My husband and I spent years planning ahead. Even before our nuptials we decided to marry in a parish church somewhere. We chose one in the catchment area of a Voluntary Aided CofE primary school (it had to be VA, they control their own admissions – unlike Voluntary Controlled schools which have to accept anyone) and bought a house there.
By the time our son was born we were well-known in church circles. We became Confirmed and took Communion once a month (at least, one of us did although I must confess we had a few arguments about whose turn it was). We took turns looking after toddlers in the crèche during services (frankly, I preferred that to sitting through interminable sermons). My husband took up bell-ringing while I joined the cleaning rota and washed the vicar’s surplice. We did this for years until the time came for us to apply for a place.
We were sure our sacrifices would pay off. Our confidence increased when the school became an academy giving it more control over its admissions.
But we were turned down! The new vicar went to
Synod in 2012. Nothing alarming in that, we thought. But alarm bells should have rung.
Apparently, the vicar was reminded that a “Christian ethos” meant educating all children especially the vulnerable and the excluded.
The vicar persuaded the academy Trustees to change the school’s admission policy and give priority to pupils who attract the Pupil Premium. In our ignorance we though it meant putting “premium” pupils first, pupils with parents like us whose commitment put us in the Premier League.
But we learned to our cost this was not so. It meant the school gave priority to disadvantaged children. Now I’ve nothing against disadvantaged children as long as they know their place. And, frankly, that’s not in the same school as mine who’ve been brought up properly.
But all is not lost. We put our son into pre-prep while considering our options. We’ve discovered there’s a good RC secondary school within travelling distance. We’ve checked its Admission Criteria: the school gives points for church attendance and taking part in other church duties. All we have to do is make sure the duties have some sort of “liturgical” significance: pew polishing is out but flower arranging is in.
So we’ve an appointment to see Father Patrick tomorrow about being received into the Catholic faith. And I’ve found some beautiful gold Rosary beads on EBay.
Links to Fair Admissions Campaign
here
Comments
Our son has just been awarded a place at a local school. We are not happy with the standards there, but we have to like it it or lump it, as there is no choice or variety of provision in our LEA.
Maybe you should divorce first, so your (ex) husband can take holy orders, become a priest, and then admit his own son into the school...?
Needed some acting, commitment and, of course, enough money to afford to rent a flat for six months or so.
But this thread isn't really about choice, variety etc. It's about hypocrisy which is something I thought the church would not wish to encourage.
Not true.
You can try to become a school governor to support and challenge the school.
With your professional knowledge you might be a useful asset to the GB provided you don't go native and, when it comes to the crunch, vote for whatever is congenial to staff.
Are they still 'friends' of yours? Did you 'have a word'?
We moved many miles away the next year and haven't seen them much since ... circumstances not choice. But I forgot one requirement, on top of acting and money, and that's knowing how to play the system. She was a primary Headteacher and he was head of department in a secondary school. So disadvantaged pupils are disadvantaged however you look at it and schools wishing to select their 'mixed' entry have a number of secure routes to use.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/12/19/nick-cleggs-core-vote-strategy...
No need to thank me.
How much time do most people have to become school governors and then take on the vested interests in the school to improve it? I have been a governor and I know others who are governors who are trying to improve schools and they might as well bang their head against the wall, fighting entrenched attitudes.
It is true that sometimes some people are incredibly busy with other commitments but that is why GBs should be a team effort with a substantial number of people as opposed to the lunatic proposals of the ConDems (no doubt hopeless Tristram agrees with them) to have small GBs.
If you lack commitment it's no wonder your previous experience as a governor was unsuccessful. Of course, it does depend on what these people you know mean by 'improve' schools. If they mean hand them over to profit-seeking edu-businesses they ought to fail.
I did not lack commitment and my experience was not unsuccessful, it is the current experience of a friend which is so far proving less than successful, so please read what I have written more carefully and do not misinterpret it. Those of us with full time jobs are, surprise, surprise, busy with other commitments, as are those with families. It should need the attention and time of amateurs to improve schools when the professionals are failing.
I meant to write 'it should NOT need the attention........'
It doesn't need the attention of amateurs to improve schools ... that's not the governors' role and usually they would have neither the time nor expertise to carry it out if it was.
When you now say, so I gather, that you previously did help improve a school as a governor you implicitly accept that is entirely possible, which presumably is what you intended to deny by pointing to your friend's sob story.
These 'amateurs' include parents and others who ought and usually do have a commitment to the success of the school and not just to seeing how much money they can extract from it.
The task of improving schools does not necessarily imply that 'professionals are failing'.
I feel sure you like a good right wing view so here is Lord Hill of Oareford (then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools):
"The governing body should be the most important decision-making group in any school and the key body for school improvement."
Agov. I do not know why you find it necessary to refer to my friend's 'sob story'. She is giving up her time to try to help her school even though she has no children there and never has. Neither do I know why you have mentioned money, which has no relevance to the role of a governor, as far as I know. As for 'good right wing views', that is not relevant either. The fact that I don't follow the whole LSN line does not make me right wing, neoliberal, a Thatcherite or any other such thing. Perhaps you should address the matter in hand rather than make snide remarks about people whom you have never met and about whom you know very little.
My point, though I missed out the key word 'not' in my first comment and then had to make a further comment to correct this.
Money is directly relevant to school governance. It's been that way since Wilshaw and others started talking about paying governors. Clearly, if governors are paid then they are employed and therefore have employers. Who else would employers be but the parasites of academy chains wanting compliant governors dedicated to business profits and not the welfare of the children. It was you who made snide remarks about amateurs. Perhaps you are unaware that Ofsted currently expects professional standards from (unpaid = amateur) governors.
Perhaps you should read what you write before complaining about it being responded to.
I did address the matter in hand but I'm not sure you are. People with jobs and families find time to do a good job as governors. It is your choice to leave it to others. That doesn't mean you have to 'lump' it. It means you choose to.
Add new comment