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.

I understand why people object to admission on faith grounds when it comes to the issue of LAC.

I honestly don't see how any school can justify discriminating against children in care based on their religious beliefs, when that group of children is, rightly, considered to be the highest priority group of children when it comes to school admissions.

I know from colleagues and friends whose children attend our local Catholic school that I mentioned upthread - with the 17 admissions categories of which 8 categories of baptised Catholic children take priority over a LAC with no religion - that once in, church attendance slumps or disappears altogether.

You can't say that about a sibling, who is always going to be a sibling no matter what.

Rhonda she started with nonsensical claims about being denied the form by the school - the same form that would have been used to apply for the school she got. Badgering possibly, but I think she's a liar.*

No, she gave a slightly innacuarate account, and was picked up on it by an admissions lawyer (prh4) and you (who are clutching at straws to defend your entrenched position.

She was clearly talking about the supplementary form, not the coordinated admissions form. Anyone reasonable can see that.

Less hard to accept would be a child in LA care who is not religious losing out to a child in LA care who is religious. You'd think a Christian school would not discriminate when it came to children who are unable to live with their birth families

I agree with that. It tends to be RC schools that place LAC children of the faith first with other LAC children only being admitted once all children of the faith have a place. I've not come across a CofE school that does this but I can't say definitively that none do. Even within RC schools many place all LACs as first priority regardless of faith. I haven't looked at enough schools of other faiths to say with any confidence what they do but there aren't many such schools. I may be wrong but I doubt the RC schools would throw their toys out of the pram if this were to change so I would support changing the Admissions Code on this point.

You could equally argue that having a sibling is not a disadvantage and therefore siblings should not be given priority

You could. But as with the boy/girl argument I have earlier, sibling priority is far less controversial because it applies more or less equally to almost all schools.

It also has a lot of practical advantages, particularly in primaries.

Some would of course argue that educating faith groups in silos has practical advantages, but that is obviously much more controversial.

She was clearly talking about the supplementary form, not the coordinated admissions form. Anyone reasonable can see that.

I agree that is what she was talking about. However, she wrongly alleged that the school's failure to give her the SIF meant she could not apply and stuck to that position even when it was pointed out it was incorrect. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse her of lying but I can understand t4nut's frustration with her.

But as with the boy/girl argument I have earlier, sibling priority is far less controversial because it applies more or less equally to almost all schools

I agree. However, I know some people who think sibling priority is wrong. The point I'm making is that if you want to persuade people that the government should spend billions of taxpayers money on ending prioritisation on faith grounds you need better arguments than "I think it is unfair" or "I don't like it". A lot of the arguments put forward on this thread would not pass muster if advanced in court.

In my LA area, there is a C of E primary school which places LAC with no religion as lower priority than all children with C of E as their religion. I discovered it when looking around for a place for a child in a family I support for my job. I was horrified and still am.

Its yet another example of mumsnet entitlement - anything that may mean MY child doesn't get exactly what I want is unfair and should be changed. Examples of which diatribes have appeared here include faith, siblings, people moving house, SEN, grammars, no grammars, private, no private, ICS etc etc etc

Rules is the rules - they evolve but that's what they is irrespective of how pointy elbowed and demanding you get

A lot of the arguments put forward on this thread would not pass muster if advanced in court

Of course. This is Mumsnet, and we rely on expert contributors like you to keep us on the straight and narrow, pedantic though you might seem at times .

School administrators often do give out mis-information, and admissions processes are complex, so it's not surprising the waters get muddied sometimes.

Its yet another example of mumsnet entitlement - anything that may mean MY child doesn't get exactly what I want is unfair and should be changed. Examples of which diatribes have appeared here include faith, siblings, people moving house, SEN, grammars, no grammars, private, no private, ICS etc etc etc

It's easy to throw mud at individuals over their descriptions of their personal experiences, some of which are always more compelling than others. But it's less easy to ignore the collective frustration that people have with faith school admissions.

Your own position seems to be based on your experience of your own local school, which is clearly quite different to the experience of many others. Hopefully you've now at least got a slightly bigger picture.

Rules is the rules - they evolve but that's what they is irrespective of how pointy elbowed and demanding you get

They evolve through consultation and everyone here is entitled to contribute to that, either directly , or via their MP. But they can only do that if they're aware that it's happening. And if they need to hone their arguments here on Mumsnet first then that's fine.

Its yet another example of mumsnet entitlement - anything that may mean MY child doesn't get exactly what I want is unfair and should be changed.

