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

[hopingforbest]

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

blueskies they are not mutually exclusive. Just because you don't go to church every week doesn't make you feckless etc. Just because you do doesn't ensure you are not. I am just trying to make a point about levels of engagement. Being very involved in a community (religious or no) indicates a certain sort of person/ethos. This type of person is more likely to be engaged in child's education because it is an extension of community and represents an investment of time and self in said community.

I don't think faith schools are right. However as said before I believe that if all parents had to engage fully in their local school because it was their only option then over time things would be better all round. You see it happening in London where MC parents get their child into an undesirable school then do their hardest to improve it by joining PTA etc.

Prob is we feel we should 'choose' and this choice leads to inequality.

We were denied a place at our nearest primary school because of siblings. When it comes to secondary we have a "catchment" system. Our catchment school is dire, but we are denied a place in another catchment where the schools are better, so we effectively have no choice at all. But that's OK because it is fine to select on house-prices, or let people whose elder child was luckily born in a low-birthrate year have priority for their younger child despite living further away. Just as long as we keep religion out of it.

If you are going to select on distance then it should equally apply to siblings (and FWIW we had 4 DC at 4 different schools for several years - it can be done)

I find a lot of these anti-religion comments very offensive. If you were to say the same thing about immigrants/ muslims you'd be branded racist but it's OK to slag off the Church of England.

"If you were to say the same thing about immigrants/ muslims you'd be branded racist but it's OK to slag off the Church of England."

I don't think anyone on this thread has slagged off the Church of England (or Christians, Muslims or atheists).

People are objecting to religious discrimination when it comes to accessing state services. I agree that the sibling system and the catchment system can be harsh, especially in oversubscribed areas, but imo it's the fairest system out of a bad bunch. The problem is simply that there aren't enough school places in some areas.

Re the house price thing, the catchment system can be tweaked so that each catchment includes a mix of areas. I'm not sure of the degree to which this happens in practice, but it should happen where possible imo.

"Being very involved in a community (religious or no) indicates a certain sort of person/ethos. This type of person is more likely to be engaged in child's education because it is an extension of community and represents an investment of time and self in said community."

I don't think anyone would argue with that - I wouldn't, anyway. The point here is surely 'religious or not'?

I get very annoyed when it is suggested that it's a Christian ethos which makes a school good, because actually it's all about having parents and staff who care - and it's pretty insulting to say that non-Christians or atheists are more likely not to care about their kids than Christians.

If people were to put as much energy into their own school as campaigning to get rid of faith schools, their own schools might start to match them for standards.

"their own schools might start to match them for standards."

What do you mean by 'their own schools'?

Personally speaking, I have put probably hundreds of free hours work into my DC's school. Oh and guess what, I didn't do it for religious reasons.

Well done, but lots of people object to faith schools because they're the best schools in the area and they can't get their kids in. The answer then is not to abolish faith schools but to make their own schools better.

prh47bridge you are right that the majority of VA school land and buildings belong to the church as this historically was the only way governments could expand compulsory schooling and raise the school leaving age quickly enough. There is an issue with expanding their size as well because they have to pay VAT on building work so it is more expensive for council and church, especially with 20% VAT. But Blair's expansion of minority faith voluntary aided schools (Muslim, Sikh) did involve land owned by the LA - the groups complained they did not have the wealth and central organisation of RC or CofE dioceses. The newest VA Catholic school is probably in Richmond - a new Catholic secondary and primary is about to open. The council bought the land and building or £9 million specifically so that it could lease it to the diocese. Although there was uncertainty due to a judicial review - and new schools take time to become popular - on opening it will be undersubscribed (many of the secondary places had to be allocated - to non-Catholics), while the community primaries and converter secondaries are popping at the seams.

'only around half of VC secondary schools are CofE' - because they no longer have any religious denomination (or some may be ex grammars turned comprehensive like Rutlish School). The list of them is www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=NAT&superview=sec&view=cqs&set=2&sort=&ord=&tab=35&no=999.

'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.' - No, but it might put off children of other faiths from applying thus accelerating segregation. A Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or evangelical Christian sponsor - as the only sponsor - would set a specific ethos and children would be attracted or put off accordingly.

'naming local VA schools as feeders' - if the school didn't have feeders pre-academy and if those feeders are taking children from a specific catchment and denying local children a place, in an otherwise multi-faith community, it is wrong. This was the proposal at Tudor Grange in Birmingham:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-21335825

If people were to put as much energy into their own school...

Not everyone has the luxury of 'our own school'.

An example: DGD got a nursery place in the closest school. She was then assigned to a different infants. She got back in off the waiting list but probably won't be able to stay for juniors (same site, separate admissions) as distances keep shrinking. She could be sent anywhere. Same for her little brother - we have absolutely no idea where the LA will send him in 3 years. Could be any of 10 schools, whatever is undersubscribed.

