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 need to read the thread - that misconception and prejudice has been challenged multiple times sleepy

But banging on about it over several pages and calling the poster a liar is badgering. MNHQ agrees and even you admitted yourself upthread that you were probably badgering.

I have stopped calling her a liar.

However she stretched the truth - it was challenged. She continued to stretch and misrepresent the truth - so it was challenged again. And still she continues to misrepresent the truth. She could have walked away, but no. If she wants to continue to misrepresent the truth that is her prerogative, but she should expect to be challenged.

That means you were allowed to apply.

prh47bidge

Try this as a thought experiment: there's a single form to apply for a passport, right? Except in this thought experiment, this is true everywhere except for, I dunno, Cornwall. In Cornwall everyone must fill in the standard single form plus a supplementary form stating if they are a redhead or not. The standard form plus the supplementary form is the full application for Cornwall - you can send in just the standard form if you like, just as the rest of the country does, but if you do this in Cornwall there is zero chance of you getting a passport.

If you live in Cornwall and are refused a second form, then there is zero chance of you getting a passport, whether you are a redhead or not. The rest of the country can say "you could have submitted the passport application anyway, like the rest of us - what's the problem?", but since in Cornwall this first form, unlike in the rest of the country, is only half a meaningful application, then in practical terms you have been prevented from applying for a passport.

...and I do wonder at the mentality of someone who, when faced with someone telling them their four-year-old had to walk forty minutes every morning - and forty minutes back after school - to go to a school in another borough, because the state school on the same road as their home would not take them, finds the most useful thing they can do is to interrogate them in a hostile manner for pages about the mechanics of how they were denied a place, rather than offer a bot of sympathy.

I have stopped calling her a liar.

I'm not sure you should be applauded for calling another poster a liar - twice - and then stopping because MNHQ asked you to.

SuburbanRhonda I really appreciate this, thank you.

You did not need the form you asked for.

Except without that form, any application was meaningless.

other than perhaps you thrive on drama and a need for a unfounded sense of injustice?

Yes, you are so right! I walked nearly three hours a day, every day, for years, delivering my son to his primary school and collecting him afterwards, disrupting his friendships and my work, just so I could, some years later, create a bit of drama and a bid for sympathy on an internet forum!

Meanwhile, kids from all over London were being driven to the school in my street, having been given priority over my son. Not unjust at all.

And on your repeated cries of "strawman":

T4nut people are using analogies and anecdotes to help you and others understand the issues. Some are better than others, but in any case you are determined not to understand them. It's easy to pick holes in individual accounts and analogies, but most of your input is time wasting pedantism. That's fine, if you have the time to waste. Others can decide how seriously they take you.

ArcheryAnnie - Ok, let's follow through your thought experiment and make it the same as the situation you faced.

Let us suppose that Cornwall issues a limited number of passports each year and prioritises applications from redheads. Their supplementary form is used to determine whether or not your application gets priority. If you fill it in and prove that you are a redhead you get priority. If you don't provide adequate proof of redheadedness you don't get priority. If you don't complete the form you are treated as being non-redheaded. Most years you have no chance of getting a passport if you are not a redhead. However, if there is a shortage of redheaded applicants passports will be issued to non-redheads.

Obviously if you are a redhead your chances of getting a passport are significantly reduced if they won't give you the additional form. However, if you are a non-redhead it makes no difference at all. Your chances are exactly the same as they would have been if you had completed the additional form - low but not entirely non-existent. You can still apply. You have not been prevented from applying. But the fact they prioritise redheads means you have no realistic chance of getting a passport. It is their prioritisation of redheads that means you won't get a passport, not their refusal to give you the form.

I do sympathise with your situation. I'm afraid 40 minute walks to and from school are not uncommon - the government regards anything up to 45 minutes each way as reasonable for primary school children. But it is clearly not the best situation.

However, saying that a school won't allow you to apply is a serious allegation. If true the school could lose its funding. That is why I regard it as important to distinguish between not being allowed to apply at all and being able to apply but with no realistic chance of getting a place.

I accept fully that you had no realistic chance of getting a place. I have never disputed that. This school prioritises Catholic applicants. Most years there are more Catholic applicants than places. Therefore, as a non-Catholic, your chances of getting a place at this school were pretty much non-existent even if you had applied. So I accept that, although you could have applied, it would probably have been wasting a preference had you done so. And, as I have indicated up thread, I am sympathetic to the idea that schools should not be allowed to prioritise on faith grounds although I doubt it will change any time soon as it would cost the government billions of pounds to implement such a policy.

I note that you appear to accuse me of interrogating you in a hostile manner. I think you are confusing me with another poster. I have not asked you any questions at all. I have always assumed you had misunderstood the situation, possibly due to the school misleading you. Looking back I believe my posts were attempting to explain how the system works rather than being hostile to you. My apologies for any offence caused.

However, saying that a school won't allow you to apply is a serious allegation.

I know it is, prh47bridge. I intend it to be so. I think the school was utterly out of order, and if I hadn't been totally bloody exhausted at the time I would have followed it up and made a bigger fuss. I appreciate your argument, as you set out above, but it still makes no difference. I was prevented from making any meaningful application, because a school secretary refused to give me the form that would have enabled me to make even a doomed application.

...we are not going to agree on this, I think.

You're very welcome, archery.

I feel very strongly about this issue because I work in a primary school in a town where there are two secondary schools - one is private and girls-only and the other is the Catholic school I've mentioned upthread. Next year a new secondary is opening - not before time - but at one point the Catholic School wanted that school also, and proposed reserving 50% of places for children of Catholic families. That was overturned but the whole thing was a scandal ime.

