campaign for fairer admissions to faith based primary schools - your views...

[hopingforbest]

... on this www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22798206?

At my church there is a Muslim parent, a Budist and that's just the ones I know about.

Sibling rule fine, if that is still your local school. Not so much if you move away, next to the less popular school, where all your kids could have places. In the area where house prices are cheaper.

In my local school it was easier to get into in the past, class sizes were 25 % larger and birth rates were lower.

I am all for getting rid of faith schools, but only when there are enough school places for all kids. If you aren't rich enough to rent the multimillion pind flat next to the school, or don't have siblings at the school, attending church could mean the difference between the school next door or one a bus ride and a tube ride away. So what Tiggy said upthread.

For some people, it's a big commitment. For others, it's something they have to do every second Sunday for three years then put behind them. That's the reality and if you don't recognise that you're kidding yourself (I will refrain from saying 'end of' because that isn't actually an argument and doesn't prove anything.)

Sure, it's a commitment. But I question whether one example of parental commitment should buy their children more options when it comes to state-funded education.

If your theory is right, those kids at your school will do just as well at a non-faith school because of the commitment of their parents. And I'll get my kid into a school less than half an hour away, which would be nice because one of the things I'm committed to us my local community. Everybody wins! Hooray!

It's actually profoundly irritating that parents are effectively being treated like naughty children if they don't go to church - they don't get the 'reward' of getting their child into a good school unless they behave and 'rock up' to church on a Sunday

Spot on, Lizzy.

It's just so wrong. As has been pointed out earlier, imagine if this was the case when accessing other state services like the NHS. 'Did you go to church last week? No, well no gall bladder surgery for you then missus.'

i am sorry you miss my point
Trying to demonstrate that engagement is key however it is come to. It is however impossible to deny that if you properly engage in a community on a weekly basis then you become involved with and motivated by it. This is most llikely to happen in a religious setting not exclusively and not denying the 'paying the school fees' brigade

The same group that made a fuss about faith schools on the apparent basis that the vast majority of children that go there are "middle class" are also advocating that school places are allocated on a lottery system. Which is completely ridiculous for anyone that has more than 1 child as there is a pretty good chance all your children will be at different schools and then how will you manage the school run.
Essentially this group is focussing its efforts on preventing naughty middle class people trying to do their best by their children.
It would be far more helpful if they focused on ways to raise the standards of the less good schools then no child would have to go to a poor school.
Even if this group had their way they would still find middle class children would have an "advantage" through all the other things they do to try to ensure their children get the best start in life like extra-curricular activities, tutoring, etc.
This isn't about a quest for excellence it's a race to the bottom.
For the record our local RC school has a massive intake of migrant Eastern Europeans compared to white British. DS's attend a C of E school, and are mixed race I didn't need to do anything special to get them a place and there are children in the school from a range of backgrounds including Muslims.
Those in Government would do well to remember that London is not representative of the entire country.

There should be an end to all faith schools. It seems so obvious to me The education system should be secular.

It is a ridiculous and outdated system. Fancy people thinking it is ok to EXCLUDE children from what may be their closest school because their parents faith. It is ridiculous.

I believe every child should go to their nearest school. This way parents would have to engage with it to ensure best outcome for their child.

Sadly we believe that 'choice' is better then get upset about how those choices are come by.

Abby, I'm in favour of lotteries for eldest children, I think the sibling tile makes sense and should stand (and my son is an only).

Sure, London (and other parts of the country with massively oversubscribed schools) aren't representative of the whole country. But a hell of a lot of us live here, and for us it's not as simple as 'going to the school a few streets away' or 'all sorts of kids who don't go to the local church get into the local CofE primary.

I'm in the mad situation where there are three schools within a kilometre or my house, my child has zero chance of getting into two of them because they are CofE (with children coming from a long way outside the nominal catchment to attend on a faith selection basis).

There simply aren't enough schools to be sure of getting into anything local, good or bad. The influx from the private sector recently has only increased the pressure on places. As I said up thread, a friend has been offered a place at a school literally miles away; she lives 100 metres from her local school. How is that good for the child's social development or sense of community?

So yes, you'll forgive us for pointing out that this is an issue for a lot of people.

prh47bridge - not all the land and buildings for these schools belongs to the church - more recent VA schools or free schools are usually on council land leased for 125 years at peppercorn rent. Voluntary controlled schools - that have less selective admissions policies - are all Church of England (none are Catholic). There are less than a hundred VC secondaries.

And there are three different ways in which faith schools are proliferating:
(a) As new free schools, which have a cap of 50% on faith places. This does not always include siblings so when well established the faith siblings may come out of the remaining 50% thus reducing access by others.
(b) As new voluntary aided schools which are now easier for councils/churches to set up without needing permission from the Secretary of State.
(c) As faith 'ethos' converter academies which takes on a religious trust as a sponsor and may name VA primaries as feeder schools thus limiting access. Some were community schools for decades and by taking on this ethos they are further reducing the number of schools where all faiths can mix.

Yet it is impossible for LAs to set up new community schools unless they are academies with a sponsor or voluntary aided faith schools. Where was this policy in any political manifesto? It's undemocratic.

tiggytape is right. We have to accept that faith schools will not be abolished, there is an ownership issue and some are popular. But the strains really show in areas with a shortage of places yet where a large number are small faith schools with varying admission policies that distort the local patterns. So the community schools end up being forced to expand to an infeasible size and are still oversubscribed. The faith schools are either popular but restrictively selective, or unpopular because they are not rated outstanding and the faith status is only of interest to a minority.

