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 don't think you are a hypocrite marrieddad. We all have to take the world as we find it.

You have had some very clear and reasonable things to say on this issue, I think.

Toomanyhouseguests fully agree :-) Will also add that I do agree with icecreamsoup I just like to stretch out an idea and find the holes ;-)

The only thing I don't agree with is the Fair Admissions Campaign using the name it does. It should really be named the "Against Selection by Faith Campaign". Unless, of course it intends to continue the cause after the removal of the faith criteria to incorporate all other selective criteria that state schools are using in their admissions policies.

Well MumT, I guess snappy unambiguous campaign titles are sometimes a bit elusive, but their website is very clear on the aims of the campaign and its background.

It's very hard to have a good system for allocating places as they will all be imperfect.

For example, if every school had strict comprehensive intake that would be fine, but I don't think people living on the same street would tolerate a lottery system where people living 5 miles away got a place and they didn't. So at a bare minimum you would need a "distance" selection.

As soon as there is any selection you create potential for division.

As noted on this thread, house prices alone would create schools inaccessible to many.

Perhaps the issue is choice. We have the ability to list upto 6 schools. Maybe that is the nub of the issue. Perhaps there should be no ability to choose (except where special education requirements exist)?

This is all hypothetical utopia thinking though.

In the real world kids do better when:

• parents value education
• parents are motivated
• parents are time rich and invest time in their kids
• parents are wealth and have access to additional resources for their kids

That is a tough situation to break in anything other than a secular communist society. Ugh ... bad track record in history.

To add to that, it is very hard when parents don't have some or all of the listed qualities, for the state to step in an effectively equalise the situation for the child. How does the state or a teacher make up for a disinterested or time-poor parent?

Those are big questions MarriedDad.

Don't forget though that there are fundamental advantages around a distance based system, in relation to community cohesion and green travel. We all agree that good schools attract strong buy- in from aspirational families. The problem is that some admissions authorities put the cart before the horse, favouring the easy option of waving arbitrary carrots to attract the 'right' families. Initiatives such as the London/City Challenge turn that thinking on its head - they go into the most challenging schools, and improve them through sheer hard graft and good management. The community around the school is then strengthened as a result, with aspirational families moving in rather than out. Yes, it pushes up house prices, but that's just economics - it can be partially mitigated through sensible housing policy, and by bringing more schools up to the same standard so they're not such a rare commodity.

icecreamsoup

"sensible housing policy, and by bringing more schools up to the same standard so they're not such a rare commodity"

Does any political party have a credible set of policies that any one here believes could make that happen?

That's what so appalling about current politics and the non-choice voters have. Neither party have credible or achievable policies - headline grabbing, yes, but any good, no.

I think they tinker and experiment and things generally move slowly in the right direction, with lots of wobbles along the way. Overall schools are definitely a lot better now than they used to be in the past so we must be doing something right as a society. But yes, there is too much short-termism and pandering to what is popular rather than what is right.