Author: simon
Christ The King College: Faith School Created Behind Closed Doors
Wednesday, 12th March, 2008 at 11:32 am, Isle of Wight
During the day on Monday, a decision was made by Cllr Alan Wells that Christ The King College should be established starting 1 Sept 2008. This was carried out BEFORE the public release of the results of the school survey.
The decision was made under delegated powers, that is, there was no public debate about it, or public record of how the decision was made - just that it was made.
You would have thought that a decision about the formation of a new school — particularly one of a faith school — would have been discussed in the open, where interested parties, like the parents whose children might be affected by a decision like this, would be able to have their say, but for some reasons no, it was just handed down as a fait accompli.
Lumley calls foul
Cllr Geoff Lumley was aware of the decision coming up and, in advance of the meeting, questioned the legitimacy of making such a major decision behind closed doors.
On his blog, Lumley, claims that the decision is Misleading.
Delegated decisions are supposed to be forewarned in something called the Forward Plan. This one wasn’t.
Lumley goes on to point out that when he’s made point for consideration about a delegated decision previously, he’s received “a considered reply before they made the decision.”
He goes on to point out that “it’s called going thought the process,” and closes with “this decision stinks.”
Is this wise?
The Council is already on pretty shaky ground on schools with many people on the Island thinking that the views of the public are being ignored and that major changes are being rail-roaded through.
It appears unwise, to say the least, to be making such major decisions about the formation of a school behind closed doors.
Email This Story To A Friend
March 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
If this is the case, then I am concerned that decisions such as these are being made without public consultation
March 12th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Margie,
It is true.Here’s the proof
March 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
This is deeply insulting to anyone who is not a Christian. ‘These arrogant politicians’ is a current topic on the VentnorBlog Forum and this news just adds insult to previous injuries.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Did you know the school/college was going to be named College Of Christ the King until they realised the unfortunate abbreviation?
I’d be interested to know about the leaders of the faiths here on the Isle of Wight and how they are getting involved in helping the council in planning this school.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
As a Christian I find it deeply insulting too.It’s giving us a bad name!
March 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Luigi,
these decisions are made by the dioceses in Portmouth.Read appendix B1 and B2 on the link
March 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Thanks squareface - the section in B1 regarding the rationale of Christian schools made good reading - I suggest other people read it too.
Aren’t many of the existing Catholic schools buildings and land owned by the diocese?
March 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
As far as I am aware, all Catholic schools buildings and land are owned by the diocese,apart from Holy Cross which the buildings belong to the diocese and the land belong to the the order of Nuns in the convent.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:07 am
While I realise that claiming to be a cristian (althouth not a very good one ; a good case of roman catholic guilt their )is not very p.c I felt I have to put my view accross on the above.The decision to combine a.b.k and trinity was a decision taken after much consultation with the parents of both schools.The meeting I attended at a.b.k was overwelmingly in support of this move,indeed the main focus of debate was a possibility of allowing the school to go from 9/11 to 6th form which ironicly with the decision on wednesday would now seem possible.
To sum up I would just like to say that as this decision effected present pupils at this school and present pupils in christian primary education surely it was up to there parents to decide.Bearing in mind that persumibly this cristian college will supply outstanding education and hopefully disapline at a cost less than a non-religous college because of the imput of cash i.e ounership of buildings e.t.c
While this is my personal view I beleive it to be correct and just bear in mind that christ the king college (I would imagine ) would have a fair few spaces for pupils whatever your religous persuation if any.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I hope fat boy fat is not an example of the alumini of the schools that have merged into the new college, or we all might be worried for the kids who are educated there. One may forgive a few “typos” and the common misuse of “ironicly” [sic], but please use a spell check if you need to and learn the difference between effect and affect; and there and their and they’re.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I think that it immoral to destinquish childrens education on a religious basis, based upon the religion (actual or faked) of the childs parents.
I find it repugnant that Religious schools are afforded seperate funding and work under seperate rules and are thought to out perform ’state’ schools.
Religion should be kept at home or in its place of worship, whether that be church, synagog or mosque.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
What does kj think of independent schools where the ability to pay determines entry or successful state schools whose catchment area has inflated house prices also create social discrimination? Accepting there may be exceptions, faith schools do not discriminate on the basis of social background and in the case of this school prioritise access to those in social care irrespective of belief. Hence should faith schools be targeted as such a moral hazard? If the teaching of religion is regarded as a disadvantage, there are more often than not other schools and if not, remember good faith schools teach about other beliefs and nowadays have science lessons no different to those in the secular world and are hardly likely to convert a child from a secular family. In the case of the latter in a society of secular bias, the school may be the only source in religion, so better they have the chance of some understanding even if they reject it - at least they have been given some sort of choice.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
NO religious schools descrimate on the basis of belief in superstition and fantasy.
I believe every child should receive equal education despite class, religion and that those students who are especially academically gifted be provided the extra education whatever the colour, crede or class.
I have no doubt that religious schools provide an excellent all round education..my point is that it should be free to all.
Religion should be taught like the other hunaities i.e History, where religions ‘moral hazards’ become clear
October 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I did go to school honest Guv..I meant Humanities
October 9th, 2008 at 6:43 am
@Allessi.
I think you’ll find that Church AIDED schools do have a provision for a discriminatory admissions policy, as this is set by the governors, more than half of whom are foundation (church appointed) governors. I’m not suggesting that they would, necessarily, all use it, but it does make me wonder why it’s there. @ KJ.
