Church Schools

[AngelEyes46]

There is always a lot of controversy with Church schools. If you opt for a religious school for DC1, should you be 'allowed' to opt for a private/grammar/non-religious school for DC2?

Or the other way round, e.g. grammar/private/state for DC1 and then religious for DC2?

I have an issue but before I explain would like to know some thoughts?

You're allowed to choose whichever school is the best fit for the individual child. If that means they go to different schools then that's absolutely fine.

I went to grammar, my little sister went to a RC secondary.

Reason I'm asking: friend's 1st ds went to grammar, 2nd ds wants RC but priest saying "why did 1st ds not go to RC school?", and that faith is questioned. It's not in the admission policy and other criteria is met, i.e. baptism/regular church attendance so should not be a problem. It's always a worry waiting for whether your dc's get into their preferred school - she shouldn't have to have an additional worry when all criteria is met.

Hmmm, thought it might be something along those lines. I can't see that if all the other admissions criteria are met they can block DC2's entrance but it's one of the dictates of Canon Law to give your children an RC education. Hope someone who knows more about the ins and outs of it comes along with more specific advice if your friend thinks they might be blocked from attending the school on these grounds.
Is the Grammar not suitable for DC2?

That is a priest who does not understand the admission system and the admission criteria and is looking at it solely from a religious point of view.

If the pupil does not get a place when you believed that they met all the admission criteria then you definitely should appeal, so that the admission criteria can be properly explored by the panel.

However if it is shown that these negative thoughts did mean that child was disadvantaged it does not automatically mean they will get a place on appeal. Based on experience when something like this happens, the panel usually finds that the whole admission system has been compromised. It could well be that they will have to go back to square one and review all the admission applications and reconsider where they should have been on the admission criteria priority list. There could be too many pupils who have been disadvantaged, such that not all could be offered a place over the PAN. Pupils offered a place by mistake are normally allowed to keep the place offered, though there are examples on here of situations where that was not the case.

Is it a case not of a priest not understanding the admission system, but the parents making much of their Catholicism to get the first child into an oversubscribed RC school? However, when there is a non RC grammar school involved, somehow Catholicism takes a back seat?

Thanks for your advice/thoughts.

The school's admission policy is really clear - there is a space asking if a sibling is at the school but it does not ask if there is a sibling anywhere else. Also, the school state that they do not take priests letters but a form which has a tick box asking the questions under the admission policy, i.e. baptism and attendance. I really think she has nothing to worry about.

LaVolcan - I understand your concern but both children should be 'allowed' to go to a school that suits their needs/ability. We have different types of schools to suit all children, including private/grammar/church/free etc.

It doesn't concern me personally, but I can see where the Priest is coming from. You can't say on the one hand that Catholicism is the most important criteria for your child's education, and then a couple of years later, then say, well, no it's not as important as we thought.

You can certainly choose different schools to suit the different personalities of 2dc.

It would be illegal for the RC school to allow this fact to alter your DC2's eligibility. They are not allowed to make admission decisions on the basis of faith, which cannot be measured. Only externally provable events like church attendance and baptism.

The controversy over church schools is that whilst a parent who meets the faith criteria has the choice of a faith school as well as the choices available to all other parents, the parents who do not meet the faith criteria do not have that extra choice of a faith school, in fact in many cases have no choice of state school. However the law allows that unfairness and in a system where places in good schools can be hard to come by then few would blame parents for taking advantage of the privilege. Whether it is moral for some parents to have that privilege of extra choice, or whether it is moral for a Catholic parent to discount Canon Law and opt for a non faith school for one child and then seek a faith school for another, the matter on which the Priest was making a judgement, is not a matter for the Law or the Admission process, it does not seek to make windows on men's souls, only to set out the criteria for entry to schools.

You sum it up well, poisonwood.

I live in a comprehensive area so there are no grammar schools. It was important enough for my SIL to want a Catholic education for her children that she preferred to send them to the Catholic comprehensive 6 miles and an awkward journey away, rather than send them to a good (or better) comprehensive about 5 minutes walk away. Some neighbours, by contrast, not quite so devout, were quite happy with the local non-catholic school.

As I said up thread, I went to grammar my little sister to RC school. I'd gone to RC primary. Priest had no problem. It may have helped that I still sang and read in church then. This has been the case for several families in our parish.