Oh gods - this is why I kept posting - you just don't listen archery.

YOU WERE NOT PREVENTED

You did not get a form that you did not need to fill in and even had you got it and not been able to fill it in it would have had no bearing at all on an application made. You only need that form if you're catholic! What were you going to do if you had one - photoshop a baptism certificate and get it signed by father Ted Crilly?

No-one prevented you from making an application.

we are not going to agree on this, I think

You are probably right. However, as one final attempt to explain...

Let us imagine you had named this school as one of your preferences on the LA's form. Let us imagine that another non-Catholic family had managed to get hold of the SIF and they also applied. Let us assume that in most respects their situation was the same as yours but they lived 100 metres further from the school than you. Despite the fact that they submitted an SIF and you did not, you would have been ahead of that imaginary other family in the queue for a place at this school. Had there been insufficient Catholic families to fill all the places you would have got a place before this other family despite the fact that they submitted an SIF and you didn't.

Shall we stop wasting time with angels dancing on the heads of pins?

Are you saying that no child has ever not got a place in their nearest school because it was a faith school and the places went to children from faith families who lived further away?

Bertrand I'm only following this because I posted way up thread.

Are you saying that no child has ever not got a place in their nearest school because it was a faith school and the places went to children from faith families who lived further away? I think its absolutely clear (to anyone that can retain some objectivity about that) that no-one is saying that!

Are you saying that no child has ever not got a place in their nearest school because it was a faith school and the places went to children from faith families who lived further away?

Not everyone gets their nearest school - be it due to siblings. lac, sen, faith, grammar, distance etc. There is no right, no obligation, no commitment for any child to get their nearest school.

T4nut, you have shot down people who think the 50% cap should stay as it is, or increased, but you haven't given any arguments for why it should be repealed.

As you have generally defended the status quo, presumably you'd be neutral about the cap staying in place?

I thought I'd made it clear above?

The 50% cap discouraged the opening of faith schools. Removal of the cap will lead to more faith schools opening providing greater choice for parents. this in my opinion is a positive move.

Even if a faith school opens in an area and is filled 100% by children of that faith (unlikely) it then reduces pressure on places at other schools. Parents then have the choice of the new school and an increased chance at other schools where they previously may have had little to no chance. This is a good thing.

I can't see any argument for not doing it. More good schools, more places at good schools and more choice is a good thing.

Even if a faith school opens in an area and is filled 100% by children of that faith (unlikely) it then reduces pressure on places at other schools. Parents then have the choice of the new school and an increased chance at other schools where they previously may have had little to no chance. This is a good thing.

But as I have repeatedly tried to explain, that is not what happens because surplus places are being reduced to zero. New places do not create more choice, because the population is rising at the same rate, or at a greater rate, than the increase in places. So, creating places reserved for faith families caters for their demand, but reduces choice overall. They put more pressure on the non-faith places which become relatively scarce

I'm disappointed you haven't understood this, because it is fundamental. The fact that surpluses are reducing is proven by NAO figures, and they say at least 5-10% surplus is the minimum required for reasonable choice.

So if the gvt wants to increase choice in the way you describe, they first need to vastly increase the number of places they are prepared to fund and mandate that Local Authorities ensure a 5-10% surplus. Presumably you would support that and gladly pay the extra tax it would require?

I don't think you understand how opening new schools work now.

New schools are free schools - they're outside any planning or limitations the local authority might do on places. The government funds per head, not per available place. If the school is viable it can open.

Population is rising, but at the moment some faith structures are not opening new schools because of the cap. Removing the cap increases the number of people willing and in a position to open schools. This is a good thing.

I don't think you understand how opening new schools work now

I certainly do. The gvt is currently budgeting for 500 new free schools. The places they will create are needed to meet the population boom. They are the minimum that is required. No cosy 5-10% surplus is being built in, and therefore no room for any overall increase in "choice". Ideally they should all be inclusive community schools. But if some of them must be faith schools, in order to encourage enough sponsors to come forward to run them, then they should have as many places open to the whole community as possible. Otherwise they increase stress not choice.

If the 500 new free schools that the government is currently budgeting for are the minimum number of places required to meet the population boom (even if no cosy 5-10% surplus is being built in), then all the population would be allocated one of those places one way or another, isn't it?

If some of the 500 new schools are faith schools with no 50% cap, all the families applying to fill those places on faith grounds mean vacant places in other schools that they would have had to apply to had not the new faith schools existed. Those vacant places either in other faith schools that didn't manage to fill 100% on faith students or non-faith schools, would be allocated to other families that either applied to those schools and now stand a better chance, or were left with no school places in the schools of their preferences.

If there was an excess on availability of faith schools compared to the number of children that could apply on faith grounds, then other children would get places in these schools even if they are not religious. I cannot see how the places would stay empty.

Personally, I don't mind having the 50% cap, and I think I can sort of see that if by removing the cap more schools are built this could be of benefit, albeit indirectly, to other non-religious families.

Ideally, there shouldn't be too many faith schools concentrated in one area so that other families could have a choice of being able to attend a school near their home even if they are of no religion. But that would require better planning, and probably not likely to happen.

illogical

3 schools available, insufficient places, no additional school = stress.

1 new school on top = increased choice, sufficient places = less stress.

How can having something possibly be worse than not having something in this context?

Government is budgeting for places - they're not building anything, these come from a list of available former government/local authority buildings. Up to the sponsor to get the school going.

all the families applying to fill those places on faith grounds mean vacant places in other schools that they would have had to apply to had not the new faith schools existed

So non-faith families get the places faith families don't want, and only those places.

The faith families get a choice. The non-faith families don't (unless they raise their game, and go to church to increase their place in the pecking order).