Faith schools and covert selection

[mummybear701]

I've had a few discussions with people at both my childrens old RC primary school and the one they are moving to this term that they have been accused of using covert selection 'to favour middle class families'. Has anyone else experienced this? At our old school the only criteria I was aware of was committment to the religion of the school (ie attending church), and a limited number of non faith pupils were admitted (so less open door than the local non-denom primary). The school seemed very well led, good discipline, with happy and well achieving pupils but there are many explanations for this. Good leadership, small class sizes, religion synonymous with moral values and hard work. Free school meals was in line with national average and slightly below that of the non denom primary in our catchment. Exclusions proportionally higher in RC school.

I have a niece in Brighton. It's a nightmare. I wouldn't want it in my area. I so agree with the poster who pointed out that all this variety gives the illusion if choice from afar, but parents and children actually needed scho aces really don't have much choice at all.

I think the best that can reasonably be done is to have everyone go to their local school. This is good for cutting journey time and building community cohesion.

Meanwhile, there need to be national standards that are monitored. When schools are sinking action needs to be taken. Both carrot and stick. Ie. extra money, extra resources, support, etc. but also, reapplying for jobs, etc.

Meant to type: actually need school places

Toomanyhouseguests I think the best that can reasonably be done is to have everyone go to their local school. This is good for cutting journey time and building community cohesion. Has a way of achieving this actually been found?

Mumtryingherbest - it's the way things used to be before the illusion of choice was introduced. LAs used to allocate pupils to whichever school was intended to serve their area.

It was much simpler then though as there were more surplus places.

Yes, simpler!

Things that are simpler are easier to monitor and easier to control. I think the problem is politicians turning education into a political football and constantly tinkering. It doesn't need tinkering, just good old fashioned management. It's hard, work, relentless and not very sexy; but it is what is required.

Are there any examples of where the local secular state school did better than the local faith school, but the faith school was still oversubcribed? In other words, where people valued their faith ahead of the perceived good for their kids. I would bet not. People choose schools that work best for their kids - faith, grammar, private or whatever.

All our politics and ethics tends to dissolve when it comes to actually making a choice for our kids.

If we lead our lives to the ultimate social good then there would only be state funded comprehensive schools. But if there is a local selective school then indivudually we tend to make excuses for its existance - call it cognitive dissonance.

To extend the point that others have on this thread - Can you imagine allowing taxpayer money being spent as follows:

Different state pensions for catholics and muslims? (£150bn pa)
Different hospitals for jews and hindus (£133 bn pa)
Different welfare benefits for Caucasians and non-Caucasians (£110 bn pa)

So why is it acceptable to have:

Different education for catholics and christians? (£90bn pa)

(£ bn is govt spending of taxpayers money)

It's not acceptable to have a muslim taxpayer not be able to send his child to the catholic state school across the road.

Awesome post MarriedDad. You have framed it beautifully imho.

(One teeny-tiny niggle. Protestants are Christians, but they aren't the only Christians, Catholics are Christians too! )

I love the idea of Catholics somehow not being 'Christian'.

I don't send my children to faith schools, but I do feel a bit sorry for parents who are genuinely religious, help out at their local churches, organise themselves and are effectively being told on this thread that they should give up their school places to 'worthier' children from families who aren't 'organised'. Are there to be no social rewards for doing 'the right' things with your family? Aiming for consistency and discipline? Surely we should be encouraging these things?

Abra1d - but I do feel a bit sorry for parents who ... help out at their local churches Why would you feel sorry for someone loosing out on a state school place because they helped out at their local church? I can't quite see the logic in how helping out at a church should give them priority on a state school place. If the church hired in private contractors to clean the church, should the children of those contractors get priority placement? Or is it because the person is helping for free? In which case they're not really helping for free as they are being paid in the form of a school place.

Catholics are of course Christians. MarriedDad slipped up there, but otherwise I like his post.

" parents ...are effectively being told on this thread that they should give up their school places to 'worthier' children from families who aren't 'organised'."

No, they are being told that the other children are equally as worthy, not more worthy.

Many of the Catholic schools near us have really rigorous entry criteria - like not just being baptised and going to church, but being baptised before 6 months, and taking an active role in the life of the church. Which if you are, say, a working single parent you may not have time for. That these rigorous conditions then get handwaved for children of Important Personages just underlines that they are for social selection, not faith purposes.

I think no state school should be allowed to segregate on faith grounds. If you want to segregate your children then you should pay for it yourself, not skew the state educational opportunities for all the other local children.

marrieddad Our catholic primary has been in special measures. When this happened, there was a bit of 'flight' - from, mainly, the non catholics. The catholics all stayed. There are undersubscribed primary schools not in SM with comparable results (the results for our school weren't the issue, for OFSTED, it was more administrative, organisation and stretching at the margins issues that got it put in SM - low achieving kids did well there, high achievers not so much). The school remains fully subscribed.

" When this happened, there was a bit of 'flight' - from, mainly, the non catholics"

Yes, there are many Catholic families who want a Catholic education for their child above all else, though difficult to tell what proportion of the total they represent until something like that happens.

That still doesn't justify current selection policies.