Faith schools' policies can be anachronistic and inflexible in areas where there is already segregation or the demographic has changed. On top of that, I think the most unfair admissions policies are those which distinguish between, e.g. Catholic looked after children and 'others', or where non-faith siblings have a lower priority, or where even among those of the faith, cetain churches/styles of worship are favoured over others, or points are given for voluntary service which may discriminate against working class families. There is often covert social selection even within religious groups.

State schools should be secular. If parents want a religious education for their children they can pay for it. I have a friend who couldn't get her daughter into the nearest three schools because they were faith based. That is insane. Luckily the nearest non-faith school has very few siblings so she got into there but the previous year she would have been too far away from ANY non-faith school to get in.

Each area is different so you can't generalise from one area to another. All the faith schools round here are catholic, none of them have any spaces for non-catholics. Just because in certain areas you can get into a faith school without a baptism certificate doesn't mean that's true everywhere.

tiggy - at least criteria like sibling priority and catchment have a common sense basis. But yes, of course it is shit when all local schools are over subscribed.

None of this would be an issue if there were
a) enough school places.
b) all schools were of an equal standard.
If you want to solve this debate in London or elsewhere you need to answer these 2 simple points.

Well, there'd still be the issue of faith schools being funded by the state, and the issue that faith-selective schools distort communities. You can have twice the number of schools, but if they're all faith schools you'll still get distortion and pockets that miss out.

What are your suggestions for making all schools equally good, if that's one of your criteria?

Wow muminlondon I didn't know this:

As faith 'ethos' converter academies which takes on a religious trust as a sponsor and may name VA primaries as feeder schools thus limiting access.

That effectively wipes out a whole secondary school from the secular equation.

It's all trickery. It's like the banking system, so complicated that only those in the system know how it works.

Children are born equal but in this country, at the age of 5 some become more equal than others.

Faith schools might "go down" in quality though. Parents who are prepared to get the family to church for 0900 on a Sunday morning for up to ten years in order to achieve a certain education are likely to have a lot of good input into their children's education and thus the school. If you dilute that the quality of the school could go down.

I believe every child should go to their nearest school. This way parents would have to engage with it to ensure best outcome for their child.

I think this is a nice idea too except it wouldn't work any more. It wouldn't take away the nice house-nice school-nice area combo.

You'd need to throw in a bit of a lottery system too.

Idiun you're talking absolute nutter tosh.

"Regular worship breeds a particular type of person" - what people that believe in fairy tales,snobbery and I'm better than all the oiks attitude?How does that make schools better exactly?

Sooooo because I don't believe in the baloney that is the Bible I'm not a committed parent.Ha bloody ha!

Oh and as has been mentioned further down the thread most Christians aren't regular church goers anyway so that blows your little theory out the water.

We have a very strong community thank you very much,little crime and a very strong community spirit,very few church goers so strong community does not need an abundance of church goers.

Our school was Outstanding interestingly enough but then the new Christian head who pushes the Christianity part far too much took his eye off the ball of what actually matters ie results and it plummeted to Satisfactory- same kids and same committed parents in very leafy area.

It's this kind of attitude that really makes me resent my kids having to attend a church school.

The whole system is an unfair lottery if you can't get into your oversubscribed local school - your second school was oversubscribed on first preference, so was your third, and the insane thing is that you can only get allocated the less popular or new school two miles away ... which could be CofE, Jewish or Muslim.

There is a difference between primary level - where 30% of places are in church schools but historically this assumed everyone was Christian - and secondary, where the most strictly selective faith schools used to be grammars and are clinging on to that exclusivity. We have never had selective primaries and the vast majority want the nearest school they can walk to as five year olds have little legs and parents may also be struggling with prams. So if this campaign just focuses on primary it is a start.

lizzy not as irritating as being treated as a naughty child FOR going to church. Go away , accept the school a mile from your door, go past x number of schools on your way, we don't want you at your next door Church school making it all MC. Only I'm not blooming MC...

Yes I live in London.

There are not enough school places. The LEA says there are enough. the LEA is blaming the parents for skewing the system "in favour" of church schools.

muminlondon - In the vast majority of cases the land and buildings (apart from the playing fields) belong to the charitable foundation (effectively the church). Cases where the LA owns all the land and buildings are extremely rare.

I'm aware that there are no VC RC schools but it is not true to say that all VC schools are CofE. For what it is worth only around half of VC secondary schools are CofE.

I am aware of the BHA's views that it is now easier for faith groups to set up VA schools. They appear to believe that changing the word "voluntary" to "voluntary controlled" in some sections of the Education and Inspections Act means that it is possible to set up VA schools without following the requirements of the EIA relating to new schools. I believe they are wrong. My view is that the change means it is now impossible to set up a new VA school as there is no legislation permitting such a school to be established let alone defining the process for doing so. I am in any case not aware of any new VA schools being established.

Whilst it is true that the sponsor of a convertor academy may be religious in character they are not permitted to introduce selection by faith. If any are naming local VA schools as feeders as you allege they should be referred to the Schools Adjudicator (and possibly also the EFA). My view is that this would be a way of introducing faith selection by the back door which would therefore be a breach of the school's funding agreement.

Sorry - the penny has just dropped regarding naming VA schools as feeders.

Of course an academy that has feeder schools will include some VA schools. It has no choice. A community school will also include VA schools as feeders. They cannot refuse to name a school as a feeder simply because it is a VA school, nor can they refuse to name it simply because it is a community school. It would be a problem if all their feeder schools were VA schools (which is what I thought you were alleging) or if the mix of schools was significantly out of line with the mix in the area (e.g. 20% of the schools in the area are VA but 80% of the feeder schools are VA). But there is absolutely nothing wrong with an academy including some VA schools in the list of feeders.