I have never had any interest in getting my DC into a Catholic school. Nothing would have suited them less.

On a personal level I campaign against all forms of religious privilege - it just happens that I work in education and frequently see the unfair application of religious school admissions first hand.

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for prioritising all baptised Catholic children over a looked after child with no religious faith. If anyone has one, I'm all ears.

But it's less easy to ignore the collective frustration that people have with faith school admissions.

Collective frustrations? Handful of people, the most vocal of which couldn't work out how to fill in a form. If we believe her. Which I don't.

Problem was you started with an illogical argument. Catholic schools with a 50% faith cap were not being opened, so for any parents where one might open there was no choice. Now if one opens with no faith cap it will lead to increased choice. The position is better than it was before. it is illogical to think this is a bad move.

me neither, why would I want to send my children where girls are brainwashed about birth control and abortion in wahtever the social lessons are called. If you think this does not happen then you are wrong.
In a way a Catholic school is more inclusive than a C of E school, purely because of the nature of the religion, but I believe most of the latter are junior schools.
Any school that only admits on the basis of parental religion is exclusive and in my opinion has no place in today's education system.

Collective frustrations? Handful of people

Not just on this thread. You're clearly very new to the debate.

Now if one opens with no faith cap it will lead to increased choice. The position is better than it was before. it is illogical to think this is a bad move.

Wrong. See my post about the hypothetical planet with 100 children upthread. If you have limited funds, creating choice for a minority decreases choice overall.

If you can't follow that logic then also see my post upthread where I quoted from the Public Accounts Committee. The DfE know they don't have enough surplus to increase choice. Yet they still claim to be doing it.

Yes your hypothetical planet was a real argument clincher /eyeroll

Don't create silly strawman arguments and expect to have them taken seriously.

If a faith school chooses to open a new free school then that increases choice for all parents both at that school and by freeing spaces and other local schools. Everyone wins. Unless of course you're using an imaginary argument from the planet Mongo......

me neither, why would I want to send my children where girls are brainwashed about birth control and abortion in wahtever the social lessons are called. If you think this does not happen then you are wrong.
In a way a Catholic school is more inclusive than a C of E school, purely because of the nature of the religion, but I believe most of the latter are junior schools.
Any school that only admits on the basis of parental religion is exclusive and in my opinion has no place in today's education system.

That is your opinion to which you are entitled - no matter how prejudiced and wrong it is. And it is.

There is nothing 'prejudiced' or 'wrong' about my opinion, don't be intellectually sillier than you have to be...

"brainwashing", ill informed assumptions made about what is taught and how, misinformed view of exclusion.

Yup that's prejudice - and you are wrong.

my sisters went to Catholic high school and told me all about their PSHE lessons. Therefore I am hardly 'ill informed'.
Sorry but I think you are wrong. Accepting this without resorting to insults is called 'debate'.

If a faith school chooses to open a new free school then that increases choice for all parents both at that school and by freeing spaces and other local schools. Everyone wins.

That isn't what happens. As I keep saying (and you clearly don't understand), there is only enough cash for a finite number of places. If you were capable of doing some mathematical modelling you would see that if there are no, or low, surpluses, then catering for minority "chouce" does not increase overall choice n it decreases it.

The National Audit Office say that 5-10% surplus is required for sufficient choice. The more surplus, the more choice. But as current capital budgets don't allow for that, building schools that are only accessible to a single faith group just improves their lives - nobody else's.

In other words, surplus spaces aren't "created" in other schools because they are already allocated to the population bulge. School places are under pressure and that pressure needs to be as evenly distributed as possible.

Anecdote of 1 unsubstantiated example from 20 years ago. Ill-informed. Prejudiced.

Where was the insult?

I stated you were prejudiced.
I stated you were wrong.

oh God are you still wittering away?
No it was not 20 years ago.
Personally I think you are 'prejudiced' and 'wrong' so shall we just leave it there now?

I was really hoping that someone who thinks the current rules for religious school admissions are fair would come along and explain the fairness of prioritising ALL children with the required religion over LAC with no religion. That's clearly not going to happen.

I agree on the Rhonda, and it is down to individual schools. personally I believe LAC should be first whether faith or not, and I believe most do do that.

Anonuserofmanyrandomnumbers you can leave it where you like. I've acknowledged your mistaken and prejudiced opinion and accepted that due to your prejudice and confirmation bias you hold it.