UKC

"Faith" schools are popular because they can use their control over admissions to preferentially admit the easy-to-teach kids from supportive middle-class backgrounds, while tending not to admit kids who are less easy to teach. Thus, "faith" schools tend to have, for example, significantly lower rates of pupils eligible for free school meals than their surrounding areas.

Doing this is actually against the school's admissions code and is against the law. But, "faith" schools nearly all do it because that's what makes them academically successful and popular with parents (and thus with politicians).

The British Humanist Association, who are of course opposed to "faith" schools on principle, have launched a series of appeals to the courts to overturn unfair admissions practices by such schools.

So far they have pursued 42 such cases in the courts and won all 42 of them!

The government really don't like that. So Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has just announced plans:

"stopping vexatious complaints against faith schools from secularist campaign groups".

Interesting word that, "vexatious". In a legal context "vexatious" means (Oxford English Dictionary):

"Denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought WITHOUT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR WINNING, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant" (added emphasis).

Now, bearing that emphasized phrase in mind, does 42 victories out of 42 suggest a "vexatious" litigant? Methinks it doesn't.

Methinks the government and the faith schools are "caused annoyance" because they don't want to have to obey the law, but want to continue their nefarious practices.

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/01/26/challenges-to-school-admissions-...

(Note that this article says 41 out of 42, but the BHA now say that it's 42 out of 42.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Much as I think everyone should get an equal shot in life that isn't the reality.
Our niece got a place in our local school and did really well.
Unfortunately her parents moved to a different county and she now goes to a normal comprehensive school.
They tested her on arrival and at 12 years old she was 2 years ahead of the rest of the school.
She is now 15 and though top of her class she is no longer head and shoulders above the rest. I can't help thinking that had they not moved house she would have got a far better education and probably better chances in life.
Unfortunately instead of raising the standards to match the best it seems we need to drag the best down to mediocre.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I suspect her personal religious beliefs are getting in the way (as has sadly happened all the way back to when the public education system was being debated in the 1800s).
In fairness it is only some faith schools who do the 'if a parent cant be arsed to turn up to church for a year they will provide a suitable homelife for kids to achieve in" test.

In reply to Dax H:

There is an argument to be made for selective schooling but if you are going to do it then you should do the job properly and openly. Not via the backdoor.

In reply to Dax H:

"Plan to stop secularist complaints against faith schools 'undemocratic' "

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/26/nicky-morgan-faith-schools...

In reply to Coel Hellier:



What the heck?!?

In reply to Dax H:

I heard an interesting interview with a sociologist who ran a number of studies that concluded that home life is the biggest factor in a kid's education. So if as parents we take a keen interest in our children's education, provide extra curriculum activities and opportunities, read to them and generally engage them, they will do well regardless of schooling. He then went on to practice what he preached and sent his own kids to public school (i.e. local authority) in inner city Chicago. They both turned out just fine.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy that parents who fight to get their kids into perceived "good" schools also tend to be the ones who do the above either directly, or pay someone else to do it.

In reply to ByEek:

Hell yes, good parenting is far more important than any school.
Unfortunately she doesn't get any of that.
Her father comes from a small ex mining town between Wakefield and Barnsley and has the full on "women belong in the kitchen" attitude.
He constantly tells her she should bother at school because she will never go anywhere in life and her future job is looking after her husband. Her mum (my wife's sister) is totally subservient to him through fear of being alone.
The only days out and trips she gets are with us when we see her every couple of months.

It's that bad at home that we have tried to get the social services to step in but because she is doing well at school and covers the problems there is nothing they can or will do.
She is just hanging on in there until she is old enough to leave home and come and live with us.

In reply to Dax H:

Is it not possible that her decline from 2 years ahead to merely top of the class was unrelated to the change in school? Going through teenage years with the home life you describe must take a hell of a toll. If the school is to blame, how come the other kids caught up with her?

In reply to Hooo:

Yes that is very possible but isn't it also possible that she was getting a fantastic education then changed school and she doesn't anymore?

Things to consider.
She was not top of the class in the church school, she was above average but quite a ways from top then over the 6 weeks holidays she moved school, was tested on various things and and found to be way ahead of the other kids her age.
If the decline is all down to her wouldn't the other kids have been on par with her to start with and then went on to surpass her as her decline started?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

And universities don't? Try getting in at Eton etc., if you don't fit their profile .

In reply to Dave Perry:
You know Eton isn't a university? I don't think universities are in the least interested in the religious beliefs of entrants either.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Actually, I think the usual legal description is an action that is 'totally without merit' but a vexatious litigant is someone who has been forbidden by a judge from bringing further actions without permission.

There's a list:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants

However, I don't think Nicky Morgan is talking about limiting access to the courts, just the complaints procedure and the adjudication process. I've no real idea how that works but I'm pretty sure it isn't litigation.

In reply to Dax H:

Educational progress is not a linear process with a gradient decided by the quality of the school, despite what Gove/Morgan will tell you.

Progress depends on many factors, teacher, peers, parents, home life, new boy/girlfriend, natural spurts of progress etc.

Children's achievements compared to their peers will vary throughout their school lives and from subject to subject. There is no top of the class.

In reply to XXXX:


But that's bollocks though and many people know that. There was a kid in my class you was top of the class in every subject, he ended up with 9 grade As (as they were in those days) and yes he was top of the class in every subject from starting school to leaving school.

While I agree there are subject that people do well in and then some they might struggle on, it's not always true!

Besides that (presuming you might be right and they weren't top of the class in every subject - though this is only your conjecture) I think you know what Dax means, basically they were a very high achiever; new school not so much. It's not that difficult

In reply to Dax H:


And that's relevant because. .. ??

In reply to Dax H:



At 15 I am sure that the police would not support her removal from your care as she has the right to chose where to live as long as its safe.

In reply to Doghouse:


It's part of painting a picture, he comes from a small town and is very small minded and misogynistic. The average family tree in that area looks like a telegraph poll and when it was in circulation he used to read the daily sport because in his words "there aren't enough tits in the sun".
Other than his current job he has never worked for more than 6 months at a time before going off sick with various illnesses and injuries.
His current job is in the civil service where his wife (my sister inlaw" works as a senior manager. In the last 3 years he has spent months at a time off with Stress, bad back and my personal favourite (he works as a filing clerk) repetitive strain injury in his elbows from opening filing cabinets.
If not for the protection of his wife who keeps arranging his transfer to different departments he would have been out years ago.
Basically a total waste of skin and I have met other members of the same family from the same small town who are the same.

Almost forgot, no picture of this guy would be complete without this little nugget of information.
Our niece is now only allowed in their car if there is no other choice at all.
Why you ask?
Because it is illegal to smoke with a child in the car so he banned her from the car last year when that law came in.

In reply to Richard Wilson:


When we took advice on this a few years ago we were told that until she is 16 she needs parental permission to leave home and they won't give that. Were we told wrong or have things changed?