ICS Faith School appeal, do we have a case? Would really appreciate some help/information

[decisonsdecisions]

Hi

We are appealing for a faith school on the basis that the criteria have not been applied properly. Places are given on how involved the family is with the church and how often they attend, then distance, but doesn't say that how long they have been at the church is taken into account. But, after a conversation with the school I know this is used to judge the applications.

We think that if time at church wasn't used our dc would have been higher up the list as after being ranked by category (we are quite high with support from clergy) distance is supposed to be used as a tie breaker, but it seems that length of time at church has been used instead.

The criteria does say that a form from the clergy is taken into account and that asks how long they have known the family but it is not stated as a criteria. Do you think we have a case or are we clutching at straws?? Thanks very much for any advice.

It depends on the exact wording of the criteria and how the school is interpreting them. If they are taking into account factors which aren't mentioned in the criteria that is wrong. Equally if the admission criteria say they use distance as a tie breaker but they are actually using the length of time at church that would be wrong. If your DC would have been admitted had the admission criteria been applied correctly that should lead to a successful appeal.

Can you tell us exactly what the admission criteria say or identify the school involved so we can take a look?

Faith schools can set their own criteria, but of course they then have to apply them properly.

You say that places are given on church involvement and how often they attend, then distance. If that is the case then distance is only a tie breaker after the church criteria.

The form from the clergy is basically the evidence of your church involvement. If one of the questions on that form is "how long have you known the family" then the inference is that this is information which will be used in the decision making process. Distance would then be used only if there were two children who satisfied the first requirement equally, or if there were places left for others after all the church places had been filled. It would appear to me that they are following their procedures properly; they are not using length of time as a tie breaker, they are using it as part of their first criteria which is correct.

I think a lot of schools nowadays try and weed out the "genuine believers" from those who miraculously find religion just as their children approach school age. If you haven't attended that church for long for some specific reason like moving house then it might help to get evidence from your last parish to show continuity of worship. Good luck in any case, it's a stressful time

To elaborate (I really shouldn't post after midnight!), if the school uses a minimum length and/or regularity of church attendance in order to qualify for priority under the admission criteria on the basis that the parents worship at a church that is acceptable. Indeed, that is normal - faith schools don't want to give priority to children just because their parents went to church for one day.

What is not acceptable is to use the length of church attendance as a tie breaker when the criteria say distance is the tie breaker.

The first question is whether your DC missed out because they were using length of church attendance as a tie breaker or because you didn't have enough attendance to qualify as a regular worshipper.

I'd still be interested to see exactly what the admission criteria say as that may help to understand what has happened here and whether or not you have a case.

Thank you for your replies. The published criteria says this:

Looked after children
Siblings
Children who attend church ranked by how often (no mention of how long), then by distance
Children who do not attend church

It does say reference to confirm attendance is used, so Sunny I can see your point that it can be interpreted that it is fair enough to use questions from the form. But, the only time length of attendance is mentioned is on the form that goes to clergy and this is not published as part of the admissions criteria. Are they introducing an extra criteria that is not stated in the published admissions criteria, or is this ok because they mention the form?

I know that this is probably a grey area and gets a bit nit picky which I really don't want to be, but we attend church for genuine reasons and if it hadn't been for record number of siblings would have got a place. I might try getting letter from previous church too, thanks for the tip.

I haven't been told this is definitely the reason for not getting a place, but was given that impression. It's been a bit hard to get answers.

Thanks for your help, really appreciate it.

I suspect that "ranked by how often" is the critical phrase. If you've been attending church regularly for 3 years (i.e. 120+ attendances over that time) you will have been to church more often than someone who has only been attending for 3 months.

So, are they breaking the rules?

Let's imagine two applicants. Applicant A has been attending church for 3 years but has only managed to actually get there 10 times. Applicant B has been attending church for 3 months and has gone every week, so has 13 attendances. If they rank applicant B above applicant A on the basis that applicant B has attended church more often they are following their admission criteria and there is no problem. However, if they rank applicant A above applicant B purely because they've been attending church for longer that would appear to be a breach of their admission criteria.

They are required to tell you exactly why you didn't get a place. Insist on answers.

So it sounds like we might have a case? The how often criteria is based on weekly/monthly/occasionally/never, doesn't ask total number of times, or number of times in last 2 years for eg, so seems to me that attending regularly is the most important factor, which we do.

