Become a Member
Geoffrey Alderman

By

Geoffrey Alderman,

Geoffrey Alderman

Opinion

Failed by such a shoddy ruling

December 18, 2014 14:14
2 min read

The "Fair Admissions Campaign" (FAC) is 18 months old. As befits a child of the 21st century it has multiple parents, among which are the British Humanist Association, which claims it objects to state funding of faith schools but which is actually opposed to all faith-based education, believing "schools should not bring up children in a particular religion when they are too young to make up their minds," and the Accord Coalition, whose leader, Rabbi Jonathan Romain, claims he supports faith schools provided pupils are admitted to them regardless of faith.

In 2013, the BHA, along with Accord and other like-minded groups, brought forth the FAC as a weapon in the war they declared against the intrusion of faith into the English educational system - or rather, against the part played by religion in the admission arrangements of taxpayer-funded faith schools. Now the campaign can claim its first victories. In the case of the cross-communal Jewish Community Secondary School, the campaign has managed to persuade the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) that it is unlawful to use parental synagogue membership as an entry requirement. In the case of the Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School, the OSA has issued a far more damning set of rulings, for which the FAC is only partly to blame.

The FAC claimed the Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School was in breach of the School Admissions Code (SAC) inasmuch as its entry criteria included inappropriate (indeed, allegedly unlawful) references to matters of parental lifestyle (such as the use of television and the internet, and even the mode of dress adopted by the fathers of intending pupils), and that its "oversubscription" rules gave preference to charedi girls recognised as such by the rabbinate of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations over "other charedi Jewish girls." In fact, in its "Determination", the OSA gave only partial support to these objections. The OSA ruled, for instance, that references to dress code, the internet and television were in principle permitted by the SAC (as it reflected the school's overall religious ethos), but only if the school was oversubscribed. If not, non-charedi families could apply, and would be entitled to have their applications considered without reference to these lifestyle considerations.

Whether any non-charedi family would want their daughter to attend the school is a moot point. So, at first glance, the FAC victory appears incomplete. But, in the course of its judgment, the OSA considered other matters, some of which had not initially been raised by the objectors but which struck the OSA as odd, not to say illegal.