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.

If the 250 applicants to the faith school were all children of faith, so that differences in faith could not be used to decide which are the 200 that can be allocated a place, then I assume it will go down to distance.
Is a distance criteria more acceptable?

In practical terms, distance also tends to discriminate by favouring those who are able to buy or rent houses right next to the popular school (that are usually more expensive when they are in the catchment area of a desirable school). This was a common occurrence in London when I used to live there, it probably still is.

I think I may have identified the confusion.

1. Some people (well, OK, one person) is arguing that because there is a faith based admissions criterion, applying that criterion is not discriminatory.

1. Other people are saying that the presence of the criterion in the code is inherently discriminatory

Have I got it right?

Some people seem to think that faith schools exclude students based on them not being of the faith - this is incorrect.

The code - a legal document - identifies oversubscription criteria and that priority may be given.

If you think that's discrimination you're welcome to challenge it legally - the numpties over at fair admissions and the humanists gave it a shot and got laughed out of town.

Priotisation - whatever the criteria applied within the code is not discrimination.

All you are proving t4nut is that religious discrimination in some areas is state sanctioned. You're not proving that it's fair or right.

Lots of unpleasant things have been state sanctioned until enough people came to their senses....

Yes, I think you got it right BertrandRussell.

But the presence of the faith criteria makes sense in this case because it is a faith school. I would see it as the same as an all girls school which by essence has the criteria that you cannot apply if you are a boy or the other way around in an all boys school. And in fact it is worse in this case because even if the school is undersubscribed and has places available, a child would not be admitted if they don't meet the criteria by being of the opposite sex.

Then, there is the case of the selective grammars (I don't know much about them, only what I've read on Mumsnet), that have a criteria that only those bright enough can apply (using an entrance test?).

There are all sorts of criteria inherent to the type of school. If the faith criteria should not be used at all because it is inherently discriminatory, then there shouldn't be a faith school in the first place. Which I know many people favour any way. Same way I don't understand about an all girls or all boys school (maybe because I went to an all girls school and didn't like it).

And even distance or siblings criteria can be argued to be unfair and discriminatory to those that cannot easily buy or rent property near the school or only children that would never benefit from the siblings rule.

Prioritisation is not discrimination

That's pure 1984. What if I 'prioritised' atheists when hiring for my business? Pretty sure most people would think that was actually what it is, which is discrimination.

" Prioritisation is not discrimination "

obviously it is!

"Some people seem to think that faith schools exclude students based on them not being of the faith - this is incorrect."

Nope. Nobody thinks that. You have spent the last two days telling people in extraordinarily offensive terms that that is what they think. But that's just because you seem to find reading tricky.....don't worry about it.

Read it. It does [prevent discrimination]

T4nut, no, it sanctions discrimination via a very specific exemption from the equalities legislation.

If you think that's discrimination you're welcome to challenge it legally

There is no need to challenge it legally. There is a live debate happening, and any proposed changes to the current Admissions Code will need to be consulted upon. Everyone who cares about the issue can and should write to their MPs and contribute directly to the consultation. Like I said before, Mumsnet is good for honing the arguments, and getting others' perspectives, but I'd urge people to not stop there - get writing! Otherwise the whole issue will be hidden in the noise over Grammar schools.

" You have spent the last two days telling people in extraordinarily offensive terms that that is what they think."

I know right, she is so rude and block-headed that it puts you off faith schools even further.

That's pure 1984. What if I 'prioritised' atheists when hiring for my business? Pretty sure most people would think that was actually what it is, which is discrimination.

Different legislation, different practice - if you had 15 vacancies and only 14 apply would you automatically recruit all? In employment you are selecting, not giving priority.

Yes the devil is in the detail.

And yes the consultation is on the proposed changes, not reversion of existing criteria as the government cant afford to lose a third of its schools overnight.

At least you've accepted you were foolish in your silly rant about 'THEY WOULDNY GIVE ME THE FORM!'

I really haven't accepted that, t4nut.

Bertrand - I think you have it spot-on in your analysis.

Yes, of course it is discrimination but it is not exclusion, unlike single sex schools which exclude children of the wrong sex and unlike most grammar schools which exclude pupils who fail to pass their entrance exam.

It is, however, not the only form of discrimination in school admission criteria. All schools discriminate against children who are not LACs. Most discriminate against children who don't have a sibling at the school. Some discriminate against children who don't have special medical or social needs. Some discriminate children who don't receive the pupil premium. Most discriminate against children who live further from the school.

