Faith Schools And Racial Segregation?

[scramble69]

Why in this day and age are we still allowed to segregate kids according to faith and race?
In my town in East London Walthamstow in our catchment area there are two Roman Catholic primary schools and one Church of England which draws 95% of the white kids and a few black kids. In my son's school there are 900 kids Bangladeshi/Polish/Bulgarian/Lithuanian etc. and 5 of them are white English kids!
Of mixed parentage myself I find it frustrating that my kid can't mix with other English kids,can't be socialised in English culture,music football etc.
I'm absolutely for the benefits of schooling children about the cultures of the world and the joys of living in an international city but shouldn't local authorities ensure that this segregation situation doesn't happen as it clearly is?

jacketpotato yes, one of the things I find particularly unacceptable is that being Catholic enough to get a place in an oversubscribed Catholic school is so inconsistent and can depend effectively on the personal attitudes of school or priest. It isn't just that the schools exclude pupils on the basis of the parents religion but that they exclude devout Catholic parents who do not meet the specific criteria. I am by no means clear on for instance how Gunnersbury School serves the Ealing Polish community for whom the baptism at 6 months requirement is a frequent hurdle and yet the diocese claims that it is the increase in the numbers of Polish pupils that are creating a need for places elsewhere? Are they relaxing the requirement for some parents? I gather they are but on what basis is less clear.

Catholic Canon Law requires parents to have their children baptised within a few weeks of birth. A requirement for baptism within 6 months is not uncommon in school admission criteria. Unless someone challenges this with the Schools Adjudicator we must assume this is valid.

We know from a ruling by the Adjudicator that schools may not use criteria that attempt to measure church involvement by the amount of practical and/or financial support they give. So if the school awards additional credit for participating in certain activities, for example, this can be challenged.

Just to be pedantic, schools cannot exclude anyone. If there are insufficient applicants meeting the faith criteria to fill all the places they must offer the remaining places to other applicants. I know, of course, that I am being pedantic. For many faith schools the number of faith applicants substantially exceeds the number of places so unless you meet the faith criteria you aren't going to get a place.

icecreamsoup my country of origin perhaps does not matter that much, it will suffice to say that there are no faith schools in my country.

To anyone pointing to the Catholic Canon Law and the requirement of early baptism... Well it looks like it is not widely available and cited in my country. Historically everyone baptises their children when they are 1-3 years old, have a nice celebration, likely in summer time, and I have not heard anyone mentioning "but Catholic Canon Law says that you have to baptize in early days". Thus naturally I was not aware of it and it only came to my light when the schools started to matter. Here in the UK.

Where we live, 3 nearest secondary catholic schools have < 6 months baptism tie. Majority of our primary schools kids go there. Where our DC will go, I don't know. Clearly I have not played "the game" right.

"Unless someone challenges this with the Schools Adjudicator we must assume this is valid"

Whether it's legally valid or not, it's not right for state-school admissions policies to be used to coerce people into following Canon Law.

My money would be on the adjudicator ruling against it. The problem is that the adjudicator requires policies to be reported to him before he investigates them, and that job is generally left to disgruntled parents (although the recent rule changes about who can challenege policies has helped expedite a few investigations).

It perhaps should be the role of Ofsted to check school admissions policies against the code as part of inspections. Local Authority Admissions Forums (now non-statutory) haven't done that job particularly well in some areas, and are sometimes stacked with vested interests.

Just wanted to say in my ds's London Catholic Primary school, in his class one third are black, one third mixed race (ie Asian, Sout American etc) white (either British, Polish or Irish) and it's perfect. Far better than the non denominational schools.

icescreamsoup, you're obviously not pleased about 'religious segregation, but I have to say, I think you're going about this the wrong way.

What I really like to see across all schools - including grammar and private schools (haha, yeh in my dreams) is them taking their fair share of people in poverty. That wouldn't be hard to implement, and there would be far less opposition from churches who own the bricks and mortar of the school, and it would be less expensive. It's about 15 - 20% of kids on free school meals - so each school has to have a percentage of places held for kids on fsm.

Also, I think your information isn't quite right. Anyone with a statement goes straight to the top of the list of any school RC included, as does looked after and adopted children, as I understand it?

I looked round the London Oratory and heard the headmaster telling a Muslim mother whose child had a statement this.

raspberryripple43, have you looked your school up on this map to find out how it compares with its local area?

"I think you're going about this the wrong way."
Er, going about what the wrong way? Not sure I follow, sorry.

"What I really like to see across all schools ... is them taking their fair share of people in poverty"
Me too.