Thank you for the good example. I will try and get some more definite answers.

It depends on the exact wording of the "how often" criteria but yes, you might have a case. My example is correct if they simply say "how often". If the wording is different my example may be wrong.

Can you post the exact wording of the "ranked by how often" part of the admission criteria?

You need to check the footnotes to the admission criteria as this is usually where they put in the detail of how they decide actual ranking. Alternatively say which school and LA and we can have a look ourselves at what it says.

On the face of what you have posted the criteria is clearly open to different interpretations. I suspect that the people making the decision on the governing body in terms of the ranking know exactly how they rank them, but it is a question of whether the methodology is clear to the general public,parents and any appeal panel reading the admission criteria.

My lawyerly side would say that a specific question on the form wouldn't have to be mentioned as part of the criteria because it isn't - the form is EVIDENCE so that the criteria may be properly applied. All the criteria would in fact have to be evidenced (siblings mentioned would have to be on the roll, social services would confirm that a child was "looked after" etc.).

Do you have to "sign in" at your church? - I couldn't believe when I heard that one but I guess it's the only way to really prove attendance! If there isn't such a system it's possible that there is an assumption of weekly attendance using the "how long have you known this family" as the starting point. I wonder if you could argue that this means the criteria isn't being properly applied as it is based on assumption rather than documented fact? Any thoughts admission?

Sunnydelight - A lot depends on what the admission criteria say. The way decisions are made must be clear to parents. If the criteria are unclear that is a problem.

There is also the question of what the form actually says. Does it say "how long have you known this family" (which may depend on how long the priest/minister has been at that church) or does it say "how long has this family been regularly attending your church".

I've never come across a church which requires worshippers to sign in. The most I've found is churches asking visitors to sign the visitors book.

The school has to rely on answers from the priests/ministers of the churches involved. The question is whether the school has acted reasonably given the evidence available and has complied with its admission criteria.

I don't think we know enough about this appeal yet to really judge how good a case there is.

The exact wording of the criteria is....

the following will be taken into consideration A) Church attendance: 1) the family attends services at least twice per month, 2) the family attends services once per month, 3) the family attends less than once per month. A written reference from the clergy confirming attendance will be taken into consideration. B) Distance from home to school measured by straight line distance. Priority is given to applicants who live closest.

And the exact wording of the form is...

How long has the family been known to you?
How long has the family attended the church?

Applicants tick the form to say which category 1/2/3 above they think they fit in to, and the form asks the clergy 'can you confirm the statement provided by the family?'

We don't have to sign in at church. I see the argument about the form providing evidence, but isn't it asking for evidence of something that isn't listed as a criteria?

Thanks for all your comments. I'm pleased that at least it sounds like it's not a straight 'no'.

Based on that wording I think the school would get away with having a minimum length of attendance to qualify so that you couldn't get into category A1 by attending just two services, although they should really specify what the minimum is. However, if that is the entire wording I can see no justification there for using the length of attendance at church as a tie breaker. If they have definitely done so I think that is a good basis for an appeal case.

There is definitely no minimum time of attendance specified, all of the applications are ranked against each other. The person at the school told me they categorise applications by length of attendance to help rank them.

Thankyou very much. We're hoping for dc to get a place from the waiting list without having to appeal but it's good to know we're not just seeing what we want to see.

Can I ask one more question as I'm confused about how appeals effect waiting lists. Is it possible that if the appeal panel accepts the point but says it isn't enough to get a place that dc would move up the waiting list instead? Also, if I could get a letter from our previous church could that help with the list without appealing?

That's two questions!

Appeal panels are specifically prohibited from changing a child's position on the waiting list. They can only decide to admit or not admit.

Only the school can tell you whether a letter from your previous church would affect your position on the waiting list. You'll have to ask them. Given that length of attendance isn't mentioned in the criteria, a letter from your previous church should make no difference. However, if they are using length of attendance as a tie breaker it may make a difference.

I was hoping you wouldn't notice my bad maths Thank you, that's all been really useful.

Our church has a register for parents to sign. The Vicar was/ is deeply unhappy about guessing and after a meeting in church, the parents decided that a sign in sheet was their best option. Some other churches locally do this and others don't.