis of her brothers having been there and DP being a very involved parent (parent rep for years). Is that "fair"?

There are much worse criteria than religion. I think distance from school is a truly shocking criterion in its unfairness.

Siblings - probably. Involved parent? Absolutely not.

How on earth is religion fairer than distance?

Why is it fair to have a sibling policy when the siblings have already left and gone to university?

Because religion is far less arbitrary - it requires participation and adherence to a set of well-recognized values.

The point is: any selection criteria are going to piss off those who are not selectable. Whether the criteria are better or worse than each other - their pecking order - is always going to be hugely debatable.

Personally, I quite like a school that selects pupils because a former parent and the head are on text messaging terms

Ah, right. You're taking the piss. Shame.

Where do I take the piss? All I am doing is trying to point out that no selection criteria are intrinsically better or worse than any other. It's all a matter of personal taste/distaste.

I think distance from school is a truly shocking criterion in its unfairness.

what's shocking is that anyone truly believes this.

distance is a natural criteria. people want to be close to their school. distance is only bad because of the patchy quality we have. it isn't inherently bad. in places where the quality isn't so patchy, distance works perfectly fine.

but no matter how you slice it, selection by religion is bad, as is expressed in our laws in every other part of our society.

Distance is not a natural criterion - it's deeply unfair. Segmentation by cartography is fair.

I agree chili, distance is in many respects a very reasonable criteria - it is only made unreasonable by patchy provision driving up the cost of accommodation close to good schools.

It's clearly wrong to prevent citizens of any religion from being able to raise concerns about admissions to any school that is in receipt of public funds.

Distance is not a natural criterion - it's deeply unfair. Segmentation by cartography is fair.

I don't know what you mean by segmentation by cartography is fair, but I am glad I didn't get a school in scotland then, since I live in London.

It's laughable to suggest distance isn't natural. What an out of touch comment.

Distance criteria in England give some DC far more school choices than others, which seems pretty unfair to me.

Selection by distance is unfair because the people who can afford housing near their chosen schools get their DC in.

I dislike faith schools but assuming one has no moral problem with pretending to share a faith, it's easier to comply with entry requirements of attending church than it is to pay for a home near a popular school.

Lotteries are politically unpopular. But fairer.

Distance criteria in England give some DC far more school choices than others, which seems pretty unfair to me.

how does it give some people more choice than others exactly? Furthermore, nobody said it was flawless. I am open to a better system.

but the religious criteria is bad no matter what (again, as expressed in our laws everywhere else). religious people have 50% more school choice than me.