"churches ... own the bricks and mortar of the school"
Historically yes, but not now. New faith schools (including free schools and some new VA schools) have been given publicly owned buildings.

"Anyone with a statement goes straight to the top of the list of any school RC included"
They should (so long as the statement names the school). They should also make that clear in the written policy. See the posts from Mon 28-Apr-14 19:26:18 onwards.

"as does looked after and adopted children"
In many cases, non-RC looked after children have low priority. See gardenfeature's post at Mon 28-Apr-14 06:50:59.

icecreamsoup ... I suppose I meant 'going about' in terms of getting more fairness in education, and more under-privileged kids into good school.

Primary school not up there, so I can't comment on my child's school.

The London Oratory has published its new admissions policy, following removal of the service criterion. It's heavily geared towards proving compliance with Canon Law.

I find it interesting that the Religious Inquiry Form that is used to provide the evidence, not only asks for the evidence, but also asks candidates to give reasons for why they haven't complied. Surely that goes way beyond what is necessary, and only serves to intimate "weaker" candidates!?

Example:

"Oversubscription criterion 3: The extent to which the candidate fulfils the Church’s requirements regarding Baptism:
Unless there is good reason, ideally Baptism must occur within six months of birth. Please give reasons if Baptism was not received at the appropriate age. Please attach any supporting documentation that will verify your claim. (Use additional sheets if necessary and attach them to this form). ..... Examples of “good reason” are a death or serious illness in the family at time Baptism was planned, residence in a country where access to priest is not possible or limited, parish circumstances dictating timing of Baptism classes for parents"

Prh47bridge yes,canon law is clear, what is not clear is how and when the requirement is relaxed in terms of admissions. As is implicit in the circumstances listed in the Oratory's new admissions policy as highlighted by icecream"'s post clearly the schools do entertain cases where that might not have happened but there is nothing set out for parents as to what consistent and fair criteria are used, and the immigrant communities in particular who may not meet the criteria for the reasons set out by jacketpotato are rife with rumour about what may or may not get a place, and as rightly highlighted by icecream* they intimidate "not Catholic enough" candidates. I don't agree with children being excluded by schools because of their parents faith but as someone raised within Catholic culture myself, and married to someone from a very privileged Catholic education / background, I find it even more unacceptable that parents get nods and winks from their priests (and we have personal experience) about their children's chances of a place, and that judgements are made about whether they are Catholic enough which appear lacking in cultural sensitivity. A system which already, as we have discussed, discriminates against those without the resources and knowledge to meet the criteria, is adding a layer of opaqueness to cement privilege. Hopefully it will be challenged.

Apologies for messing up the bolding

I am angry about the situation but there is nothing I can do.

You can call it what it is, racism.

It has been traditional in England to baptise early, my brother was born 30th November and baptised before Christmas.

But it has been tradition in Eastern Europe and some other countries to not baptise before 1 year.

I was not aware of the canon law of 'weeks' but there is no definition of how long 'weeks' is. I have attempted to look up the canon law (thanks prh47bridge for pointing that out) but age 1 is '52 weeks', is that really different to '26 weeks'?

sashh, yes, the relevant section of canon law just says "Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it".

That isn't specific enough to be compliant with the admissions code, so RC schools wanting to use strict baptism criteria have to set their own time boundaries. It is 6 months in the case of the London Oratory.

I think everybody looks at this from the wrong angle. Church schools are over subscribed because parents like them and the results they get. The answer isn't to ban the ones we have or to make them admit children from non practicing families. The answer (and yes I'm staring hard at you: London Diocesan Board of Education) is to open more church schools in areas where the existing ones are already over subscribed. For example Putney could easily absorb another church primary and it might just have the effect of making a badly performing LEA school close; H&F and Westminster could open another secondary each to compete with Greycoat and LMS and preferably something for the boys too. I'm not going to comment about Wandsworth bearing in mind the extent to which it screwed up its still relatively new church school by appointing a wholly inappropriate head and joining the race to the bottom in the early years.

Or perhaps, to use the old cliche, they could open a school that prioritised the children of parents who can juggle. It's likely to achieve results just as good as those of the local church schools, given that it will be full of children with parents who are willing and able to jump through the required hoops.

A few years back, I remember a Jewish secondary school in North London making the news because it would only accept children with mothers who were born Jewish themselves. It was effectively excluding children of Jewish converts. This wasn't allowed because it was deemed selection by race rather than faith.

The 6 month baptism rule isn't exactly same. But ithas similarly features. It would effectively exclude converts and make Catholicism a birth right.

