Didn’t get into any choices, placed into Catholic School - help

[morozova89]

Hi everyone, I’m really hoping someone might be able to offer some advice about secondary school appeals in London.

My son has been allocated a place at a Catholic secondary school, which we did not put on our application list. We are a different faith and not Catholic, so being placed in a faith school that isn’t ours feels very upsetting and uncomfortable for our family.

I’m also a single mum and have had to navigate this process on my own, and unfortunately my son’s dad hasn’t been helpful with any of it. I’m originally from Ukraine and not very familiar with the UK school system, so I did what I thought made sense at the time.

We listed four schools, three of which we genuinely believed were realistic choices based on distance and admissions. Sadly he wasn’t offered any of them. I realise now maybe I should have listed more, but I honestly didn’t know.

What has made it even more shocking is that all of my son’s close friends were offered places at our number one choice school, which is in our catchment area and part of the same federation as his current primary school. I know friendships aren’t a ground for appeal, but it has made the outcome quite difficult for him to understand.

My son was born in the UK, is in Year 6, and is doing well at his current primary school, so this has been a really confusing and upsetting situation for us.

I understand that appeals are usually made for a specific school rather than against the one offered, but being allocated a faith school that isn’t our faith and wasn’t on our list feels particularly difficult.

If anyone has experience with appeals, waiting lists, or what steps I should take next, I would be incredibly grateful for any advice. Thank you so much. 🙏

btw we are in London.

@ParentOfOne I didn’t mention socio-economic diversity. It seems it is you that struggles with comprehension. Diversity is about more than just the Ever 6 rate. Even in London, not all schools in London have that rate of EAL. Even if you wanted to look at social-economic diversity in particular, there would still be more to consider than the Ever 6 rate.

my point all along is that single cases are irrelevant because you have no way of knowing how representative or not they are.
I have been very clear that single cases are irrelevant.

And yet you are extrapolating about the LOS. Repeatedly.

@NimbleMauveRobin The statistics quoted above are at odds with the Catholic Education Services own figures which show that Catholic schools have a more diverse work force and more diverse pupil population than other schools. For example 44% of pupils in Catholic state primaries compared with 36% in non religious schools

No. The Catholic Education Service brags about the diversity of its pupils
https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/news/england-catholic-school-pupils-much-more-diverse-than-national-average---new-data

Humanists UK and the Sutton Trust complain that faith schools are socially selective.
Multiple things can be true at once:

faith schools can be diverse in terms of ethnicity, even if most of the diversity is inthe worse performing school, while still being socially selective overall

Again, read the report of the Sutton Trust https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/selective-comprehensives-2024/

I didn’t mention socio-economic diversity.
Precisely!
The problem is they are socially selective.
And your reply? Oh, well, but they are diverse in other respects...

And yet you are extrapolating about the LOS. Repeatedly.

No! I have quoted multiple research, like that of the Sutton Trust above, confirming that the London Oratory is not an isolated case.

I won't engage further with you: your inability to grasp such a banal concept proves it would be a waste of time. Goodbye.

Seeing as the CES return is obtained from the personnel and admissions records of the schools that complete it - and there are legal requirements to record data correctly for both adults and children (a lot of the pupil level data - including ethnicity and FSM status is also reported to the DfE and funding is derived from the Autumn census for the following academic year) - it's a damn sight more reliable than somebody with an axe to grind and a special interest in being as personally insulting as possible on the internet.

And your reply? Oh, well, but they are diverse in other respects...

No. To use your words, your comprehension and cognitive skills are poor. That isn’t what I said at all. Not all the posts were about social-economics, I was merely pointing out there is more to be considered and the statistics you cherry picked weren’t the whole story in relation to diversity as a whole. But you carry on making things up to fit your narrative.

And yet you are extrapolating about the LOS. Repeatedly.
No!*

Yes!

The CES has measured something different. The Sutton Trust used publicly available data on free school meals and other metrics.

Can you prove that the data used by the Sutton Trust is wrong? Has the CES disproven the Sutton Trust, or simply measured something else?

I’m not the OP, but may I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss the merits or otherwise of faith schools starts their own thread?

The FSM data used would probably be from the same source. As is the ethnicity and other metrics. They're all held on the school MIS.

