....to be unsurprised the BBC called the London Oratory a "prestigious private school" when it isn't?

[doorkeeper]

The London Oratory school is in the news because there's been a minor blaze there (nobody hurt) and a pupil has been taken in for questioning.

I was idly listening to PM on Radio 4, and they described the school as a "prestigious private school". Except it isn't, of course. It's a state-funded school. Except, again, it's functionally a free private school for posh and/or famous people that most ordinary mortals couldn't hope to get their kids into. I found this burst of accidental honesty from the BBC quite refreshing.

I'm sick of the posh London schools that are state-funded but that are effectively free private schools because of the way they massage their admissions. The now-disgraced former head of Holland Park School was taking HPS firmly in that direction, I know that a few other West London schools operate in the same way. I would love to see Ofsted - who were useless re the HPS scandal until it was too late - address this in some way. All children, even the ones whose parents aren't rich or famous, should have equal access to local schools, regardless of income, religion or parental connections.

AIBU to enjoy this bit of accidental honesty from the BBC?

That just pushes the issue back as many of the Catholic primaries in the area are very selective, too.

And the question becomes why are many faith (not just Catholic) primaries considered so "good" - and the answer is that the data shows that it's not the faith, it's the selection that makes those schools perform better. Where faith schools have an intake that doesn't discriminate, the actual ethos makes zero difference to their performance. Being able to select "motivated parents" (by house price, church attendance or other means), they get a more motivated parent body who are more committed to education and fewer children who are in very difficult economic circumstances and/or more disorganised and chaotic homes. Parent who are more committed to education mean fewer absences, fewer behaviour issues... the schools are starting from a much stronger position.

Oversubscribed primaries become a self-perpetuating machine. All forms of selection take a disproportionately well-off intake, and then get results that reflect their demographic.

For the Oratory primary - it would be difficult to see how its catchment (the priority parish being a handful of streets in South Kensington) wouldn't dramatically skew its intake. And this is borne out by its FSM figures which are even lower than the Oratory's.

In West London you might be surprised at the number of white middle-class Brits

Do you mean white English middle class catholics? There can't be that many of them in the first place surely?! 😆

That just pushes the issue back as many of the Catholic primaries in the area are very selective, too.

Selecting by religion or another factor?

Church attendance and another factor - namely, do you live in the Oratory Parish, or second priority the Holy Redeemer parish...

Exactly my point.

The priests and teachers of poor young Catholics need to raise awareness in their communities and schools of this option available to their young people.

It's bad enough that the rich secure the best university places via paying for private education, but when they do this by monopolising the good Catholic schools, which are meant to be accessible to all, this is not right.

It suits these West London schools to retain this strong Catholic ethos, as this is the secret code to rich people applying and getting in.

(I don't actually hate rich people, but education school be a level playing field)

It seems the Oratory have seen this coming and are now trying to prioritise the children of former students over other Catholic boys...

Shock horror! Children from families who value education and support their children do better in school than children whose parents don’t give a toss. So - schools which attract a higher % of motivated and supportive families have better results, attract better teachers, expect high behavioural standards and can raise more money, hence those schools are more sought after.

Yep! So it's very silly to pretend that these schools take children from "all walks of life" or are representative of their communities - which was OP's original point.

They take disproportionately well-off children with much higher prior attainment, and turn out exactly the results you'd expect. Social selection is alive and well and there is really no point suggesting otherwise.

I don’t think anyone is calling it to be torn down. Or criticising hard working staff. Simply saying that some aspects replicate private schools while the intake, in terms of prior attainment, is very similar to some grammar schools. Of course parental support makes a great difference to attainment.

(I don't actually hate rich people, but education school be a level playing field)

The vast majority of intake in a catholic school are not rich. They rich generally chose private!

Oh for goodness sake. Catholic primaries that are oversubscribed do well because they have parents who care enough to fill in the forms, go to church, see their priest. So the families are generally invested in their education (as well as being invested in their faith). As a prior poster says, what you don’t get is chaotic or disorganised families who can’t get it together enough to go to church, or get their children baptised.

lots of these parents who care enough are from very disadvantaged backgrounds indeed.

The intakes of all schools - Catholic, CofE, community, etc - that practise selection are disproportionately rich.

I guess it depends on how you define rich? How much more than the average salary?

Catholicism in this country is primarily an immigrant religion (Irish, Polish, Filipino, South American). It’s not just the Duke of Norfolk.

Exactly @Trickleg

Interestingly, though, the data shows they're disproportionately well-off. The effect is less pronounced in Catholic schools than CofE but it still exists.

In looking at the admission arrangements for the Oratory and its feeder primary (which prioritises Catholic children by the parish they live in), I was startled and then laughed to see they're currently consulting to expand their admissions to prioritise not just the siblings of former students but the children of former students.

I read the admissions criteria before responding to this thread. Children of former students is right there in the priorities.

@JassyRadlett which catholic school did you go to? I can tell you that mine wasn’t full of only rich people. Not getting FSMs doesn’t equal rich although I did qualify for FSMs at some point.

The intakes of all schools - Catholic, CofE, community, etc - that practise selection are disproportionately rich.

which schools don’t have some form of selection criteria?

@JassyRadlett I haven’t seen the data but am not disagreeing. I’m just saying that Catholic state schools are neither the preserve of the rich nor stuffed full of white British middle class families. It’s much more nuanced than that.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that, as a whole, they are.

There are, as with all groups, outliers.

What data do you have @JassyRadlett to show catholic schools have a more well off intake?

By schools that select, I mean schools that are able to apply their selection criteria. Those with more applicants than places are able to engineer - and then embed - a degree of exclusivity that becomes self-perpetuating.

“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.

By schools that select, I mean schools that are able to apply their selection criteria. Those with more applicants than places are able to engineer - and then embed - a degree of exclusivity that becomes self-perpetuating.

So are you arguing that no schools should have a selection criteria? And I’m not sure why faith is worse than say distance?

There's loads - the House of Commons library has some good stuff, and the EPI has good data though a little old - but I've seen nothing suggesting that the picture has radically changed.