London Oratory admissions adjudication quashed!

[anklebitersat11oclock]

Can't believe this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32355757

No detailed statement from the BHA yet, but will be interesting to see more detail when it comes out.

Quote from the Headteacher: "It is profoundly regrettable that the school - and other schools - have to expend precious resources, year after year, in standing up to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator."

I think it's profoundly regrettable too, but probably not for the same reasons!

Saying that Oratory has "won" is too simplistic. They have won a partial victory. They objected to the Adjudicator's findings on 10 points. They won on 5 points with a partial win on another point.

I find parts of the judge's decision (which can be read in full here) surprising.

The judge said that it is ok for the school to request parents' baptismal certificates as proof of their faith and that this does not breach the Admissions Code. However, paragraph 2.5 of the Code prohibits the school from asking for any evidence that would include personal details such as maiden names. Since the mother's baptismal certificate will include her maiden name this would appear to be a breach of the Code. The judge basically says that if the school sets admission criteria that are otherwise legal and where compliance can only be demonstrated by producing a document including the prohibited information they can request that document. I think the judge is wrong on this point.

I do not understand how the judge concluded that it is permissible for the school to include an oversubscription criterion based on previous attendance at a Catholic school. The Admissions Code paragraph 1.9b is clear that only named feeder schools can be considered. I have read the judge's reasoning on this point and I find it illogical. He says the school's approach makes a mockery of the feeder schools provision in the Admissions Code but upholds it anyway. He suggests that "taking into account previous schools attended", which is prohibited by the Admissions Code, only prevents the school taking into account specific schools but does not prevent them taking into account an entire class of schools (i.e. Catholic schools). With respect I believe his reasoning on this point is flawed and hence his conclusion is wrong.

Some other parts of the decision are less surprising. The Adjudicator decided that "having regard to diocesan guidance" meant the school must follow it unless there was a compelling reason not to. I believe the judge is correct that this was too high a bar and that a clear and proper reason was sufficient.

Interesting prh47bridge. Is there a higher court that it could go to, as is this judge's decision the final word?

It could in theory go to the Court of Appeal and then onto the Supreme Court.

The Adjudicator can be happy that they have won on Catholic service, choristers, medical and social need, and parents signatures, the first of these being in many ways the most important issue. Of the points on which the Adjudicator has lost:

• the issue of Diocesan guidance is not yet over. Although the school has nominally won this point, they now have to make further submissions to the court to justify their departure from the guidance. If the judge finds against them on this point two of the other points which they have won (baptismal certificates and previous attendance at a Catholic school) will turn into losses.

• overturning the Adjudicator's conclusion that the school was operating a policy that was socially selective, discriminatory and unfairly disadvantaged children from less well off families has no direct effect on the actual admission arrangements so, from the Adjudicator's viewpoint, this is not important.

• it seems the Adjudicator was incorrect in deciding that the school's definition of "parent" was unclear as this was apparently clearly set out in the guidance notes that the school provides.

• the partial loss on the consultation process is not overly relevant. The judge said that the Adjudicator was wrong that the school could show no evidence of consultation but that the school's interpretation of the regulations on consultation was incorrect and that, as a result, the consultation had been inadequate. I think the Adjudicator can be reasonably happy with that.

Whilst the school is spinning this as a win, the reality is that if the judge decides against them on the issue of Diocesan guidance it will be only a very small victory. They will have lost on all substantive points. Indeed, I think the most important issue for the school was around Catholic service and on that point they have lost.

Thanks. I guess the bbc article was based on a school press release then. Will wait to read BHA report too.

That's a very interesting commentary, prh47.

I can just about understand a partially selective system in which a child's aptitude for music, or languages or sport give access to scholarship places in a state school, or even the remnants of selective education, for they are all based on the child being educated, and factors relevant to the education.

I cannot understand why it is OK for a state funded school to be allowed to offer places based on the parents voluntary activities or the mother's baptism certificate! Selection based on a child's parents. Education is statutory, religion is not. Churches are not state funded so why is such a high degree of religious practice and adherence as the basis of education funded?

It is absolutely not ok for a state funded school to offer places based on the parents voluntary activities. The Adjudicator found against the school on their practise of giving priority based on Catholic service by the parents. The judge has upheld the Adjudicator's decision on this point.