Although, thinking about it, there are different dates for data collection for each - October for Pupil Premium, November for SWR (only includes permanent staff, not long term supply), January for CES (includes long term supply, excludes staff on long term leave, such as maternity, counts support staff in class with children). So it could be an issue there, as it's not comparing like with like.

FANTASTIC!

Really pleased for you @morozova89 !

Well done for questioning, investigating and following up with the LA.

Oh that’s fantastic OP!!

You can appeal the first choice and also ask to be on its waiting list.
you can also probably opt out of a lot of the Catholic stuff at school too

OP has updated to say they have been given their first choice now – looks as tho the LA made an error and has corrected it.

Oh yes. I think the OP is quite misleading then as it says different faith rather than atheist!

I'm not religious and didn't choose faith schools for my kids, who were are nearly grown up now. I'm still a governor at a community school and how to deal with falling rolls though growing special needs, and the financial impact of that, is a constant issue. Schools have to plan well ahead to match places and therefore staffing to likely numbers of students, for budgetary reasons. Large numbers of unfilled places are not sustainable.

My understanding is that schools in my area and in other parts of London have been hit by demographic change, for a number of reasons including housing unaffordability and Brexit. Schools that were previously very popular and oversubscribed are affected too. If anything, some of the local Catholic schools, even those with a good reputation etc, are worse affected by some of these demographic changes than nearby non-faith schools. It's not a reflection of those schools' quality.

That said, I am pleased to see that OP's son has a place at the wanted school, and with his friends from primary school.

Delighted now that you don’t have to endure the Catholic school. I hope the place goes to a child who appreciates it.

From TES

@ParentOfOne

'More than one in three pupils attending Catholic schools come from an ethnic-minority background, new figures reveal.
And in London the proportion rises to seven out of 10, according to data from the Catholic Education Service (CES).
Nationally, 37 per cent of pupils at Catholic schools come from a minority background, compared with 30 per cent of pupils in all English state schools.
Pupils attending Catholic secondary schools are also more likely to be from disadvantaged families than children at other schools. More than 18 per cent of pupils at Catholic secondaries come from families who are among the lowest 20 per cent of earners in the country. Nationally, 14 per cent of pupils come from similar homes.
Paul Barber, director of the CES, was unsurprised by this. “The Catholic community in this country is very diverse,” he said. “One of the challenges is that often those very diverse communities come from poorer, more disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Professor Linda Woodhead, a sociologist at Lancaster University, pointed out that the single biggest religious migration to Britain at the moment is Christian - and, specifically, Catholic.
“Historically, the Catholic Church has largely been a church of migrants and the disadvantaged,” she said. “They had to climb their way into English society through education. Also, there’s a memory of when Catholics were marginalised in this country. So they do have a strong focus on helping the poor and the outsider.”
In London, 71 per cent of Catholic-school pupils come from a minority background, compared with 60 per cent in all state schools across the capital. The CES figures also show that one in five black children in London attends a Catholic school'

@Hereforthecommentz No. just no.

• An environment can be ethnically and culturally diverse, while still remaining socially selective. The London Oratory in Chelsea is a perfect example. Another example: I have seen companies where the intake of new graduates was diverse from an ethnic standpoint but not from a social one; I vividly remember multiple juniors who were citizens of African countries and who had studied in the UK. Judging from their clothes and accessories, they were not on scholarships. The company in question was bragging about its diversity, but the truth is they were hiring rich kids from poor countries, they were not hiring non-white kids from council flats in run-down estates. If you come from a poor country yet afford to spend £30-40k per year in tuition fees + living cost, you are in the top 0.1% of that country.
• Drill down, and you will probably see that the most academically successful faith schools tend to be the more socially selective ones. The tale of two cities that emerges comparing the London Oratory with St John Bosco College 2 kms south is not an isolated case. So faith schools stress the academic results of its more socially selective schools when they want to brag about academic performance, and to stress the diversity of the worse-performing often undersubscribed but more diverse schools when they want to brag about diversity
• Again, read what the Sutton Trust (which, unlike Humanists UK and the National Secular Society, is not a partisan organisation) has to say: https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/selective-comprehensives-2024/

Lastly, even if faith schools were more successful academically (they are not) and/or they were more diverse and inclusive (they are not), the fact remains that everyone's taxes are being used to finance a crucial service like education which discriminates based on a protected characteristic.

