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.

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

I do not follow. I do not want to put words in your mouth, so I am asking you what you mean.

Do you mean that life and death services shouldn't discriminate, but other services can discriminate?
Did you mean this? Did you mean something else?

The question is very banal: which services should be allowed to discriminate and why?
My answer is: none.
Yours?

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

I am not lying at all. I have simply stated that you are unable to disprove the data on social selection which the Sutton Trust used for its analysis.

You are lying. I have not said I “don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.” Nor did I say I “want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations.” Until you stop lying and making things up I will not be replying to you further.

No-one is going to die by not being able to access a faith school.

Although I agree that perhaps this discussion should move onto a new thread as Im really pleased to hear thst @morozova89 has now got her preferred school choice, I would like to offer @ParentOfOne a bit of support. Although I dont agree with all the points made, I do also feel that religious based selection in state schools is problematic
Voluntary aided (VA) state schools are able to prioritise children who engage in religious practices or whose parents engage in religous practices. This means that children whose famîies do not engage in religous practices are discriminated against and have less chance of attending. You might suggest this doesn't matter. Why would they want to attend a school with a religous character? The point is that school choice is not based on a single factor. Parents have to weigh up everything (proximity, curriculum offer, behaviour policy, sports facilities etc.) Non-religous parents may be attracted by other features of the school. Furthermore, all state schools are supposed engage in daily acts of collective worship so this is present in most schools. You dont necessarily avoid this by choosing a non-VA school. A VA school could for example be the only school in walking distance.
People justify this religous discrimination by saying that the religious community pays for the school so they should be able to prioritise children of their faith. The problem with this is that typically general taxation pays 100% of the running costs and 90% of the capital costs. Only 10% of capital costs come from the religious community. It is problematic that the religous community gets to control the admission policy fully, but the state pays the vast majority of ongoing costs. Furthermore, some schools not only prioritise children of their own faith, but also children of other faiths. Take a look at some Liverpool schools admissions policies for examples of this. Non-religous parents are often the lowest priority.
This is the most central issue - the state is paying most ongoing costs, but non-religous families have reduced choices of state schools because they have less chance of admission to religous VA schools.
There are also additional problematic issues.
Some VA schools suggest that the religous character permeates school life and goes beyond daily acts of religous worship (from which a child can be withdrawn). Despite this the LA can discharge their respinsibility to provide education by offering a non-religous parent such a school. It seems unfair thst schools can prioritise religous applicants, but parents have no right to be offered a community school without a strong religous ethos. This was the original issue raised by the thread.

Furthermore, you cant assess 'faith' directly or objectively. This means that admissions criteria are based on engagement with religous rites (e. g infant baptism) or activities/services (e. g regular church attendance). Those with a strong faith may engage in these as a matter of course. However, others with knowledge of the requirements and a lack of barriers may do so in order to increase the possibility of accessing the school. A two parent family working 9-5 weekday jobs may find it relatively easy for one parent to attend church on a fortnightly basis even if they have no religous convictions. A single parent working weekend shifts with a couple of toddlers may find it more challenging. This leads to a situation where VA schools often have lower rates of lower income families than neighbouring community schools. Low income famîies aren't excluded, but requirements to provide additional evidence tends to deter those in already challenging circumstances.
I understand why some parents support religous selection, but there are also arguments why it is problematic.

@KeepItSpinning Until you stop lying and making things up I will not be replying to you further.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not think (for now) that you are just making up excuses to dodge inconvenient questions.

I have not said I “don't care about social selection if faith schools are diverse by other metrics.”

Then I do not understand. Can you explain?
If you care about social selection discrimination, you should be enraged by the Sutton Trust report. Why are you not?
You have shown data on other metrics, which do not negate the point on social selection.

Nor did I say I “want to subject key crucial and moral principles of fairness and equality to cost considerations
Again, then I do not understand. If something is unfair and wrong, it remains so regardless of cost.

No-one is going to die by not being able to access a faith school.

Again, the inconvenient question is: where do you accept discrimination, where do you not, and why?
Surely you are not implying that any discrimination which doesn't kill the victim is fine?
I do not want to put words in your mouth, so I am asking you: if you didn't mean that, what did you mean and why?

PS - apologies for typos & spelling errors. Im terrible at typing on my phone & too late to edit.

@ParentOfOne think what you want. It isn’t about dodging questions. It is about not engaging with someone who repeatedly misrepresents and lies about what I post. I don’t care what you think.

Where have I posted I don’t care what the Sutton Trust report said? Please quote exactly where rather than making up where.

I didn’t say statistics on EAL negate FSM/Ever 6 (the only other data I mentioned) data. I was merely pointing out there is more to diversity than (part of - FSM/Ever 6 data isn’t the whole story because some cultures and other cohorts are less likely to apply for FSM even if eligible) socio-economic status.

If something is unfair and wrong, it remains so regardless of cost.

My point was if you object specifically on the point of to the taxpayer, then it is hypocritical because the cost will increase if abolishing all faith schools. My point wasn’t about objecting for other reasons such as unfairness or perceiving it as wrong.

I am not saying discrimination which doesn’t kill is fine. I am saying they aren’t comparable because they aren’t. Comparing the two undermines your argument, IMO.

This thread seems to have been taken over by the verbal diarrhoea mob.

Unfollow