No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2013
Community lies at the heart of both church and school life in the Church of England. In some areas, church communities are sustained by families who choose to attend a particular church based on the quality of the church school in its parish. Many Voluntary Aided Church of England schools (church schools) give priority admission to parents on the basis of faith in the oversubscription criteria of their admission arrangements. While the Church stresses inclusiveness in its recommendations regarding admissions policies to church schools, where a church school is very popular and oversubscribed arguably priority must be given to parents of the faith in the school's catchment area. Otherwise parishioner children whose families regularly attend church could fail to be admitted to their local church school because of competition for places.
2 On church schools generally, see Petchey, P, ‘Legal issues for faith schools in England and Wales’, (2008) 10 Ecc LJ 174–190Google Scholar.
3 Church of England Archbishop's Council Education Division, ‘Admission to Church of England schools: Board of Education/National Society advice to diocesan boards of education’ (June 2011), para 36, available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1513919/nsadmissionsguidancejune2011final%20(3).pdf>, accessed 12 October 2013.
4 Church Schools Review Group, The Way Ahead: Church of England schools in the new millennium (2001), para 4.43, available at <http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1118777/way%20ahead%20-%20whole.pdf>, accessed 12 October 2013.
5 School Admissions Code 2012, para 1.9(e); Determination of the Schools Adjudicator, London Oratory School, 12 December 2012, para 14.
6 ‘Admission to Church of England schools’, Appendix 1, para B(4).
7 St Mark's CE Aided Primary School, School Admissions Policy 2013–14, available at <http://www.st-marks.bournemouth.sch.uk/bournemouth/primary/stmarks/site/pages/keyinformation/admissionspolicy>, accessed 12 October 2013.
8 Moordown St John's CE Primary School Admissions Policy 2012/13, available at <http://www.st-johns.bournemouth.sch.uk/PDFdocs/Admissions/MStJ%20Admission%20Arrangements%202012-2013[2].pdf>, accessed 22 May 2013.
9 School Admissions Code 2012, para 1.9(i); Equality Act 2010, Schedule 11, s 89(5)(a).
10 Equality Act 2010, s 85.
11 Ibid, ss 6(1)–6(2).
12 For a recent case study and accompanying analysis see Rosenberg, D and Desai, R, ‘The admissions arrangements of faith schools and the Equality Act 2010’, (2013) 14 Education Law Journal 93–99Google Scholar.
13 Equality Act 2010, s 19.
14 Ibid, s 149. See Fredman, S, ‘The public sector equality duty’, (2011) 40 ILJ 405–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Public sector equality duty guidance for schools in England’ (2012), p 5, available at <http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/pdfs/public_sector_equality_duty_guidance_for_schools_in_england_final.pdf>, accessed 12 October 2013.
16 School Standards and Framework Act 1998, s 88H.
17 School Admissions Code 2012, para 1.18.
18 Equality Act 2010, s 20(3) and s 85(6).
19 See Baroness Hale, ‘The quest for equal treatment’, (2005) PL 571–585 at 574.
20 See also Valsamis v Greece App No 21787/93 (ECtHR 18 December 1996).
21 Ali (FC) v Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, para 24.
22 Ali v United Kingdom App No 40385/06 (ECtHR 11 January 2011), para 54, emphasis added.
23 Ali v Headteacher, para 24.
24 See A v Essex CC [2008] EWCA Civ 364, para 17.
25 R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] 1 WLR 3213; see also, R v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15, para 210 ff (per Lord Hope of Craighead).
26 In the case involving the disabled widower represented by Dan Rosenberg and Raj Desai, for example, they succeeded on appeal although not on the direct application of the Equality Act. See Rosenberg and Desai, ‘The admissions arrangements of faith schools’, p 95.
27 School Admissions Code 2012, para 1.9, emphasis in original.
28 R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, para 68.
29 Admission Appeals Code 2012, para 1.9(a).
30 School Standards and Framework Act 1998, s 88H.
31 At present, policies such as that of Moordown St John's state only that the admissions policy has been made in accordance with these legal requirements. St Mark's admission arrangements are silent as to the governors' legal obligations.
32 See, by analogy, the Schools Admissions Code's requirement as they apply to the oversubscription criterion of ‘social and medical need’. School Admissions Code 2012, para 1.16.
33 B Quinn, ‘Thousands of children as young as five act as family carers, figures show’, The Guardian, 16 May 2013, <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/16/thousands-children-caregivers-family-data>, accessed 12 October 2013.