Just because it is discrimination does not mean it is wrong. Saying it is discrimination and therefore ought to be banned is another argument that would get torn to shreds in court. The question is why this particular form of discrimination should be banned.

On some other points that have been made, it has been said a couple of times that the government funds all the capital costs of every free school. That is not the case. Funding is available and many free schools have their capital costs fully funded by the government but there is no prohibition on free schools funding their own capital costs. Some free schools have funded part or all of their capital costs themselves. I can think of a couple of faith schools in particular. It would be interesting to analyse the statistics for free schools and see if faith schools are more likely to fund their own capital costs. But clearly any faith school that funds its own capital costs is not diminishing the funds available for opening other types of school.

The other observation I would make is on the argument about choice. If you live in an area where there are no spare places it is true that any faith schools limit your choice as there are some schools where you are unlikely to get a place. However, contrary to what has been said up thread, government policy is NOT to eliminate spare places but to create them. Part of what the government wants to see from free schools is most (preferably all) areas of the country having an oversupply of places so that parents have a genuine choice. This is why they have supported free schools opening in areas where there is no shortage of places despite campaigns by the opponents of free schools expressing the view that new schools should only open where there is a shortage. The government has similarly made it much easier for popular schools to expand. If there are enough places to mean parents have a genuine choice then faith schools increase choice by giving parents more different types of school to choose from. That, of course, only applies when there are enough places to mean that the vast majority of parents get the school of their choice for their children.

In this context it is worth noting that there is evidence that attitudes to faith schools vary across the country. As a general rule opposition to faith schools is strongest in areas where there is a shortage of places and faith schools are perceived to be better than other schools in the area. Opposition is generally weaker in areas where there are plenty of places and the non-faith schools are perceived to be as good as the faith schools. I am not saying that is what motivates people on this thread, just offering it as an observation.

The question is why this particular form of discrimination should be banned.

A lot of us have already answered this. Reasons include: children should neither be privileged or punished for their parents' religious choices; and faith schools store up trouble for the future by imposing monofaith environments (including in the secular schools which mop up the other kids) for children at a formative time.

Religious groups (and I am in one) are free to focus their resources and efforts on themselves in their private sphere, within the law, but is there anyone seriously willing to argue here that religious discrimination using public money, and which heavily distorts an essential public service, is a good thing?

In this context it is worth noting that there is evidence that attitudes to faith schools vary across the country. As a general rule opposition to faith schools is strongest in areas where there is a shortage of places and faith schools are perceived to be better than other schools in the area. Opposition is generally weaker in areas where there are plenty of places and the non-faith schools are perceived to be as good as the faith schools. I am not saying that is what motivates people on this thread, just offering it as an observation.

Exactly. Totally agree with this. It is what I can see in the area where I live. All the schools around here (quite a lot available) are good or outstanding. According to the Council website, 98% of applicants get their first choice. Some schools are oversubscribed, but not all. The CoE school is not, and despite the faith criteria, should a non-religious family choose to apply to that school they would get a place.

And this: It is, however, not the only form of discrimination in school admission criteria. (faith or lack of).
All the other criteria (special needs, looked after children, siblings, distance) are ways to discriminate when there is a need to choose among so many applicants.

There is a need for more schools (good ones) and a surplus of places so that people can genuinely choose. And in that case, I bet non-religious families would not care about that faith school over there when they can apply to many other non-faith schools equally good or outstanding nearby, as they are not interested in the religious aspect anyway.

Yes, of course it is discrimination but it is not exclusion, unlike single sex schools which exclude children of the wrong sex and unlike most grammar schools which exclude pupils who fail to pass their entrance exam.
Actually if we're going to argue semantics, then grammar schooks are only prioritising children who perform better in the tests. There's no absolute cut off, no one is explicitly excluded, they just work their way down the results lists in much the same way a faith school works its way down a list with the most obviously practising religious children at the top. If the shool is oversubscribed some less bright children won't get in, just as some non religious children won't get into an oversubscribed faith school.

I agree its exclusion in practice (as I've argued all along with faith schools) but since we've got into this silliness about prioritisation/discrimination vs absolute exclusion can we at least be accurate about it?

I have a question not relevant to admissions policy.
Why do some parents want to send their children to the school which has a belief that you don't believe, just because it's a better school or closest school?
Doesn't that influence young children's mind somehow, even you are allowed to opt out from certain things?
It definitely scare me to do that.

