Nicky Morgan proves herself out of touch once again on faith schools ...

[geneticLottery]

What is Nicky Morgan on for goodness sake? A campaign group points out the systematic flouting of admissions law at many faith schools, which are their own admissions authorities, and her reaction is to wind back the clock to gag the campaigners?

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12117835/Nicky-Morgan-to-protect-faith-schools-from-secular-campaigns.html

The reason there are so many transgressions against the code is because for years only local parents could raise objections and schools got used to the idea they could get away with whatever they pleased. Two years ago the rules changed so that anyone could object and, not surprisingly, lots of objections were raised.

Nicky Morgan should be cracking down on the transgressors not gagging the whistle blowers!

That may be your view generic and I'm not suggesting you're entitled to it, but how can you know that "many thousands" of parents feel like that - you're making an assumption.

I get that you feel strongly about it, but the lack of traffic on this thread, apart from my responses, would suggest that other parents (given that its Mumsnet) don't.

sorry should have said I wasn't suggesting you're not entitled to your opinion..

how can you know that "many thousands" of parents feel like that ...

Because the many dozens of parents that I know (well) at my DC's faith school certainly feel like that, as do the many dozens I know (well) at other local faith schools, as do the many hundreds I've seen making comments along those lines here on Mumsnet over the several years that I've been reading it, as do the many hundreds that get in touch with and support groups like the Fair Admissions Campaign and its more local equivalents.

"if you as a parent don't care enough to make yourself knowledgeable about the admissions process, then that's your own fault."

The Fair Admissions report says:

A majority of schools were found not to be dealing properly with looked-after and previously looked-after children (LAC and PLAC) – in some cases as a result of not defining what these terms mean in an inclusive way, in most cases not properly giving priority to LAC and PLAC who were not of the faith of the school, and in a few
rare cases not prioritising LAC and PLAC at all.

A quarter of schools were found not to make clear how children with statements of special educational needs were admitted.

Do you really think that the parents of these children have the time and headspace to have these battles?

Part of the point of having a fair admissions code is that it should not discriminate against those who have already been dealt a difficult hand in life.

genetic many dozens + many dozens + many hundreds does not equal many thousands.

pico I don't know enough about LAC and PLAC to comment on how it should work but I presume it's not just down to parents, a number of professionals would be involved.

I agree that a school should make things clear - but if it's not clear on the website, as a parent I'd phone the school and ask. I'd visit the school (like most people would). Why do you assume it will be a battle?

genetic many dozens + many dozens + many hundreds does not equal many thousands

You're clutching at straws namechanged. I'm just a sample of one - a random mum in a random London suburb. If I know many dozens of people who feel the same way as me, and have seen many familiar stories from other parts of the country here on Mumsnet, as well as in the press and on Facebook, Twitter etc, then it doesn't take much of a leap in reason to make a rough estimate.

The Fair Admissions Campaign have more than 1100 followers on Twitter, more than 700 on Facebook, and then there are 7 local campaigns too which all have their own followers.

Then there's the Accord Coalition too, with all its constituent member groups.

And of course most parents just move on once they've got their own children into a school ... they might moan about it for a while, but they don't get involved in trying to influence change because every cohort is transient. That doesn't mean they don't care - just that they have to get on with their lives. So those that sign up to follow the various groups are just the ones that feel really strongly about it.

pico I don't know enough about LAC and PLAC to comment on how it should work but I presume it's not just down to parents, a number of professionals would be involved.

For LAC there would be ongoing involvement with social workers. Social workers with heavy caseloads and no specific expertise in challenging school admission criteria.

For PLAC, there may well not be ongoing social work involvement.

In society the odds are stacked against children in care. Their educational attainment, as a group, is significantly worse than the average. They need all the help they can get. And that means all schools need to prioritise their admission to school in line with their legal obligations and with clarity.

I can't see why anyone would object to this.

I'm not clutching at straws. I'm pulling you up on the generalisations you're making. I don't disagree that there's a debate to be had but you started off this thread by making comments that are not substantiated - that schools were used to getting away with it - and then claiming that you know many thousands of parents who feel the same way that you do. You don't.

I appreciate that it's a controversial issue but making provocative comments doesn't assist the debate.

It sounds as if you fundamentally don't accept the validity of the sampling, name - which it is your right to do.

I wonder if we should ask MN for a webchat on this subject? I think it would be very interesting. Although I support the British Humanists, I haven't found some of the more sensationalist language they've used since Nicky Morgan made her remarks particularly helpful. So clarity all round would be useful.

At the root of this issue is that two very powerful lobbying groups, both of whom have at their heart very conservative cultures with an inbuilt tribalism, and prejudice against what they regard as "liberal" values, or worse "secular" or "humanist" values (both words are commonly used in a derogatory sense with the implication that they have a monopoly on moral values, instead of with respect for differing beliefs), are flexing their muscles to defend themselves from being called to account. I really cannot see any possible defence for placing all the responsibility for doing so on to individual parents who, as others have said here, have neither the time or resources to do so effectively.

All the local Catholic Schools prioritise baptised children over non baptised looked after children. It has long struck me as deeply unchristian, but if this is a breach of the admissions code who is going to challenge it?

namedchanged, I didn't say I knew thousands, I said there were thousands, which is a reasonable extrapolation for the reasons I've given.

If you want to be picky on language, why not pick Ms Morgan up on her use of the word "vexatious"?

The faith school debate is too often presented as polarised into those who like them and want to keep them, and those that don't like them and want to get rid of them. However there's a moderate middle ground that recognises and accepts their history and popularity, but resents the competitive and coercive implications of their ever tightening selective admissions policies.

