Does a'looked after' child always legally get to the top of the admission criteria for primary school?

[Hellokittycat]

I understood that they did.
Have seen a faith schools admission policy that puts looked after children of faith, all other children of faith, non faith looked after children and then non faith other children as the order
Just wondering if this sits in with the legal requirements... Does anyone know?

My objection to state funded religious schools is nothing to do with shortness of places but entirely one of principle.

I beleive in principle that the state has no business funding religious education. There are countries with way more fundamental Catholicism who have entirely secular state schooling and they seem to manage to be good catholics just fine.

thats any faith schools rather than religious education - I don't have a huge problem with children being taught about religion and the differences. I do have a problem with the state paying a school to tell children that there is a God and this is precisely how you have to worship him - whether thats CofE, Catholic, Muslim or Jewish etc.

tiggytape
I was being sarcastic. I know know several LAC kids and many of them are lovely children.

"It is for Catholic people. Canon Law requires them to seek out a Catholic education for their children and explore any means of achieving that. They are required to send their children to a Catholic school if at all possible."

Prehaps canon law seperates Catholics from Jesus. Prehaps canon law is wrong. Canon law is similar to the Jews who felt it was wrong to heal the sick on the sabath.

Show me evidence that the catholic church mandates that catholic parents are required to send their children to catholic school. There is nothing is Jesus' teachings that say that catholic school is essential. Infact there is plenty in both the old and the new testament about aiding the orphan or the fatherless. (Aka the LAC child)

I can give you loads of bible quotes that instruct both christians and jews to look after orphans if you want me to. It could be argued that looking after the orphan is a christian obligation. If catholics are christian then surely catholic schools are required to give LAC kids priority.

I feel that if a school recieves a single penny from the tax payer then they should be prepared to give priority to LAC kids. If you want religous exclusivity then the parents should pay for it.

If you're going to rely on Canon Law about what the rights and obligations of Catholics re education:

Can. 794 §1 The Church has in a special way the duty and the right of educating, for it has a divine mission of helping all to arrive at the fullness of Christian life.

My bold.

The bible says plenty.

Old testatment

Exodus 22:22-24 "You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict then in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; and My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless."

Psalm 82:3
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed."

Deuteronomy 14:28-29
"At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands."

New testament
Acts 20:35
"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

Prehaps some of things said by Jesus were more powerful
Matthew 25:36-38

36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

Or prehaps the most important verses in the bible which appears in all four gospels.

Mark 12
"28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.e 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’f 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’g There is no commandment greater than these.”

Canon law does not pretend to superceed the gospels. Catholics are commanded to love LAC kids as they are our neighbours. The catholic church may require parents to seek a catholic school, but they will not damn a child who is unable to attend a catholic school. There are plenty of catholics who attend secular schools all over the world.

I wonder what Pope Francis' opinon would be on not giving priority to LAC children in catholic schools. (unlike the rest of UK state schools)

Interestingly when the local jointly run Catholic/CofE secondary was failing, they couldn't get enough people who called themselves Catholic to fill the spaces and the catholic church walked away from the school, leaving the CofE to turn the school around (which it did).

10 years later apparently the lack of a Catholic secondary in the borough is apparently an injustice which can only to righted by using the only available space to start up a catholic secondary with 100% catholic admissions despite there being a stated need for an all inclusive secondary urgently.

I am more than a little jaundiced about the desperate need for the state to pay for a catholic education because of Canon Law which seems to be pretty liberally interpreted by so many parents around here.

tiggytape I think we are in total agreement.

I am not happy with parents going through ridiculous hoops to get their child into a particular school. It becomes stupid when parents become competitive over piousness. I feel that the faith requirement should be made easily achievable. (Ie. attendence 12 times a year rather than every single week. Baptism should be valid at any age. Converts to a religion should be treated equally to those born into a faith)

The schools admissions crisis is something different. Prehaps the difference between a LAC child and normal family is the freedom to move if they are in an admissions blackspot. There are threads where children have been allocated a primary school 14 miles away.

I understand why Catholic parents are keen to preserve priority. I just don;t think they should be allowed to if they take state money. The local CofE secondary has (a minority) foundation places reserved for practising Christians and the majority allocated in the same way as for all other state schools.