Churches are not state funded so why is such a high degree of religious practice and adherence as the basis of education funded

Most faith schools use land and buildings that belong to the relevant church. The church is also required to make a contribution towards any capital works (currently 10% but it used to be higher) and may support the school in other ways. As a result these schools are allowed to give priority on the basis of faith provided they use objective measures such as church attendance. The Catholic church has been clear that if this right is removed they would close down their schools. Some other faith schools may take the same view. Replacing these schools would be hugely expensive which is why no government is likely to make this change in the near future.

And in the meantime they have Diocesan reps, and in many cases RC school reps, on every local authority Admissions Forum in the country, so we can't necessarily rely on robust scrutiny at that level.

Un-elected bishops in the House of Lords too. The system is stitched up. The BHA are one of a number of groups (religious as well as secular) trying to unstitch it, but it's an uphill struggle.

Most faith schools use land and buildings that belong to the relevant church

Exactly. And I don't think there are any examples of faith schools where the state owns the land and buildings and pays all the running costs. I do know of a church school where the church pays a big chunk of running costs but don't own it - their buildings were bombed to smithereens in WW2 and the school was relocated to a state-owned building, and they don't have any faith-based entry criteria (but do have a much more overtly christian ethos and schedule than a non-church school)

"And I don't think there are any examples of faith schools where the state owns the land and buildings and pays all the running costs"

There is an example here.

Plus any VA school that converts to academy status subsequently has all of its running and capital costs paid by the state, and still gets to keep its former admissions policy.

Un-elected bishops in the House of Lords too

Everyone in the House of Lords is unelected!

There is an example

There are very few faith schools where the state owns the land and buildings. This is the only one I am aware of. In this case the church met at least 10% of the capital costs of setting up the school, possibly more - we won't know exactly until the Council's accounts for 2014/15 are published. The church is also funding (or has funded - not sure if these works are complete) refurbishment of the Edwardian building and building additional facilities required, including provision for the co-location of Strathmore School. Note that this school has not yet become an academy so the church is currently required to meet at least 10% of any capital costs.

any VA school that converts to academy status subsequently has all of its running and capital costs paid by the state

There is no guarantee that any academy will have all its capital costs paid by the state. If it wants to carry out any capital works the academy can apply to the Secretary of State for a grant. If the grant application is refused the academy must find funding elsewhere if it still wants to go ahead with the project.

"The church is also funding (or has funded - not sure if these works are complete) refurbishment of the Edwardian building"

No, they haven't started. They've just been given a Building Schools for the Future grant for it as it says in the wiki article. And the council is paying all the capital costs of the RC primary and the Strathmore school.

They've just been given a Building Schools for the Future grant for it as it says in the wiki article

It says they have received a contribution from the Priority Schools Building Programme - not BSF as that doesn't exist any more. Note that this is a contribution. It does not cover the full cost. The church will have to find the remainder.

And the council is paying all the capital costs of the RC primary and the Strathmore school.

Yes, the council is paying all the costs of the new primary school. It is not surprising that it is paying the capital costs relating to Strathmore school since that is separate from Richard Reynolds. The council is not meeting the costs of other additional facilities (at least, not in full).

I realise that my last post was poorly worded. The church is not providing all the funding for the Edwardian building, etc. It is, however, providing funding. I don't currently know the amounts involved.

That wiki article says the diocese's capital building costs were expected to be between 5-8million, but doesn't say how much of that will be offset by govt funding through PSBP.

Looks like the BHA have published their analysis of the Oratory judgement now: humanism.org.uk/2015/04/20/london-oratory-vs-office-of-the-schools-adjudicator-high-court-judgment-leaves-vast-majority-of-adjudicators-findings-upheld/

"In a damning report of the London Oratory’s admissions policy published last year, the OSA found a total of 105 breaches of the School Admissions Code, which all state schools are obliged to follow."

105

"It is amongst the ten most socio-economically selective state secondary schools in the country"

I don't think catholic primary schools are so un-representative, are they? And it can't be the travel costs that deter people because all London schoolchildren get a Zip card and travel free on buses and a reduced rate on tubes.

Nice to see that the BHA agree with my analysis of the judgement!