The BHA have traditionally been in the "don't like them and want to get rid of them" camp, which is why the Fair Admissions Campaign and Accord have established themselves as separate organisations.

I agree with tribpot that the BHA's language around faith schools isn't always helpful, and the NSS are even worse. They set themselves up to be too easily dismissed by the likes of Ms Morgan.

However, the FAC and Accord have clearly got the establishment rattled because they've been making a lot of headway in the courts recently.

if this is a breach of the admissions code who is going to challenge it

It is not a breach of the Code. This was clarified in the London Oratory case. If diocesan guidance supports prioritising baptised children the school is definitely allowed to do so. If diocesan guidance does not support this the school can still do so provided it can show a "clear and proper" reason for putting this requirement in place.

I think, if you'd surveyed all schools in this time frame, you'd have discovered non-compliance with the LAC and PLAC prioritisation.

Lots of community schools did not update their websites on time (threads about this) and LAs were not always giving out accurate information.

Actually, thinking about it, there are lots of "shit advice from someone in the LA, which is an apparent breach of the code" and "shit advice given at information evenings, which is an apparent breach of the code" are both staple MN threads.

Point taken prh.

My point though was more that it in instances where the admissions criteria are effectively excluding disadvantaged (socially or in other ways) children their parents are as unlikely to challenge them as they are to jump through whatever hoops have been set unfairly.

It is not really an issue concerning the children of Mumsnet parents who will overturn heaven and earth, and the admissions code, and start a Mumsnet thread, to get their DC into a good school. In a way they are even part of the problem, since they play the system to gain advantage (and I don't blame them for that). It is an issue of those children who do not have the advantage of parents who fight for fairness and in future won't have a national organisation that is looking to promote fairness either.

I am one of those parents who has no issue with faith schools but has a big issue with the unfairness I have witnessed that results from exclusive admissions.

whatwouldrondo this is what the Schools Adjudicator says about it in her annual report ...

"120. As in previous years, a number of local authorities express concern that some schools designated as having a religious character give priority, as permitted by the Code, to looked after, previously looked after and all other children of the faith before looked after and previously looked after children not of the faith. This has resulted in its being difficult, or even impossible, for a looked after or previously looked after child other than of the faith to be admitted to some popular, high achieving faith schools. This is not the whole picture, however, and a few local authorities report this year an increasing number of faith schools that give priority to all looked after and previously looked after children whether or not of the faith, sometimes following guidance from their religious body in making this inclusive provision."

The Catholic Education Service would argue it's against Canon Law to allow a non-Catholic LAC into one of their schools ahead of any Catholic child.

In fact they've been lobbying hard to change the rules that say all new faith schools must have 50% of their places open to all too. The newly appointed director of the New Schools Network seems to be on message and lobbying on their behalf too.

All of this is building up to a revamp of the admissions code in coming months so people who feel strongly about it need to watch out for the consultation over that.

"all new faith schools" should read "all new faith academies/free schools".

Ironically Pope Frances is not quite on message www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/11/24/education-is-too-selective-and-elitist-says-pope-francis/ and what he says is wrong is certainly what prevails in this area where the Catholic schools have become increasingly socially and ethnically exclusive, something that members of the congregations have noticed in the schools and with the churches packed to overflowing with young middle class families. Demand makes it possible to make the over subscription criteria become ever more demanding and it is reflected in some of the lowest levels of FSM and BME in the country. Neighbouring inclusive schools have ten times the level. But then the inclusive policies proposed by some of the Anglican bishops (eg in Oxford Leicester and London ) don't seem to carry much weight with most of the local schools either, most have increased the numbers of foundation places (though those established as Free Schools have been at least 50% exclusive, if not fully inclusive). Even within the current regulations local parishes seem to be moving to greater exclusivity, so any relaxation to the legislation would take the trend further.

Whatwould, judging by previous statements I think the Catholic Education Service will reconcile their position with Pope Frances' statement by offering to create new free schools in deprived areas where other sponsors fear to tread. They will take the Catholic children in those areas and offer them a leg up. They will argue that the schools are racially diverse because they have lots of ethnic minorities, though of course they will be restricted to ethnic minorities from countries where Catholicism is practiced (Irish, Polish etc will be dominant groups).

Of course, even if the schools aren't oversubscribed by Catholics when they first open, if they are conceived (for whatever reason) as "better" than other local schools, more Catholics will move into the area and they will gradually attract a more middle class following.

For me the main issue isn't so much the gradual drift towards selection by affluence (because that can happen at any school with a local USP) but that those Catholic children won't get a fully rounded education if they're not learning alongside people from other religious and non-religious backgrounds. And the children from the other backgrounds will miss out too because they won't be educated alongside any Catholic children.

Cf previous posters, the only improvement I could make to Pope Francis is if he were, in fact, Pope Frances...

A powerful letter from the BHA's Chief Exec to Nicky Morgan .... humanism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016-01-28-Letter-from-the-BHA.pdf

The paragraph about how the DfE cooperated with and encouraged their complaints to the OSA is particularly interesting.

" I really cannot see any possible defence for placing all the responsibility for doing so on to individual parents who, as others have said here, have neither the time or resources to do so effectively"

Anyone who makes a case for parents being obligated to assume responsibility for challenging the admissions criteria of local schools on behalf of their own children must live in a middle class bubble.

IME children who are living in deprivation are disproportionately disadvantaged by complex and diverse admissions procedures, and actually by the whole 'choice agenda' in the state school system, particularly at secondary level.

It's especially distasteful that religious organisations and those individuals who adhere to a faith are so resistant to change support the most disadvantaged children from gaining equal access to faith school.