Again, we would not accept a hospital or police force or fire brigade discriminating like this. Why we accept it with schools beggars belief.

The two most common objections are utter bs:

• It is bs that the system must carry on because the land belongs to the Church. it would be like saying that we should have never abolished slavery because we couldn't afford to compensate slaveowners.
• It is bs that the churches contributing to part of the costs justifies this abomination. Again: would we accept a hospital that discriminates based on faith or political affiliation, because a certain group contributes to part of the costs?

If you disagree, could you please explain what, in your view, other than moral turpitude and/or mere self-interest, makes you think that using everyone's tax money for this kind of discrimination (which would be unconstitutional in many countries) is justified?

You are repeating the same points and ignoring the actual facts. There is no getting through to you. Read the damn post the facts are there! Catholic schools are more diverse ethnically and socially. Your ignorance is astounding. You argued a point and then facts were presented and instead of accepting it you are still making things up. A parent has the right to send their child to a catholic school if they want to. My other half came from a council estate like many other christians and went to one but people's lived experiences mean nothing apparently but you can quote two schools over and over. It does not cost you more taxes to send a child there than it does to a secular school. Most people in this country do not want to, like the op, because they aren't Christians. I don't understand why you are so angry, are you jealous of our children? It's bizarre you don't like these schools and don't send your child there so why does it bother you so much. It's clear you are a Christianaphobe hiding behind fake news and you've been proven wrong.

@ParentOfOne if you object to schools being religious and want them abolished, does that extend to special/specialist schools, particularly NMSS? If so, do you realise that will result in increased costs to the state because more will be placed in the independent sector?

@Hereforthecommentz You argued a point and then facts were presented and instead of accepting it you are still making things up.

No. I have presented research and studies by the Sutton Trust and other organisations which back up my claims.
You have presented other stats on other metrics which do not dispute my argument nor my data.
Your failure to comprehend the difference is astonishing.

The Sutton Trust focused on free school meals as a proxy for social status. You cannot dispute those stats, so you have presented others, failing to appreciate the difference between ethnic diversity and socio-economic diversity.

A parent has the right to send their child to a catholic school if they want to

Strawman argument which can be explained only with poor text comprehension skills or utter bad faith. Which of the two is it?

Of course a parent has the right to send their children to a faith school.

That is not the point. The point is why on Earth should everyone's taxes be used to fund a crucial service like education which discriminates based on a protected characteristic.

I have asked you: in which other case would you accept the state discriminating based on protected characteristics? Would you accept a hospital which prioritises based on religion? A fire brigade which prioritises based on political affiliation?

Why did you dodge the question? Why??

I don't understand why you are so angry, are you jealous of our children? It's bizarre you don't like these schools and don't send your child there so why does it bother you so much

Because, unlike you, I have a moral compass and I think that crucial state services funded by everyone's taxes should not discriminate based on protected characteristics.

Like I said, I would oppose with the same vehemence a hypothetical school which prioritised children of atheists. Whether I agree with the view on which the discrimination is based is irrelevant: there should be no such discrimination. Failure to comprehend such a banal concept can only point to some kind of cognitive deficit.

It's clear you are a Christianaphobe hiding behind fake news and you've been proven wrong.

So opposing any kind of discrimination makes me a Christianopohobe????
I have not been proven wrong because the stats I have quoted were factually correct. The Sutton Trust based its research on publicly available data on free school meals and other metrics, which you have NOT disproven.

Also, there’s a memory of when Catholics were marginalised in this country. So they do have a strong focus on helping the poor and the outsider.”

If that were the case, then the London Oratory's policy of giving priority to families helping with flower arranging and with financial donations should have been denounced as an abomination contrary to Catholic values by the Catholic community itself. I do not remember this being the case. Maybe my recollection is wrong. Can you please point me to examples of such condemnation? Thank you.

@KeepItSpinning Ca you answer the question of where else you would accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic? Would you accept a hospital giving priority to Christians, one to atheists, one to Muslims, etc? Can you answer, please?

