A question for the admissions experts

[CircusAfro]

Ds's school has changed it's admission criteria to include siblings of current pupils this year, but only if the family practice a religion. Without giving too much info out about the school and it's curriculum, this is not logical. This affects ds who will not get a place.
Are the school bound by any guidelines when deciding their criteria, and is there any way challenging this?

Are you saying that the school has a sibling policy for church places but community places are decided on a different basis such as proximity? That sounds very odd indeed.

Is this the policy or is it up for consultation?

Sorry was trying not to give details of school but it's difficult to explain without.
The school is Jewish faith but has low numbers of Jewish children.
The non-Jewish children are taught a general RE curriculum separately.
There is an entrance criteria for 'religious' siblings, but no criteria for non religious.
The next criteria is children demonstrating religious commitment-nearest to school, then any others.
Can pm link to school if it helps.

From the logical point, why would a committed religious family choose to put there child in a school which teaches a non denominational curriculum. And why does the school feel that those children would benefit more from being there.
The school has different holidays than surrounding state school, so it would help us a family if both children could attend the same school.
The criteria changed this year, I was not aware of any public consultation.

their

I don't understand your comments. Your initial post says they intend to give priority to siblings of current pupils where the family practice a religion. Your latest posts suggest they are giving priority to siblings of current pupils where the family do NOT practice a religion. Which is it?

Either is legal and logical. Giving priority to siblings where the family practice a religion gives them higher priority than others applying on faith grounds, thereby helping to ensure they get a place if there are a lot of faith applicants. Giving priority to siblings where the family does not practice a religion means that non-faith families who have an older child at the school have more chance of getting places for their younger children.

No value judgement as to which children would benefit more is implied. Whatever the school is doing it is simply a question of deciding which children they want to prioritise and the value they place on keeping siblings together.

Public consultations are easy to miss if you don't check the notices in your local papers and keep an eye on the school's website. If this is for admissions next year the consultation would have taken place some time between November last year and March this year. If there was no consultation that may be grounds to get the changes overturned by the Schools Adjudicator, although you have missed the deadline for complaining so you would need to justify the late complaint. If there was a proper consultation you can still object but your chances of getting the changes overturned are slim.

Sorry, I'm not making my point clear. The admissions criteria are 3 pages long, otherwise I would post them.

in brief
1 Jewish children
2 looked after children
3 aptitude in specialist area
4 siblings who demonstrate religious commitment
5 children who demonstrate religious commitment
6 any others who express a preference

I understand that my child has little chance of getting in under the current criteria and would not have grounds for appeal.I am trying to find out if the school has any legal responsibilities when setting criteria aside from looked after/children with statements. For example, could a science specialty school make places available for musical aptitude. Could a Catholic school prioritise Muslim children if it felt the urge.

I don't know about how aptitude places are decided on.

But yes, faith schools can and do prioritise other faiths than the faith/denomination that runs the school. There are eg Catholic schools which run (broadly) Catholic, other Christian, other religions, all others.

That's what seems to be going on here - the school is probably confident all Jewish children and LAC/SEN will be accommodated, and the tie break criteria fall under that, hence the greater granularity of other faith siblings, other faith children, all others.

Ok. Thanks for your help.

I presume looked after Jewish children come first. If not that is a breach of the Admissions Code. That apart these admission criteria look fine. They have not broken any rules.

To deal with your specific questions, a school can only select by aptitude in certain subjects. Music is acceptable. They cannot award more than 10% of the places by aptitude. A faith school is entitled to prioritise people of faiths other than its own over people with no faith. It doesn't happen very often but it is allowed provided it is clear how they will determine whether or not a family qualifies as being of a faith.

If you want me to take a look at the full admission criteria and advise feel free to PM me details of the school involved.

Thank you, if there are no grounds for appeal then I will leave it alone now. There is no point us going to appeal (or even putting the school down) if we have no chance of succeeding. Our options are limited enough.
Dd will go to a large school where she will know no-one, but I am confident she will do well, where ever she goes. It is difficult to explain when she asks why x,y,z will be going to her brother's school, to give a rational explanation, which does not sound a little bitter.
We had prepared her for leaving her classmates who will go the Catholic Secondary, explaining simply how the school can pick some children over others. Parents do discuss schools at the gate and her likely school placement is usually mentioned as the "hell would freeze over before..." choice.

My dilemma is do I risk aggravating the school by going to an appeal which is unlikely to be successful. Or do I bide my time and put in an in-year transfer request next year, stating failure to settle at new school and other positive aspects of son's school instead. There has been a slow trickle of students leaving my son's year, a place will hopefully become available.

You won't aggravate the school by appealing. People appeal all the time. Schools are used to it.

Whether or not you appeal will have no bearing at all on whether or not an application for an in year transfer will succeed. If there is a place available when you apply they have to give it to you.

From what you say the different holidays are my only sensible grounds for appeal, and you suggest this case is not strong.

My reasons for liking the school are 1. sibling already there 2. small size 3.walking distance 4. child will have friends attending 5. non religious feel- multi faith 'RE' curriculum. But these would only be seen as personal preference I presume.

With three schools to pick from, I do not know if it worth "wasting" an option on a school which is unlikely to take her. There are two other possible schools which allocate on a lottery system, the chances of getting in are very small, but our chances are asking as anyone elses

I can see where you are coming from and it does sound illogical and hard to explain to a child. It is hard if you only have 3 choices, so you don't want to waste one on the unattainable.

However, wouldn't your DD have just as much chance of getting a place as your DS did as there was no sibling link for him either? If he got in on distance, would her chances be just as good, or even better with no sibling link for those with no religious commitment. Would there be any chance of her showing aptitude in the specialist area?

You could contact the British Humanist Association as they seem to know a lot about faith schools and descrimination against non-religious children humanism.org.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/faith-schools/.

It seems crazy that one of your children will have different holidays based around Jewish festivals and undersubscription by Jewish children, but the other won't.

I'm afraid a case based on different holidays is unlikely to win an appeal.

For an appeal you really need to show the problems your child will have as a result of not going to your preferred school. If, for example, you can show that your daughter has a particular need to be in a small school or at the same school as her sibling that would make a reasonable case. Look at anything your preferred school offers in the way of extra-curricular activities, clubs, etc. that is missing from the allocated school and which would be of particular benefit to your daughter.

CecilyP

DS got an aptitude place at the school. DD can try for the same, but is at nowhere near the same standard. We were aware of this, and resigned to it. But the introduction of the religious siblings category has just made the situation feel unjust.

I may not agree with faith school entrance criteria, especially in areas where children can end up travelling miles to an underperforming school. But even the defenders of this system would struggle to justify why their Catholic/CofE child should be preferred to my child in a school which does not have a 'Christian ethos'. Although I would be happy to listen to them try!

However if I were to rewrite the entrance criteria in a way I consider fair to all, my children would not get a place anyway. So perhaps I should keep quiet.

OK, this quote from the Secular Society website gets to the centre of my argument.

For such widespread exemptions to the Equality Act with such widespread application
to be justified, there should be compelling evidence of their necessity. However, the
justification used by religious organisations – and successive Governments – is that
faith schools need control over their admissions in order to preserve their „religious
ethos?.

Is the school breaking the law as the children it is admitting in preference to mine do not share their particular religious ethos anyway?

No, the school is not breaking the law.

And it is also common for there to be no priority for siblings of those in selective places, even when there is for those in other catgories.