I didn't say it did. Marrieddad posited that in the sort of circumstances we faced 2 years ago, people would abandon their principles and change school. All I did was give one example where, for the vast majority, including us, this is not what happened.

"If you build it they will come"

Thanks RabbitOfNegativeEuphoria for providing a good counter-example to my hypothesis.

Realising that this might be inflammatory, if people put their faith ahead of education for their children then the state should exclude faith from education completely. Keep faith in the community temples, teach RE at schools (next to philosophy and critical thinking).

I think I just set out my stall didn't I .....

PS - Sorry for the Catholic and Christian inference.

Of course Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic, hence you can have different education for Catholics vs Christians (i.e. other Christians) - that is exactly what we have with RC, CoE and Anglican etc schools.

Married - I don't think it's fair or accurate to say we put our faith before DD2's education.

The thing is Rabbit and Married, people quite legitimately choose schools on a range of criteria. Faith schools, like other schools, have many other attractive features that don't relate to their faith designation. They might also be the closest school,the most spacious school, the one with the most charismatic Head, the highest performing school, the best at sport, or the one with the most interesting extracurricular programme or subject specialism. In my view, people choosing the schools for those 'other' reasons should be given equal priority to those choosing it for faith reasons, rather than being treated as second class citizens. If something material changes (e.g. a new head, additional specialism, shift in performance, New swimming pool) then the intake will change. That's inevitable. In Rabbit's example, people who chose the school for its faith designation stick around, and those that didn't left. However neither group is more morally justified than the other.

One of the worrying things bout faith selection is that some criteria rely heavily on the priest's reference, and therefore a child's chance of being admitted will depend on whether the priest knows how to press the right buttons and indeed whether he likes the family.

I came across a case a few years ago where the priest said in relation to a younger sibling that the family were good supporters of the church, but said the opposite for the older sibling. Despite the fact that this was obviously nonsense, and that the priest concerned had a bit of a reputation for liking a drink, the school insisted that it could not look beyond his reference.

icecreamsoup The thing is Rabbit and Married, people quite legitimately choose schools on a range of criteria. ... the highest performing school, the best at sport, ... subject specialism. In my view, people choosing the schools for those 'other' reasons should be given equal priority. Bear in mind that these are all examples of what some schools are using as selection criteria too e.g. aptitude in technology, music, sport and academic performance.

Icimoi I came across a case a few years ago where the priest said in relation to a younger sibling that the family were good supporters of the church, but said the opposite for the older sibling ... the school insisted that it could not look beyond his reference. What was the outcome of the appeal?

I still believe those are better criteria for selection than 'parents can afford house in right street'. But then, my parents couldn't. So I'm coming from that perspective. I suspect if you can afford a house in the right street you get mighty miffed when you realise that you can't buy admission in the same way as you can buy a house.

I think that lotteries or fair banding are the fairest ways though (fairest != easiest/most convenient, obviously)

Rabbit Apologies - I wasn't trying to make it personal, but more general, where you had given a good example. Sorry.

icecream - you mention both "legitimacy" and "morals". I think the current situation is that it is legitimate to have faith schools, but that it merely a case of law and acceptance. I don't think it is morally acceptable for tax consumers (faith schools) to exclude other tax payers (e.g. people of the wrong faith).

However, straying some way off topic here as the thread is about covert middle class selection at faith schools.

My kids are at a faith school (yes - confessed massive hypocrite) and there is a very wide range of family backgrounds there - including, alledgedly, drug users, kids who bounce from one house to the next each night along with plenty of normal kids from modest backgrounds (council tenants, benefits parents, check-out staff, low income etc).

In fact, I'd say the "aspirational" and "middle class" types are far in the minority at this central London, outstanding rated primary school.

I do think that my kids have benefited from tax payers money whilst excluding kids who live closer to the school who happen not to attend the right church and believe in the right god. It's not morally acceptable, but we do it anyway.

Married - that's ok. No worries. Our primary is also not the one the aspirational middle class people target. We felt we had a responsibility to choose, and then stick with, the catholic school because that's our community and walking away instead of pulling together to try and make things better didn't seem right. The aspirational school close to where we live didn't need us. The primary didn't 'need' us either, to be honest, it's not like we are some magnificent prize family people would fight to have at their school - but still. I'd hope we'd made a contribution over the many years we have been associated with the school.

" Bear in mind that these are all examples of what some schools are using as selection criteria too e.g. aptitude in technology, music, sport and academic performance"

Some are, in some schools, but they're not as widespread as faith selection, and are equally open to challenge. As I said before, there are multiple debates to be had on admissions, but its simpler to have one debate at a time.

" I still believe those are better criteria for selection than 'parents can afford house in right street'."

They're not mutually exclusive. Faith applicants also move house to access good schools. They just don't need to nove quite so close.

Anyway, in my view the faith test is worse, because the housing issue can be partially addressed through sensible housing policy (siting of affordable housing etc), and by concentrating resources into less affluent areas through good use of pupil premium.

" My kids are at a faith school (yes - confessed massive hypocrite"

No. It is the system that is flawed, and people are naturally working their way around it. That's not hypocritical so long as you're honest about it and open about your reasons for choosing the school.