I don't think it is uncommon for Priests /Vicars to have strong feelings on the issue either way. In this area we have two local Vicars who makes no secret of their displeasure that their churches fill with the parents of young children who are there to secure school places, whilst other local Parishes welcome it. One is currently working with the governors to introduce an inclusive admissions policy in the face of strong opposition from the local parents who have benefitted or hope to benefit from faith selection. Local Catholic parents know that one local priest will always take the opportunity to lecture parents on the priviledge they enjoy in gaining access to the outstanding Primary unless they come from a Catholic country (which is ironic given that in many cases there are no exclusive faith schools in the home country)

However there is a difference between a Priest exercising his right to be the (subjective) voice of moral authority to his congregation, and the implementation of faith selection criteria which by law have to be objective, specific and consistently applied, and not subject to the vagaries of subjective moral judgements of devout ness.

Can I just reiterate that there are never "faith criteria" - no school is allowed to have criteria that attempt to measure the parents' or child's faith. A non-believer is equally able to access the places in church schools by meeting the church attendance criteria.

I'm not a Catholic and rarely attend church but I'm pretty sure that you'd have to show some faith/feign faith for your child to take First Holy Communion; the most popular Catholic schools (London Oratory, Coloma etc) seem to require First Holy Communion for admission. Can you just rock up and ask for your baby to be baptised a Catholic if neither you nor the child's father are baptised? What if you don't have any Catholic friends/relations to act as godparents? I'd suggest that the very best/most popular Catholic schools do have a 'faith criteria'.

The point is that the faith criteria must be objective, not that they cannot exist. The school cannot make subjective judgements about the strength or otherwise of the parents' faith. They must use objective measures such as church attendance. Whether or not a child has been baptised is used by some Catholic schools. That is still an objective measure. However, if the diocese guidance is that such criteria should not be used the school's admission criteria can be challenged.

How do you access Catholic baptism and First Holy Communion without proving faith or lying about faith (it's still a test of faith even if you lie)? Don't children have to attend classes prior to Communion? Does the priest decide if they're ready or not? The schools might not be able to make judgements but the priests are agents for the schools.The London Oratory School and others still require the child to be in 'full communion' and to have at least one Catholic parent. How do non-Catholic adults (parents) become Catholics without proving or lying about faith? It's not just a question of meeting the attendance criteria as suggested by FishWithABicycle.

This isn't an uncommon situation in my area - the religious high schools are seen as a fail safe in case of failing the 11+.

The priest at my church seems happy to accept that when a child passes the 11+ they will choose the non-religious grammar school, and are happy to sign the form irrespective of where older siblings went.

If your friend is a regular church attender, I think she just needs to be blunt with the priest that dc1 passed the 11+, and there were no local religious grammar schools. Dc2, on the other hand, will be better suited to a high school, and your friend believes that a religious high school will be the best match for the child.

As part of his school application duties the priest should fill in the form correctly according to the admission criteria.

As part of his religious role it is not unreasonable for him to highlight hypocrisy among those who attend the church for which he is the minister.

He can do both.

'they do not turn away non Catholics who want their children baptised' - not exactly, but my local Catholic church reserves the right to defer baptism if there is a concern over faith and suggests attending mass for 6 months prior to the child's baptism to prove that the parents have the intention of bringing the child up as a Catholic.
Another Catholic church suggests having the child baptised at the same time as the parent/s' indoctrination if the parents haven't been baptised as Catholics. As per my previous question, how do non-baptised parents become Catholics (to fulfil the London Oratory's criteria) without proving faith/passing a test of faith?

Of course, any poor child who's been dragged along to mass every Sunday for seven years deserves their place at a faith school but I think you'll find the better(more desirable) the school, the more demanding the 'faith criteria'. Perhaps requirements are a bit lapse when Catholic churches are surrounded by only average/mediocre Catholic schools?

Clavinova I can assure you that for Oratory the planning starts at year 1 minus 9 months or earlier. The whole reason that the most selective Catholic Schools are also socially selective is that the criteria take planning and committment to conform to, that might arise from Faith or it might arise from the desire for a faith education for cultural reasons, or for educational reasons. I suspect that there are few parents who would go to the lengths required purely for educational reasons, but how many parents would have continued to be first or second generation lapsed Catholics if schooling of their children had not been the issue. We certainly faced some pressure from the Priests at my DHs old school. Certainly as far as Oratory goes with it's brownie points lottery friends who are Catholic complain about all the 10 year old altar boys and their families who tick off the brownie points and then disappear from active Parish life once the admissions process is finished.

As part of his religious role it is not unreasonable for him to highlight hypocrisy among those who attend the church for which he is the minister.

He could but the school cannot take that information into account for admissions purposes. It would therefore be pretty pointless.

I know of a church that has "suggested donations" to the collection for those wanting the schools forms signed