Objection to divisive Faith School proposal

Dear Mr Hussey, I am writing to register my objection to the consultation to extend your school to include primary provision. I am writing as a local parent and resident.

The only connection to ONSchool, the proposal for a new secondary school in the city, is that the nature and impact of this proposal proves that there is a deep problem in the provision of education in the city. Obviously, the comprehensive system is broken in Oxford City, as it is in so many places. We have framed our proposal for a new secondary school, not to fix the problem of the wider system – but certainly not to make it worse. We have worked hard to talk to the wider school system, and consulted widely to offer a model for better social cohesion.

Yet, whatever happens with ONSchool, my concern is as a parent and resident in your local community.

I believe that: you have not consulted properly;  that your proposal will make the quality of educational provision in the city much worse; that it will be unfair in terms of access, and is poorly thought through.

Because the educational outcomes in the city is already unfair. For those with the most resources, there is the elite independent sector in Oxford, where 15.6% of children in the city go. Those who can (the upper middle class), stretch to make schools able to ‘select by mortgage’ – by restricting  their catchments. These schools are, at least partly,  better because of the intake they get and yet – they are only just scraping national averages. And for those at the bottom? The schools that serve the most diverse communities suffer most. Of course, this ‘balkanisation’ is happening elsewhere across the country.

There is a growing Fourth Tier of Catholic education in Oxford.

Of course, I recognise the hard work that you and other Catholic educators do, for your communities and respect that this is your remit. I have heard many good things about you from the catholic schools in the county – and you are much respected within that community for the work you do in improving and defending a Catholic education.

However, it is this insular attitude that threatens the next 30 years of education, in our part of Oxford. It is this failure to look beyond your own Catholic community – and the impact your proposal will have, that worries me most.I am also shocked by the level of support you have received from Oxfordshire County Council – who should be protecting all the families and residents who live here in the quality and range of provision of education. Before getting to this stage, you should have worked much harder (as should the County!) to talk to those outside the Catholic community. Last minute newspaper articleswere too little too lateAs a local resident (who lives at the back gates to the school) I was deeply disappointed by the nature and management of the ‘consultation’. There was almost no publicity – except within the school itself. There was no attempt to communicate with the local community who are likely to be most impacted; and even governors of local schools did not know about it. Unsurprisingly, there was a terrible turn out for the event you hosted – for a process that has been done and dusted in a few short weeks. You have not run any new meetings – approached local groups – or leafleted local residents. 
You intend to take Catholic children from across the city – and expand to a two tier (what they are calling a ‘All through’) school. This means that this will not be a local school for local kids. You said in the public meeting that this would be a school for the growing number of Catholic families, where ever they live in the city.You intend to open a new primary school right next to an existing primary, Larkrise Primary, and have not consulted with that school at all!Of course, I know that there is huge growth in the need for all pupil places across the city. However, just because you can easily map the catholic families because they identify themselves as such, this community will benefit and Catholic kids will be admitted into a new school. Whereas other schools, because they take kids of all background,  will have to cram more kids in and not get anywhere the scale of investment and support you will get for Catholic children.

At the meeting, you proudly stated that St Gregorys benefitted from having 50% non-Catholic children – and that diversity was a strength. Yet you then said that, as the proposed primary kids move up the system, St Gregorys will become a Catholic only school. The very diversity you benefit from will be taken out of your school – through introducing selection by religion. It also mean that, in an age of austerity – the Diocese is doing what it can to protect their families (which I understand) at the expense of kids of different, or no faith, with the support of the County Council (which I do not).

 

 

Because Catholics can be ‘found’ through their churches (and tend to identify their religion in forms and register at Church) clearly Catholic parents across in the city are requesting a Catholic education. This small number of people (with perhaps more ‘clout’ that the other minorities in the city) will be unfairly protected through these tough times – and the educational outcomes for others will suffer and will damage community cohesion.

I love the diversity and cultural wealth that religion brings our society, and came to your meeting, rather than celebrating the joy of Divali. However, I am not alone in thinking that schools should make religion and faith an inclusive aspect of their work- rather than use it to become more exclusive. This proposal is unfair to many, not just those of us who do not support faith schools – or at least do not feel that they should have to pretend to go to church to get into their local school. If it were better know about, more would object to this on these grounds alone.

I am also surprised that, even though you agreed that there was scope for more provision and a need to answer the need for more pathways post 16 – that your proposal is for a primary school. (Clearly without my ONSchool hat) Given that there is a growing need for secondary places – why not increase the intake of the secondary age children?

As I raised in the meeting, I am also disappointed by the lack of vision in your plans in pedagogical terms. You seem to be proposing an ‘all through’ school with no connection between them except in that the families in the Diocese benefit. You admitted that all the international educational research shows that ‘all through’ only has a positive impact when all ages are able to learn in a shared space – and that colleague from a primary and secondary background can work together.  A clear example of this is in the tricky area of ‘Transition’ from KS2 to KS3. Yet, you stated that these will be two separate schools. So it is wrong to call your proposal ‘All through’. I believe this misses a chance (despite all my other objection) to improve the educational outcomes of the pupils at this proposed setting. I feel you are missing the chance to be as innovative as you claim the school can be, and evidence led in your plans.

I am glad that you are looking to save the Cricket Road site – yet, unlike all the free school groups who have looked at it – you do not seem to have a viable and costed plan for how to refurbish it and to provide value for money to the poll-taxpayer in the city. I feel that the community needs to know more about this, and that you need to show how the flood risk to local homes will be mitigated (maybe even improved) by your proposal.

In summary, I object to this proposal because:

• St Gregorys  has failed to run an informed and well managed consultation
• The proposal would take public money for the benefit one religious community in the city
• There seems no provision to prevent a negative impact other communities and existing schools
• The detail for the education at the school is not based on best practice or research evidence
• It is not properly costed and impact studies have not been done.

Secondary schools in Oxford City are failing to deliver on the potential of our young people. Those with the most advantages continue to succeed, and those who are disadvantaged are increasingly likely to fail. Your proposal will make this worse, as it adds the divisive fact of religion in to the mix. Those in power are falling back to old solutions to problems in the city, which seems to be to actively ghettoise communities, especially by cultural and social background, rather than propose progressive and positive solutions. This is a failure of vision and evidence of a lack of values – especially for social justice.

Yours sincerely

Eylan Ezekiel