I agree with you, crumbledwalnuts, that families should put energy into their local schools, If only we had one!

Faith schools didn't singlehandedly cause this mess, but they're a significant factor.

My son attends a Catholic primary school of which about 60% of the intake is Catholic, the rest being of other faiths or none. Although there is a daily "thank you" etc, the stuff the school promotes is broadly about caring for others within the school and outside of the school too. It could equally do this as a non faith school. The church owns the land and the buildings but does not seem to have too heavy an input to school life.

My own feelings (as a Catholic) are that we have little choice but to accept that some schools are faith based unless of course we wish to pay higher taxes to buy out the property which belongs to the church.

I am completely in agreement that schools should select broadly from the local community and not just based upon faith. It might then see an end to the "many years of church attendance just to get the children into the right school". It might also see a more diverse population going into other state schools.

My sons school is lovely but not the top performing in the area although it doesn't do too bad. It also takes children who have been excluded from other schools to give them a fresh start and puts time and energy into them in order to help them achieve. This is what makes it lovely.

lots of people object to faith schools because they're the best schools in the area and they can't get their kids in

No, envy is not the main reason in my view - it's frustration at having uneven school choice, confusing identity in areas where there may be a lot of Somali or Bangladeshi children but the local schools are all named after saints, covert social selection that ensures a middle class intake in one school leaving the other neighbourhood schools with a more disadvantaged intake, or simply the distorted patterns of admission and rather random siting of schools/lack of real planning. In my area, the most oversubscribed schools are community schools and the undersubscribed one are CofE.

It is for a lot of people though. Frustration at uneven school choice is basically envy, your second point isn't confusion about saints, it's about fear of other languages, covert social selection is basically envy, fear of a more disadvantaged intake is basically envy.

Idiunt, I'd love to engage fully in either of our local schools. I really would. But my son is denied entry to either because I won't hypocritically attend church to 'buy' him a place. So what's the solution for me/him? A school miles away will deny him effective participation in his local community and make my participation significantly more difficult because of distance.

Honestly, the concept of a local school we can get our child into is a pipe dream for many of us, because faith schools distort the admissions picture so significantly.

And then those who can afford the inflated house prices next to the church school snaffle any non-faith places. Unfortunately I don't have £750K to spend on a house.

I fail to see that there is much or any religion-bashing on the thread; I've a significant amount of respect for those who are truly committed to their faiths. But I don't think it has a place in state-funded education, particularly when it gives one set of children a much greater chance of getting into their local school than another set who, apart from the faith of their parents, are in identical circumstances.

Crumbled, damn straight it's about envy. I envy those who are able to send their children to the school two streets over because of their faith, be it real or professed, while my kid will be forced to attend school miles away from his local community.

I would much rather send my child to an average local school than an outstanding one further away, because I love our community and want him to play an active role in it, and I would have more time to play an active role in his education.

Just because I'm envious that the state chooses to bestow advantages to one set of children based on a rather arbitrary measure, doesn't make me wrong, or faith schools right.

Church schools have served their purpose and helped expand education. But we live in a very different society now with a rapidly fragmenting school landscape of 2,000 academies imposed in top of that old order of church schools (mainly two denominations of the same religion, one of which always prioritises its own, the other with widely varying policies depending on the whim of its generally male foundation governors) and a a system of democratically accountable LA-controlled schools (now weakened by the academies policy). Both VA and academy schools now control their own admissions. There should at least be consistency among church admissions so that they are representative of their neighbourhoods, do not discriminate against children in care whose parents did not baptise them, or siblings of local children attending the school, or other faiths. All faith schools - not just academies - should have a 50% cap on those selected on faith criteria but if no one else applies they can fill up with more faith applicants. Or no more faith schools at all. Not both.

Lets imagine for a minute that people on here got their wish and faith schools were abolished.
Surely that will just make pressure on the existing school system worse. Many people have pointed out that the buildings etc already belong to the church... Is the state going to buy them back? How much will that cost? Or is it proposed that state funding would be cut from faith schools. Essentially this forces them either to close or become private schools. In most cases the parents will be unable to afford to fund a private education and any schools that by chance retained enough children to stay open would have 0% children on FSM because they would be excluded as a result of the financial cost of attending. In the end everybody loses out.
Essentially, The Sutton Trust (the group that have a beef with faith schools) do so because they have a higher proportion of middle class children. They advocate a lottery system but this is just an attempt at social engineering which will be entirely ineffective. Unfortunately there are a sector of children in society that don't achieve as they should but very little of this is to do with schools/ state and much of it is to do with parenting. "Choice" of school is only one small way MC parents apparently improve the lot of their offspring, however much of what is done happens even before those children start school.
You have only to read other threads now to see how common it is becoming for children to start school not even knowing their own name, entirely unprepared for school life. There is a rather rubbish school in our town however there is a group of parents that are very happy for their children to go there simply because it is so close by they don't even need to bother to get dressed to take their children to school or for that matter to pick them up in the afternoon. These children could attend the best school in the country but I suspect it would make very little difference to their outcome. If the state wants to make a difference it needs to change how some families operate with respect to their children.