I do not object to religious schools.
I object to religious schools being funded with everyone's tax money, because I object to everyone's tax money funding a service which discriminates based on protected characteristics.

Tell me, did you i) fail to appreciate the difference or ii) did you understand the difference but intentionally tried to mislead with a bad faith argument?

I am not familiar with the world of NMSS. What do you mean, exactly?

I am not familiar with the world of NMSS. What do you mean, exactly?

NMSS are non-maintained special schools. A particular type of SS.

I do not object to religious schools.
I object to religious schools being funded with everyone's tax money, because I object to everyone's tax money funding a service which discriminates based on protected characteristics.

Right, so back to my question, does your objection extend to SS? Because scrapping faith schools would result in an increased cost to taxpayers payers.

Do you also object to state schools who discriminate based on other protected characteristics. For example, single sex schools? Or schools who discriminate based on disability?

Tell me, did you i) fail to appreciate the difference or ii) did you understand the difference but intentionally tried to mislead with a bad faith argument?

Neither. Not all the posts mentioned social-economic diversity in particular. Some must mentioned diversity. I was merely pointing out when considering diversity, there is more to be considered than social-economics.

Can you answer the question of where else you would accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic?

Disability is a protected characteristic. State services regularly discriminate against disabled people. Most of the population accept this without a second thought.

Would you accept a hospital giving priority to Christians, one to atheists, one to Muslims, etc? Can you answer, please?

As someone else pointed out, schools are not the same as hospitals.

@KeepItSpinning
Right, so back to my question, does your objection extend to SS? Because scrapping faith schools would result in an increased cost to taxpayers payers.

I do not know how many NMSS there are, nor how many of those are in any way linked to churches, nor how many have admission policies which discriminate based on faith.
If you are familiar with the topic, maybe you can help me understand the points above?

Regardless, I do not understand your logic.

If certain schools discriminate based on protected characteristics, we cannot say: "oh, yes, discrimination ain't ideal, but, you know, rectifying it would cost too much money". That's the kind of argument of those who didn't want to abolish slavery because compensating slaveowners would have been too expensive!!!

A cursory look at the policies of this school in Liverpool "for sensory impairment and other needs" seems to suggest that admissions are based on an assessment of the children's needs, and that there is no discrimination based on faith. I have no idea how representative this is. https://www.stvin.com/copy-of-curriculum

Do you also object to state schools who discriminate based on other protected characteristics. For example, single sex schools?

This is truly a bad faith argument. You know very well that it's not the same.
I am no fan of single sex schools (most countries have largely got rid of them) but that's irrelevant. They lead to discrimination only if in an area there are many girl schools and no boy schools, or viceversa, because the girls would have access to both co-d and girls only schools, while the boys only the co-ed.

Not comparable to faith schools, because families of a given faith have access to both non-faith and faith-schools, while families of other faiths or no faith only to the latter. Yet both are funded by taxpayers. Surely you can see the difference?

Or schools who discriminate based on disability?

I don't follow. Please elaborate.
I know very well that some of the "outstanding" state schools go to great lengths to discourage or manage out children with disabilities. I have been very vocal on here about it.

Disability is a protected characteristic. State services regularly discriminate against disabled people. Most of the population accept this without a second thought.

I genuinely struggle to follow you. Surely you are not implying that discriminating school admissions based on faith is OK because... there is discrimination elsewhere??? Surely you cannot possibly be implying this, can you??

As someone else pointed out, schools are not the same as hospitals.
Why? Why would you not accept a hospital discriminating based on faith, but you accept schools doing that? Why?

Not all the posts mentioned social-economic diversity in particular. Some must mentioned diversity. I was merely pointing out when considering diversity, there is more to be considered than social-economics.

Thank you for confirming my point and for confirming that the data on how socially selective fait schools tend to be remains true.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are posting in bad faith.

Hospitals aren’t the same as schools, yet you repeating mention them. If you don’t think single sex schools are the same because males don’t have access to female schools and vice versa, then your point about hospitals is also irrelevant because, just like schools, there isn’t a second option to access either.

It is nothing like slavery. Don’t be ridiculous.

You want all faith schools abolished because you resent tax payers money being spent on it, yet you don’t understand abolishing all faith schools will increase costs to the tax payer.