I think thats fair - parents know that the school has a Christian ethos/message so parents like me would not necessarily choose it but I'm happy that the option is available for those who want their children to go to a school they are afterall paying for.

If you want a ring-fenced school of your own religion than you and/or your faith should raise the money to pay for it.

Which is a slightly differnt issue to LAC but IMO it all comes down to the same thing - the catholic church in particular doesn't want non-catholic children at their schools - fine then pay for it yourself. Not giving priority to LAC's is outrageous - how many non catholic LAC's who actually want to go to a catholic school? Very few I'd bet but the catholic schools are (mostly) too scared to admit them - whether its the non-catholic contamination thats the problem or the LAC status would be interesting to know.

If you want a ring-fenced school of your own religion than you and/or your faith should raise the money to pay for it.

VA schools (i.e. faith schools that set their own admission criteria) generally use land and buildings that belong to the church, albeit indirectly. Prior to 1944 they funded 100% of all capital costs and a proportion of running costs. From 1944 running costs have been paid by the state but the church is still required to fund a proportion of capital costs (currently 10%). In practice some schools still have a proportion of their running costs met by the church.

I understand the view that state-funded schools should not be allowed to select on faith grounds. New faith schools are only allowed to select up to 50% of their intake on faith grounds. Many existing faith schools also restrict the proportion selected on faith. However I understand the Roman Catholic church is against any restriction.

By the way I am not arguing for or against any particular policy.

But surely even die-hard adherents of faith selection couldn't defend refusing priority to LAC. We are talking about a tiny number, nowhere near enough to alter the character or ethos of the school.

Some adherents of faith selection would indeed defend putting children of the faith ahead of all children who are not of the faith, LAC or not. OF course, LAC children of the faith always get the highest priority.

The one thing missing from this discussion is any statistics on the number of LAC children who miss out on places at faith schools because they are not of the faith. I'm afraid I am not aware of any figures so I have no idea if this is a genuine, widespread issue or not an issue at all.

I wonder if adoptionuk and Community Care could be persuaded to ask their members.

AngelEyes - 95% of the day in a RC school is pretty much identical to that 95% of the day in a CofE or non-denominational school. Many of the staff aren't RC. The prayers in assembly are a bit different and there's the odd picture of someone with a halo on the walls, but there's nothing going on in the school day that will put a child who is not in a practising RC family at a disadvantage. And, if there is, there shouldn't be.

tiggy not sure you are right there wrt adopted children at least, or at least not entirely.

An older sibling of an adopted child wouldn't get priority for a school, just because their younger not yet at school sibling was adopted.

However, once the adopted child was at school, then any sibling would be positioned on the waiting list as a sibling link, so could in theory move schools to be with younger sibling if there was a space (if that makes sense?). Whether a parent would want to move their older child is another matter altogether of course.

I know of at least one adopted child who this year has missed out on a place at a CofE school due to positioning of children of faith above non-faith LAC/Adopted.

The local catholic secondary had land "donated" by the council on a 100 year lease at a peppercorn rent. The buildings needed very little adaptation as it was a preexisting adult education college.

New faith schools are only allowed to select up to 50% of their intake on faith grounds this isn't true and I know its not true because Richmond council/catholic church decision to open a new catholic secondary with 100% catholic intake was taken to a judicial review last year by the Richmond inclusive schools group who lost. Apparently there is a loophole whereby religious schools can set up with 100% selective intake and then subsequently convert to an academy keeping their selection criteria whilst getting the benefits and funding of an academy.

I wasn't involved in the group but I followed it closely at time. The decision made a mockery of the 50% selection as now it seems any religious school has carte blanche to do it this way and have a 100% religious selection.

I'm not sure what your point is Tiggy.

YEs of course school choices have to be made on a practical basis as well considering where other children go, but what has that got to do with whether the school should be offering LAC places as the highest priority?

Parents and carers chose a school for any number of reasons

Judicial review here including the point that the council paid for the site - so the church didn;t exactly have deep pockets in this case.

humanism.org.uk/2012/12/14/full-judgement-published-in-richmond-catholic-schools-judicial-review/

To add insult to injury the (approved) new free school can't open in Sept 2014 because there is no permanent site available because the council gave away the only available site to the catholic church! Lots of parents who accepted places at the new free school are now scrabbling around to find (non-existant) places.