"Church schools are over subscribed because parents like them .... The answer ... is to open more church schools"

No, there's a step missing in that logic, and it's important.

Church schools are oversubscribed (in some areas) because they are successful. Parents like successful schools because they are successful. In many cases, the fact that they are church schools is much less relevant to their popularity than you suggest.

The answer is to create more successful schools, not necessarily more church schools. Church schools aren't guaranteed to be successful. It's just that they currently have the odds of success stacked in their favour because of their selective admissions policies.

So, my version of your solution would be ......

1. Open up the admissions of Church Schools so that they serve their local communities more evenly.
2. Then allow successful schools to expand, or bodies that are responsible for successful schools (including, but not limited to churches) to create more of them.

missinglalaland I understood that the reason for the baptisms within a year was to cut out the 'sharp elbowed' who were just baptising just to get into a school - so depriving all of the African, Eastern European, travellers kids a place.

icecreamsoup- I wish there was a movement to ban private education and grammar schools. You'd soon see educational standards shooting up, once the ruling classes have to use state, comprehensive education.

Once private and grammars gone, then let's ban faith schools.

It's just find it particularly irksome that faith schools, which do provide a stepping stone to social mobility for many are under fire, when the real causes of educational inequality rumble on, and everyone seems to shut up about them.

"... and everyone seems to shut up about them"

Really? Not on Mumsnet they don't

"I wish there was a movement to ban private education and grammar schools. You'd soon see educational standards shooting up, once the ruling classes have to use state, comprehensive education."

I can't see any of them being banned in the foreseeable future, which is all the more reason why their admissions need to be fair.

The most effective way to reduce the impact of the private sector is to improve quality across the board in the state sector. There's no point in paying for private if your child can get the same grades at the local comp, especially if they're likely to be happier at the local comp. Private schools thrive where people are dissatisfied with their local state schools.

Grammar schools should prioritise children on Free School Meals. It looks like many of them are going down that path voluntarily, which sounds promising.

Faith schools need to open up their admissions. Not everyone wants to go to a faith school, but those that do should be able to access them without having to jump through competitive worshiping hoops to prove their worthiness.

Nearthe On the whole parents want good local schools. Why else against all social trends and census information about people who profess faith are the pews full at certain churches that are in Parishes that are served by good exclusive church schools? Fifteen years ago in my borough a fair few of the church schools were undersubscribed and didn't perform particularly brilliantly either, but now that the pressure on places is increasing parents are doing whatever they can do to avoid being the ones without a school place (and I mean anything I am quite sure if juggling was required they would be on to it). And the community primaries and especially secondaries are still more popular than a lot of the faith schools, they have expanded but catchments continue to shrink.

As the London diocese have acknowledged it isn't even particularly healthy for a church congregation. I have several devout friends who get very annoyed at the parents who strategically attend their churches but do not take any consistent and constructive long term part in Parish Life and charitable activities. They want their schools to do the charitable work they were established to do, to educate the children of their community, and especially the disadvantaged, not have 4 by 4s choking up the roads around the school at drop off and pick up.

When I drove past a local church school recently it had a huge banner up outside saying "Park your cars in neighbouring roads, the walk will do you good and the area around the school will be safer for all our children" It is just a ten minute walk from as area of the borough where parents get offered no school place or one in a school that is a 45 minute walk / a bus ride away, a journey so difficult with a reception child and siblings that parents end up keeping their children at home. Where is the sense, and Christianity, in that?

Surely the answer is to open more schools (not to bang on about getting rid of faith school)?

Angel nobody on this thread is banging on about getting rid of faith schools - just opening up their admissions so they can't be quite so selective about who they let through the door.

there is a jewish school near where i live that nolonger has only jewish kids, good mix there. apparently they still teach all jewish stuff/do all the holidays. no idea how the kids there feel about 'celebrating' all the jewish holidays. fwiw i am a jew and wouldn't much care about acknowledging/taking part in the jewish holidays...i do like the idea however of people all mixing and (hopefully) getting along nicely, just the way it should be

Wintertimeisfun, yes, many faith schools are opening up voluntarily. The Coalition Agreement pledged to facilitate inclusive admissions in faith schools (see page 29). New faith academies are limited to a maximum of 50% of places reserved for faith applicants, and some have gone much further and are completely open.

As someone else mentioned earlier, the CE Diocese of London is encouraging all of its schools to open up, but many of them are ignoring the policy (each VA school is its own admissions authority, so they don't have to follow direction from the Diocese).

In contrast, the Catholic Education Service is vehemently resisting open admissions.