Help! Submitting appeal form

[MrBloomEatsVeggies]

Hi, I'm submitting my appeal form today online, and I only have 3000 characters, I've written way more than that! Would it be better to put a brief outline of each point and then say at the bottom that I will be expanding upon my points at appeal?

I've researched and written so much!

'I doubt that any diocese is hugely sympathetic to the arguments of people who say that they are Christians and so deserve a place at the school on that basis, and yet don't go to church'

Just wanted to say that I do go to church, and have been to church over the past five years. This year i have been about 8 times so far. Last year I went about 20 times.

If that was the way I came across, I didn't explain myself very well (something I need to work on!). The only reason I haven't been regularly is because I have to take my 2 year old DS2, and having done it twice this year, it's not something I want to repeat, I'm sure other church going Mum's with small children know what I mean. My DH often works Sunday's so can't be called on for childcare whilst I go to church, so I usually drop DS1 off at Sunday school and come home with DS2.

@PanelMember

I know that, what I was wondering was whether any formal objection could be raised with the Obbudman (not the appeal panel) to the fact that it is parental Church attendence that is used as a measurable criterion, when all other criteria relate to the child. Given that children's need is implicitly and explicitly written into what is acceptable in admission's criteria, this seems challengable (not that it helps the OP). I am not, for instance, aware that a Mum with mobility problems can use this to argue for her able-bodied child to go to a school which is easier for her, rather than for help getting them to the allocated school, even though that would seem fair and cost-efficient.

I think what my governors and the diocese are considering is adapting criteria so that (after SN siblings etc.) they run 'churchgoers in parish, others in parish, churchgoers out of parish, others out-of-parish'. It's not so much about 'reserved' places, as about how to ensure that the community of the parish-both its Christian core, its christian periphery and the neighbourhood-gain preferential access over those coming long distances to attend church (or who attend affiliated churches a distance away). It is cases such as the OP's, especially if they concern good Christian families, that are carrying a lot of weight in those discussions.

PS: christian and Christian were not typos, they were ways of making a point...

And if it could, whether the fact that the child who is attending church (Sunday school) is less favoured than the child who isn't shouldn't be gorunds for concern, given it is the child who is going to be educated in a Christian/christian way?

Whatever you think of faith allocations, the noxious way in which parents come first only here strikes me as rather worrying.

PS: Don't like Mr Bloom eating veggies. Colin has enough to worry about without worrying that his guardian will jump him one day.

MrBloom - I'm trying to talk here in general terms, as the question of how faith schools assess faith commitment comes up regularly - I remember a case in our local press of a family who were disappointed not to get a faith place at a faith school because, even though they did not go to church, they considered themselves very spiritual people. I hear all that you're saying (I was that mum taking a boisterous toddler to church) but again, from the churches' point of view, the whole point is that parents should take their children to church, not give up because it's all too difficult.

The other issue here, of course, is how welcoming churches are to toddlers.

Anyway, I'm not here to be a spokesperson for the diocese (yours or mine) so will not say any more about this.

Adela

Hmm. Maybe your diocese is different, but around here the criterion is always one of the child attending church with the parent. I would be surprised if the adjudicator though this was objectionable, since if the child is going to attend church it's not unreasonable to think it would be the parent who takes them (and it clearly is unreasonable to think they would go on their own). And I'm not sure that one can say that these criteria aren't about the child's needs - what they are trying to identify are those children who (in the parents' view) need a Christian education because they come from Christian homes, so the interests/needs of child and parents overlap.

Actually, a parent with mobility problems could use this as the basis for an application, as the admission code says:

2.28 Admission authorities must not use this criterion to give a child a lower priority in obtaining a place at the school, but it is acceptable to give higher priority to children or families where there is a social or medical need (for example, where one or both parents or the child has a disability that may make travel to a school further away more difficult).

Of course, much may still depend on whether/how the LEA has translated that into the school's own admissions criteria.

And this really is the last I've got to say on this.

Thankyou for your input panelmember, I understand what you're saying. Hope I haven't upset you over this as your help (and others) has been of great value to me as I prepare my appeal. This debate has also given me an insight as to how I should proceed, and what I should prioritize.

Adela, you know he does when the camera's aren't rolling. Colin is actually the 27th Colin .

PanelMember

No, our 'churchgoing' is 'child with parent'. In some cases this has (our vicar says) meant an irregualrly attending child with regularly attending parent or parents being counted, but I agree never one or both parents alone, and to that extent this isn't practical (as I said not an appeals matter)

What I find against the basic spirit of the criteria is that a child going to Church / Sunday school without their parents (as in the OP's case) is treated differently to one where a child goes with parents, given the child's exposure (and hence perceived need for) Christian teaching is the same and both families have shown the same commitment to that in getting the kid to Church. That seems to be a way of lowering the priority of that child for a place based on parental circumstances, which is surely not acceptable?

But it won't help the OP with an appeal on existing criteria. All I'm saying is that these things do bother VA schools, and that explaining the problem to the school may do some good generally.

Colin's a unique bean. We'd notice any imposture. And Sebastian's tenor is a rare and unreplicable thing.

Best of luck with the appeal. Even old atheists like me who hate the very idea of faith being used get rather angered by cases like yours, although that don't help much.

MrBloom - No I'm not at all upset, but I'm beginning to bore myself and possibly other people too.

Adela - I've been a governor of a C of E school for a decade. We too have spent a lot of time agonising about this. But, if we were to discuss it again, I'm sure we would come to the same conclusion, which is that the 'faith' places are intended for Christian children from Christian families (because at primary level there isn't likely to be a Christian child not from a Christian family) and, really, as we look for monthly attendance over 2 years, that isn't onerous and even people in less than ideal home situations can manage that. A third or more of our places are 'community' places. Anyway, I'm here to talk about appeals not about the deliberations of our governing body.

There is also a basic fact, no matter what anybodies opinion is over what should or should not be in a school's admission criteria and that is that what is written in the admission criteria is what any admission appeal panel has to by law to work with. If the panel does not think it is legal then it has to be reported to the schools adjudicator but most admission criteria are Ok legally, you and I might not like them but they are the rules we have to follow!

Adela, Colin is not unique, he is the 27th bean (info from undisclosed sources, not savoury ones!). Sebastien is safe as aubergines give Mr Bloom indigestion!

Thanks for the appeal support, pleased you can see where I'm coming from, it can be very frustrating as people DO attend church regularly until they get into the school they want and then lo and behold, they're never seen again.

Whereas, although my church attendance is sporadic, I will be going to church (no matter how often) this year, next year and so on because I believe in God, I try to live by His teachings, and I want to give thanks....Ah well, it is what it is I suppose.

But thanks for the support (and it really is true about Colin! )