Faith schools to become MORE selective ...

[jailhouserock]

See the original thread in the In the News section for details, but the Gvt is planning to remove the 50% faith admissions cap on new faith academies.

You're trolling and being deliberately obtuse as you've now had it explained acdozen times why its not discrimination. Reported for trolling

Go right ahead, t4nut. If you can't see what's so obvious to so many people (perhaps because you haven't experienced that discrimination yourself), then i can't help you.

Ooh, will you report me for trolling too? [excited emoticon]

Bertrand you seem to be able to grasp simple concepts. Archery has to be a troll - no-one is that dense.

It's not only that the schools are faith schools, but what their reputation and Ofsted status is.

I would be interested to know whether it's the religious aspect or the academic record of the school that's the real attraction. How many poorly performing religious schools are over-subscribed?

T4nut- so are you admitting that your arguments don't apply to London? Or just dismissing mine because I'm talking about London and that doesn't count in your opinion? It's a pretty big place. And the same applies in large swathes the Home Counties that I know of too. Small catchments, massively over subscribed schools.

As regards grammar schools...I happen to support them because I think there are benefits for children of academically selective education and can't see any benefits to religious segregation. However I accept that it would not be illogical to argue that we should either allow any and all selection, or none. This is presumably your point when you say people who object to religious schools should look to grammar schools also.

Which is exactly why your distraction technique about siblings and distance and feeder schools is rather silly... In fact there are many who disagree with all of these. My area doesn't have any concept of feeder schools that I know of (only in private sector which is not what we're talking about). A neighbouring borough has got rid of their sibling rule and some areas do a pure lottery and not distance based.

It's silly to shout 'oh but there's lots of other types of discrimination as well, so this is okay.' Well, as the playground adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right, and the other discrimination you're citing is also subject to disagreement and disapproval from some quarters, just like faith selection. They're all up for discussion, as well they should be, including faith selection. So this is the discussion. We're having it right now. If you think grammar schools and other selection criteria should also be scrutinised go start a thread about them too.

oh and I forgot....

Why are you so hung up about insisting no one is excluded from faith shools? Ok, granted, they don't say 'atheists banned' on their entrance criteria but in practical terms, because of oversibscription, the end result is such that they might as well. As several people have been at pains to explain for several pages now.

But since that's too hard for you to understand, and you're desperately clinging to the theoretical technicalities rather than practical realities, let's put it this way.

In any area where there are any of the following factors at play affecting school admissions:

1. varying standards (and therefore popularity) from school to school
2. oversubscription of any schools for whatever reason (popularity, population density, or both) AND at least one of the oversubscribed schools in that area is a faith school THEN the following situation arises: Children of that faith will get
3. greater choice of school places (by dint of having a good likelihood of a place at either good faith school a non faith school) compared to their non faith peers AND/OR
4. a greater chance of a place at a popular school than their non-faith peers (by dint of having a greater chance of a place at the faith school even if they don't stand much chance, for sibling, distance or other reasons, at any other popular school.

You see? We're not talking about anyone being flat out excluded. So you can stop harping on about that. We're talking about religious children having a higher chance and a wider choice.

Therefore, please answer me this: how is that situation fair?

In REALLY simple terms:

Collectively, Religious children don't EVER have any LESSER chance of a place at any school than non religious children. Your beloved sibling rule, distance rule, grammar selection, whatever other rule you want to pick as an example, applies equally to a religious child and a non religious child when applying to any school.
BUT religious children DO have an advantage over non religious children when applying to faith schools. So, whatever other selection criteria any other school has (siblings, distance, whatever) is irrelevant. The end result is always that religious children have better choices.

Seriously. You can't claim to not get that. Or that it's not the case. Or that it's fair. You just can't.

Tldr.

Short response. They do not have more choice, they have the same choice.

You and others are confusing oversubscription criteria with exclusion. It takes little effort to understand the difference, just on here there's some wilful ignorance going.

As for London, that cesspit is an anomaly. Rest of the country mostly gets their first choice local school.

"You and others are confusing oversubscription criteria with exclusion."

No we're not. Have you reported the trolls yet? What did MNHQ have to say about it?

But this problem only happens because the faith school is oversubscribed in the first place. If there were enough outstanding schools around with lots of places, why would so many families (religious and non religious) would want to fight for the places of one particular faith school?

The faith schools around where we are (not London) are not oversubscribed to my knowledge. And one in particular, has a very bad reputation. When we moved here I was discouraged from applying to that one for that reason, despite having initially considered applying to the lovely faith school attached to the church we belonged to when we lived in London. So my options here were to choose a school that I liked and felt was a good match despite not being religious or a religious that wasn't good in all other aspects but faith. Also, it just so happened that the school we fell in love with was usually undersubscribed as that was the only reason we got in by distance applying from so many miles away from our address in London.

