Locke and religious tolerance

[ProfessorDavey]

Yet allowing schools on the basis of parental income is I suppose.

Is that a comment against private schools, or are you trying to make some point about non faith state schools.

If the former - well yes there is an interesting discussion to be had.

If the latter then you are way off the mark as it has been demonstrated time and time again that it is faith schools as a category of school that are disproportionately likely to take kids from affluent backgrounds, when benchmarked against the overall demographics of their catchment area.

So as an example just 12% of pupils at faith primary schools are eligible for free school meals, compared to 18% at the equivalent non faith schools according to the very latest data.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that a comment against private schools, or are you trying to make some point about non faith state schools.

If the former - well yes there is an interesting discussion to be had.

If the latter then you are way off the mark as it has been demonstrated time and time again that it is faith schools as a category of school that are disproportionately likely to take kids from affluent backgrounds, when benchmarked against the overall demographics of their catchment area.

So as an example just 12% of pupils at faith primary schools are eligible for free school meals, compared to 18% at the equivalent non faith schools according to the very latest data.

Going back to the point I made.
What is the percentage of pupils at fee paying schools eligible for free school meals.
If it is lower than 12% are you prepared to accept that arguing against faith schools on the basis of pupils on free school meals while allowing fee paying schools is not terribly bright?

[ProfessorDavey]

Going back to the point I made.
What is the percentage of pupils at fee paying schools eligible for free school meals.

I don't know - the statistics tend to be recorded for the maintained sector alone.

If it is lower than 12% are you prepared to accept that arguing against faith schools on the basis of pupils on free school meals while allowing fee paying schools is not terribly bright?

Not really - they are two separate arguments. One is about whether we should allow private as well as state schooling. The other about how tax payer funded schools are run.

It is of course to be expected that private schools are likely to attract the more wealthy, for the obvious reason that they charge fees.

There is no reason, in principle, why kids at state funded faith schools should be demonstrably more affluent as a cohort, than those at state funded non faith schools. But they are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know - the statistics tend to be recorded for the maintained sector alone.
Not really - they are two separate arguments. One is about whether we should allow private as well as state schooling. The other about how tax payer funded schools are run.

It is of course to be expected that private schools are likely to attract the more wealthy, for the obvious reason that they charge fees.

There is no reason, in principle, why kids at state funded faith schools should be demonstrably more affluent as a cohort, than those at state funded non faith schools. But they are.

There are the Grammars and then there are the academies of course. Have you factored these in? Academies of course seem to be able to be more selective in which pupils they retain.

Then of course entry is also dependent on church attendance......and as they say, ''Going to a garage doesn't make one a car.''

I notice you have run up the flag on Private education. Are you able to give the percentage of affluent cohort on that ?

[ProfessorDavey]

There are the Grammars and then there are the academies of course. Have you factored these in?

The distinction I have made is faith school vs non faith. There are grammar schools and academies in both of those categories, so yes they are included but not separated out as this wasn't the analysis I was giving.

I presume your argument is that grammar schools and academies are more affluent (if so I think it is up to you to provide that evidence), but if so that doesn't really help as although there are faith academies and grammar schools these types of school are more common, proportionately, in the non faith sector which would make the distinction in terms of affluence between faith and non faith schools more stark still.

Academies of course seem to be able to be more selective in which pupils they retain.

Confused statement, and also not true.

Firstly do you mean the pupils they admit, rather than retain.

Secondly, although there are some academies that are partially selective (they cannot be fully selective) that isn't common. Most secondary schools are now academies and many primaries are too. Most aren't selective at all. So as an example - all the secondary schools in my city are now academies - none are even partially selective. Many of the primary schools are academies - none are selective.

The schools my three children attend are both academies - neither are selective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The distinction I have made is faith school vs non faith. There are grammar schools and academies in both of those categories, so yes they are included but not separated out as this wasn't the analysis I was giving.

I presume your argument is that grammar schools and academies are more affluent (if so I think it is up to you to provide that evidence), but if so that doesn't really help as although there are faith academies and grammar schools these types of school are more common, proportionately, in the non faith sector which would make the distinction in terms of affluence between faith and non faith schools more stark still.
Confused statement, and also not true.

Firstly do you mean the pupils they admit, rather than retain.

Secondly, although there are some academies that are partially selective (they cannot be fully selective) that isn't common. Most secondary schools are now academies and many primaries are too. Most aren't selective at all. So as an example - all the secondary schools in my city are now academies - none are even partially selective. Many of the primary schools are academies - none are selective.

The schools my three children attend are both academies - neither are selective.

Grammar schools in general have a lower proportion of pupils on free school meals.
Academies have had all sorts of freedoms. I am of course heartened that your experience has been free of any selection.

But to return to my point.
Why deplore faith schools and yet find fee paying schools or public schools acceptable?
There was an interesting article about the Trojan Horse scandal by one of the lawyers involved in the cases which resulted. The lawyer went in with a Govian brief that the secularity of the school space was being defended by the Government but on inspection concluded that actually no school has been, since the 1944 and subsequent education acts, a secular space because of the prescribed acts of worship. I digress.

Many primaries and some secondaries are originally church establishments and all are established under the 1944 and subsequent acts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Grammar schools in general have a lower proportion of pupils on free school meals.
Academies have had all sorts of freedoms. I am of course heartened that your experience has been free of any selection.

Statistics on Grammar Schools and Academies and free school meals.

Grammars - massively lower proportion of free school meals (2.5%) compared to their local area (8.9%) - necessary to compare with local area as grammar schools only exist in a few counties.

Academies - slightly more complicated - primary academies (16.3%) have a higher proportion than the overall average, at 14.5%. Secondary academies (12.5%) have slightly lower than the national average (13.2%).

Note that there are both faith and non faith schools in the academy cohort.

Of interest perhaps - I do not support grammar schools on principle as I disagree with selection in compulsory education. Academies are about an alternative way of running schools rather than something as fundamental as selection. I'm not a fan of the whole academisation agenda, but this is more on pragmatic/polical grounds than on principle. Providing a school is run according the basic principles of provision of education for its local community and without using academic selection in its admissions then whether it is governed as an academy (with funding direct from DfE) or governed as a community school (under the auspices of the LEA) isn't a huge issue to me.