Just because it is discrimination does not mean it is wrong.

Well I suppose in the sense that discrimination is a loaded term meaning selection, and not all selection is a bad thing- selecting the most able candidate for a job, for example.

But this is religious discrimination. In my opinion, the very fact the religious discrimination is explicitly illegal on other contexts (like the job market) should speak for itself why it should also be illegal in schools- at the very least state funded schools.

According to the Council website, 98% of applicants get their first choice.

This doesn't necessarily reflect what the wishes of local parents might be, if the criteria were different. In this borough, since no non-Catholics will get into 3 out of the 5 secondary schools, many non-Catholics will not bother to even list those schools at all, because it's a completely wasted choice. If I put the only completely secular school down as my first choice, because that's the school my DS has the best chance of getting a place at all, and if he gets in, then I will indeed have got my first choice. But that first choice makes it sound like a triumph of the system - nearly everyone got their first choice, yay! - when it's more a case of people settling for the only option they are likely to have a chance of at all.

(By the time secondary came around I was too jaded and depressed to even try getting DS into one of the Catholic schools, as by then I knew it was hopeless.)

grammar schooks are only prioritising children who perform better in the tests. There's no absolute cut off

Depends on the grammar school. Some grammar schools do have an absolute cut off. Any child who fails to achieve the pass mark won't get a place even if the school is not full.

In my opinion, the very fact the religious discrimination is explicitly illegal on other contexts (like the job market) should speak for itself why it should also be illegal in schools- at the very least state funded schools

Playing devil's advocate here but sex discrimination is legal in state funded schools. Single sex schools are allowed to exclude pupils of the wrong sex. In broad terms the treatment of sex discrimination and religious discrimination are much the same in law. Whilst both are generally illegal, both are permitted in certain circumstances including in education.

That's why I said that I didn't think faith schools should all be concentrated in one area, but I don't know who plans for that, or how to solve that situation.
If you live in an area where 5 out of 6 schools are faith schools, it really puts non-religious families at a disadvantage. Just as it would be a problem if your area was full of grammar schools or only all girls school or only all boys schools.

Why do some parents want to send their children to the school which has a belief that you don't believe, just because it's a better school or closest school? I also asked myself that question. I suppose it is because in some cases they are the only type of schools available in that area, or the only good school in an area where all the other non-faith schools have poor results. Otherwise, I expect they wouldn't bother to consider it or be so upset for not having a chance to enter that faith school.

government policy is NOT to eliminate spare places but to create them. Part of what the government wants to see from free schools is most (preferably all) areas of the country having an oversupply of places so that parents have a genuine choice

Prh I didn't say it was Government policy. I said it was systematically happening, because of reduced funds. In boroughs that are trying to cut costs (i.e. all of them), a reduction in surplus places is one way they can do that for maintained schools.

Of course new schools are funded directly from Government, but if they lead to surplus places in local maintained schools councils will (and do) object, making the process of opening schools much more difficult for the groups concerned.

Also, government funds for the new schools are limited. The number of places being funded will meet the overall demand, not exceed it, so no surplus places will be created overall - even if some appear in local pockets, they are likely to be temporary.

The "reasons" groups can give for setting up free schools have varied over the years. Originally it was enough to show you were providing something "different" and satisfying parental demand. Then there was a big fuss about surplus places being created in some areas, so the rules were changed, and groups then has to demonstrate a "need". Now they have been changed again, with the number of eligible reasons expanding.

Of course there is nothing to stop free school groups applying to set up community schools in areas where there are too many faith places - but it is an extremely difficult process, not for the faint hearted, and without heavy involvement from people already experienced in setting up and running new schools there is no guarantee of success.

Doesn't that influence young children's mind somehow, even you are allowed to opt out from certain things? It definitely scare me to do that.

How do you think people from minority communities cope?

It's certainly a formative experience. I think you'll find most children aren't "brainwashed" by it - but they do develop their critical thinking skills very quickly.

Doesn't that influence young children's mind somehow, even you are allowed to opt out from certain things? It definitely scare me to do that.

How do you think people from minority communities cope?

It's certainly a formative experience. I think you'll find most children aren't "brainwashed" by it - but they do develop their critical thinking skills very quickly.

Re single sex schools- I have never come accross any single sex state schools and didn't realise they existed until today! For the record, I do actually agree with single sex education, particularly for girls, and believe there are accepted and proven benefits, however there are also downsides and I'd be happy to see them banned in the state sector too for consistency.