I'm sure if any family (religious or not religious) wanted to apply to the CoE school with a bad reputation here, they would get their first choice.

Also, why are there still only boys or girls schools nowadays? That also reduces the choice of school for families in a similar way as the religion. Although I expect there are not as many of them.

I think t4nut might be Tony Blair.

Wasn't he always banging on about how wonderful it was that parents now had so much choice when it came to schools? When in reality he was confusing "expressing a preference" with having a genuine choice.

T4nut. I'm not in London, and my local C of England secondary is very oversubscribed and fills all of its places with 'category 1' churchgoers (attend 3 times per month for 3 years). There are a small number of places for children living in the same road as the school, and a smaller number of places for children of other faiths.

I don't agree with this admission policy, but sent my kids there because it was the best school available to me at the time - alternatives were a school that ofsted graded as needs improvement, or private schools, or bussing them out of the area. I don't think this is a fair way to do school admissions.

Short response. They do not have more choice, they have the same choice.

Well, no they don't. I explained in detail how that very often isn't the case in practice.

You and others are confusing oversubscription criteria with exclusion. No we aren't. YOU are. I can see how you have got yourself stuck on this one which is why I specifically addressed the issue as a matter of an inequality of choice becuse of oversubscription criteria rather than a case of out and out exclusion. But yet you ignore everything I have said and carry on dismissing everyone using the same old irrelevant cry that no one is explicitly excluded on paper.

We know they're not. We're not saying they are. We're saying there's still lots of unfair advantages to religious children which amounts to exclusion in practical terms. You're surely pretending to not get this because you can't bear to step down.

Mind you, you've made your logical capabilities pretty clear by thinking it's reasonable to dismiss an entire argument becuse it applies 'only' to London....(which isn't even true anyway...)

Where do you live? I can only assume you lead a very sheltered life in somewhere unusually well serviced and under populated.

Bottom line is your arguments only begin to even be faintly plausible (in a good light with a following wind, if you squint) if oversubscription never happens.

Since it does happen - a lot, in many places- you're really going to have to find a new tack on this.

I'll try one more time for the chronically hard of thinking.

There are 5 schools in the area. Anyone can apply for any of them (none of them are nasty poisonous exclusive grammar schools).

If each has 200 spaces and fewer than 200 children apply to each everyone gets a space.

Simple so far yes? No-one excluded, no-one prevented, no one standing on the gates saying you cant come in.

School a is a faith school. Fewer than 200 children have applied to each, everyone gets a space.

Next year rolls round. same schools. However this time school b has 250 applicants so they have to work down the oversubscription criteria and 50 kids don't get their first choice place. OH no have they been excluded, prevented or discriminated against?

Year after rolls round. This time school a, the faith school, has 250 applicants and 50 kids don't get their first choice. have they been excluded, prevented or discriminated against?

The admissions code specifically prevents any form of discrimination. Read it.

I know, the hard of thinking are never going to get it.....

Have you had a response from MNHQ about your troll reports yet?

OH no have they been excluded, prevented or discriminated against?

If the oversubscription criteria is based on the religion of their parents, then yes, they have been discriminated against.

Well yes of course, in your third scenario (school a, faith school, being oversubscribed) those 50 children probably HAVE been discriminated against if their faith, or lack thereof, has had any bearing whatsoever on their being given or not given a place. Which, of course, it would have, if we assume (as often happens) that not all of the 250 applicants were children of the faith. Since the oversubscription criteria kicked in, then obviously there would be a higher proportion of faith children amongst the 200 accepted than among the 50 denied a place. Which is a clear case of discrimination.

You may think the code prohibits discrimination. It doesn't. Are you so naive as to think that the perverse world we live in could never allow such double speak? Prohibiting some discrimination with one hand while waving other discrimination through with another?

As an aside, t4nut you have the most uncanny and very amusing ability to earnestly present arguments which beautifully prove the exact opposite of the position you are trying to maintain.

Like scenario 3 in the above. Your whole post beautifully shows at play the exact discrimination people have spent 10 pages trying to explain to you. But you seem to think it shows no discrimination it's quite wonderful really

Explain how. Scenario 2 and scenario 3 are exactly the same thing, but its only discrimination in the latter to a small number of people here because it met the 'I DIDNT GET WHAT I WANTED' test. We had pages of some of the same kind of eeejits arguing how sibling priority was unfair because they didn't get what they wanted.

If the oversubscription criteria is based on the religion of their parents, then yes, they have been discriminated against.

Read the code. Listen the those who understand it better than you. At least you've accepted you were foolish in your silly rant about 'THEY WOULDNY GIVE ME THE FORM!'

You may think the code prohibits discrimination. It doesn't

Read it. It does.