The campaign isn't about abolishing faith schools, it's about fair admissions. It's backed by Accord which is made up of various faith groups:

accordcoalition.org.uk/2013/06/05/accord-coalition-backs-new-campaign-to-stop-religious-selection-in-pupil-admissions/

'While the Fair Admissions Campaign would welcome legislative change to end such selection, other goals include persuading Dioceses and individual religiously selective schools to embrace open/more open admission arrangements'

This could mean something as simple as an admission policy like this:

1 Children in public care
2 18 foundation places
3 Siblings
4 Distance

What's the admission policy of your school?

but Muminlondon wouldn't that mean that local children have no chance of getting a school place unless their parents attend church?

so for an intake of 30

1, 01
2, 18
3, 11
4, 00

so one or two children could get in on distance, depending on that years siblings. Or maybe not all siblings would get in. The 10 siblings don't live anywhere near the school btw. Of course this doesn't take into account the children with SEN who have this school named for them.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know it isn't simple and I don't trust Dioceses to sort it out

Muminlondon a similar move towards open admission was recently proposed by the head of the Oxford Diocesan Board of Education (CofE). He suggested that church schools should return to their original purpose of serving their local community by ensuring that places were not 'reserved' for church families.

Unfortunately, the board of governors of many church schools that control their own admissions are made up, in no insignificant part, by local clergy. The CofE can exert great pressure on local churches to 'raise sufficient funds' though their weekly collections, and the church-school-conveyor-belt is a great revenue generator in a time of falling church attendance.

As someone upthread said, it is central government that are ultimately responsible for publishing the admissions code for schools. Whilst we have a situation where champagne socialists such as Blair and Clegg can celebrate publicly the fact that their children attend 'non-selective comprehensives' such as London Oratory, the government has no particular desire to upset the status quo.

"Unfortunately, the board of governors of many church schools that control their own admissions are made up, in no insignificant part, by local clergy. The CofE can exert great pressure on local churches to 'raise sufficient funds' though their weekly collections, and the church-school-conveyor-belt is a great revenue generator in a time of falling church attendance."

This is one of the reasons why the system is effectively corrupt and hypocritical.

That admissions policy was for a local school that takes 60 per year. So it's a cap of just over 25% faith applicants. It's a popular school too. Free schools have a 50% faith criteria limit - VA schools should aim for that too.

At the same time, I completely agree that Labour is weak and divided on faith school policy and close down debate. The Tories are mostly in favour of faith schools doing what they like and behaving like grammar schools (but surprisingly, Kenneth Baker was the last one to try to impose 25% open place quotas in the Lords - one of those old-fashioned Tories of principle) and while many grassroots LibDems are in favour of fair admissions, those in prominent positions send their children private (or to the Oratory) so are pretty wishy washy. I'm sick of obfuscation and would like honest debate - what do fair admissions look like? How do faith schools impact on their local communities? Why do academies have a 50% faith places limit and not VA schools? Who thought that policy up? Why are new VA schools still being allowed?

You ask why academies have a 50% faith places limit and not VA schools. I would suggest the answer to that is simple politics. The limit on academies is aimed at schools that don't yet exist and is therefore unlikely to draw any significant organised opposition. Imposing a limit on VA schools however could draw serious opposition so I suspect Michael Gove (the author of this policy) decided this was a battle he could do without.

The thing is, Gove did have a battle in the form of a judicial review over the new VA school in Richmond. Yet he had previously said he thought a 50% cap on faith admissions was a good idea. As if it wasn't his.

The government won, which clarifies in law that new voluntary aided schools - agreed between councils and dioceses - can be set up as an alternative to academies (the sponsor could still be a Catholic diocese) or a free school (also like sponsored academies).

Churches therefore have greater power and influence over new and converting schools than ever before. Parents do not get a proper say in this. There hasn't been a debate in parliament on this for years - Labour scrapped an amendment in 2006 saying a voluntary agreement had been reached - obviously not with the Catholic Church.

I'm going to back this campaign in whatever small ways I can. Our son is 2 and our two nearest primary schools are both faith schools that discriminate in their admissions processes.

I am shocked that this discrimination can legally take place and see no positives in it whatsoever. I blogged about it here: nurturemybaby.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/schools-should-not-be-allowed-to-select-pupils-on-the-basis-of-religion/