So despite wanting to abolish all faith schools, you don’t actually understand how they all work. The statistics about NMSS and how many have a religious character &/or religious ethos are all available on the government’s website if you actually wanted to understand.

I don't follow. Please elaborate.

Some schools discriminate against disabled pupils &/or disabled parents. It isn’t only some outstanding schools.

Surely you are not implying that discriminating school admissions based on faith is OK because... there is discrimination elsewhere??? Surely you cannot possibly be implying this, can you??

That isn’t what I said. At all. Please stop implying I have said something I haven’t. I was pointing out “most of the population” “accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic” “without second thought”. I was pointing out is no uproar from the general population when disabled people are discriminated against by state services in response to your question.

Thank you for confirming my point and for confirming that the data on how socially selective fait schools tend to be remains true.

I didn’t confirm anything, but you carry on saying I have posted something I haven’t.

@KeepItSpinning
Disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean bad faith, but mentioning irrelevant counter-arguments does.

Hospitals aren’t the same as schools, yet you repeating mention them.

Yet no one has been willing to explain why.
Many countries have it as a key written Constitutional principle that citizens / residents should not be discriminated based on protected characteristics, and that the state must provide services based on principles of fairness and equality, without discriminating.

I wholeheartedly agree with this principle. If you agree with it for hospitals but not for schools, could you please explain why?

It is nothing like slavery. Don’t be ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous at all. I am not saying that religious education is like slavery. I am saying that opposing getting rid of discrimination in state-funded schools because it would cost too much is like opposing the abolition of slavery because it would have cost too much.
You want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations. I do not.

Don't you forget that arguments of this kind have historically been used against activists fighting any kind of discrimination. The very same argument (it would cost too much) was used to justify women getting paid less than men for the same job. Bet you have a different opinion on that, right?

You want all faith schools abolished because you resent tax payers money being spent on it, yet you don’t understand abolishing all faith schools will increase costs to the tax payer.

Read what I had written. I was the first to mention cost. Quite banally, if principles of fairness and equality had to be subjected to cost considerations, we would still have slavery and it would still be legal to pay women less for the same job.
Not to mention that, if we can expropriate land for a train track, we can expropriate it for something even more important, like schools.

Some schools discriminate against disabled pupils &/or disabled parents. It isn’t only some outstanding schools.

Yes. I know. I have bee very vocal about it on here. And? So what? I don't follow.

A type of discrimination doesn't become any more acceptable just because... other types of discriminations exist elsewhere!!

I was pointing out “most of the population” “accept the state funding a crucial service which discriminates based on a protected characteristic” “without second thought”.

That's a completely different point. If you want to say that there would be little political support among the general population for abolishing this discrimination, sadly I agree. But this doesn't make it right.

I didn’t confirm anything, but you carry on saying I have posted something I haven’t.

You have confirmed that you are unable to disprove the data of the Sutton trust on how socially selective faith schools tend to be.
All you can say with the data you have shown is to say that you don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.
Which reminds me of the companies hiring rich African kids who spent hundreds of thousands of £ to study in the UK and bragging about their diversity, while ignoring that kids from poorer backgrounds, regardless of race, remain hugely underrepresented in their ranks.

They are only irrelevant in your opinion. They are no less relevant than your hospital and slavery points.

Hospitals are different because it can be a matter of life and death. Faith schools aren’t.

Yes, the comparison to slavery costs is ridiculous. It isn’t the same.

You want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations. I do not.

No, I don’t. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of objecting based the cost to the tax payer when those costs to the tax payer would increase if all faith schools were abolished.

I was the first to mention cost.

I know you were! That was my whole point. I have read what you have written. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I haven’t read or understood what you have posted.

A type of discrimination doesn't become any more acceptable just because... other types of discriminations exist elsewhere!!

I didn’t say it did. Try reading what is actually written rather than making it up.

That's a completely different point.

No it isn’t. I didn’t say it was right either, but it is accepted by the general population.

And? So what?

The point was related to the point about where else discrimination of state services is accepted by wider society. The general population accepts discrimination in state schools based on disability.

Again, I haven’t confirmed anything.

All you can say with the data you have shown is to say that you don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.

I haven’t said that at all. Stop lying.