Did you intend a comma or full stop after your emphatic NO (above)? If not, you seem to be arguing with yourself!
October 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I refer you to my last comment and can only hope to blame a rubbish wireless keyboatd, dislxia, a hangover, font in comment box to small,the fact that I am just plain stupid or that its a Blog not an English exam
It is why we employ proof readers and the proof readers union insist that I make mistakes
October 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Steve S. The specific admission policy of CTK is found here and is not http://eduwight.iow.gov.uk/the_lea/policies_plans/images/09-10ChristtheKingAdmpolicy.pdf
kj it is your perogative to view all religions or a particular religion as fanatasy or superstition, and avoiding any argiuments of personal beleif, I will consider this point.
If a school whose religious ethos was based on the green pixies who live on alpha centuri, I would also disagree with sending my children there, but I would not have any objections to schools based on this premise if there were a significant minority of beleivers to justify it and the school provided a balanced enducation. However, I would also expect that a good education was avaialble in alternative schools.
Likewise, if you feel such an objection to the belief system of a school and that there is not an alternative school (and I cannot see this personally as far as schools on the Isle of Wight are concerned) then you should be demanding such a choice, not trying to take away something that pleases others and need not affect you.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Steve S, I missed the end of the point above. It is meant to say …not discrimitary on the basis of social or accademic selection.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I completely respect your right to whatever religion you chose, but why should one child have a better education than another based on religious bias?
October 9th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
kj, I agree, tht we should strive towards a good education for all. Selective state and independent are greater culprits in this argument, but it is the faith schools who are getting the flak in this debate. I wonder with some (I am not accusing kj) if its more about being anti religion than the actual schools themeselves. My own experience of both church and normal state schools is that the former had much better system of discipline, plannning, pastoral care and parents from all social backgrounds who in general have a religion that has made them care about others. These traits of course, are not be unique to the religious and are virtues abided to by true humanists. So rather than knocking church schools, those at the forefront of secular campaigning such as the National Secular Society should be concentrating on making the secular alternatives better, not running a campaign of venommous opposition to faith schools. for my twopence worth, I think grammar schools should be considered, but with sensible alternatives instead of Secondary Moderns to dump the other kids. The traditional post war German system is one that streamed kids into schools to suit their needs best with about four types of secondary schools including vocational and technical examples.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:07 am
I agree…and I may seem a little xelous…But essentially I belive that there should be no difference in the education between child A and Child B.
Naturally bright kids should be provided with a challanging education whatever their circumstance at no extra cost. I’m not anti specialised schools only specialised entrant criteria.
I am blatantly anti-religion, but also accept individual choice
October 10th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
A crticism of the set up of the school that I would put forward is that there was an opportunity on merging the schools to have a truly ecumencical college and fundning could have been sought from other christian traditions for this. The current entry reqirements are obviously a political compromise between the Church of England and Roman Catholic communions. After priority to children in social care is given, entry seems to be divided between the two faiths. What I have a speicific obejction to is on the CofE side famiilies who go to the parish Church one or twice a year and on the RC side, a parent being baptised an RC regardless of current church involvement are in each stream considered ahead of more active christian families in other denominations (baptist, methodist etc.)
October 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“proof readers union insist that I make mistakes”
Thanks, kj - we need the work!
October 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“considered ahead of more active christian families in other denominations (baptist, methodist etc.)”
But once you start, where do you stop? Would you make room for Scientologists, for instance, and if not, why not? The C of E is so called because the Queen is its head and its bishops sit in our government, so it is reasonable that it gets some priority in the affairs of this country. Countries of other faiths do not make much room for us!
The churches have done some good work in education down the ages, providing most of it, historically, but since we now have state education, I think it is time that they were separated, as in America. By all means have privately-run schools paid for by the adherents of whatever faith you like, but mixing funding and governance of church-aided schools is an unhappy solution, IMO.
October 12th, 2008 at 3:51 am
James P, because scientologists are not christians and there was specific talk before of a non sectarian “Christian High School”. If the Cof E is so important then Triunity should not have merged with ABK - a denomination further removed from Cof E than many non conformist traditions. The World council of churches is a good place to start for defining a scope of compatible beliefs.
Personally I cannot see any conflict in governance. Both state and church contribute to governance because they are cofianciers. The state does not pay for 100% of the cost. A child in a faith school actually saves the state some money, albeit a small amount.
Allowing only private schools to have religious affiliation only denies the choice of this in the state system to those who cannot afford school fees.
As for an “unhappy solution” the faith sccools are actually working very well. If the faith schools had not done so well, there wouldn’t be such protest by anti-faith groups. It seems to be the envy of one group at another group’s results from its own efforts. Its a bit like wanting to take a beand new scout hut from the troop who built from grant money ans charityit becasue some think the whole community should benefit from it.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
“If the Cof E is so important then Trinity should not have merged with ABK”
If I was a Catholic, I would probably feel exactly that way. As it is, they are probably pretty uncomfortable bedfellows!
The fact remains that the C of E is exactly what it says it is, and if English schools are to have a religious bias, then that should be it. Just because the C of E is Christian does not automatically extend the same principle to all other Christian denominations.
One of the great paradoxes of organised religion is that while most holy texts espouse brotherly love and tolerance towards one’s fellows, many of their followers prefer to skip those bits and argue interminably about the interpretation of ancient translations, taking up arms against anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their particular view! This is why the only safe option for state-funded education is to have nothing to do with any of it.
Religious sects can build their own schools with their own money, tapping into any grants or charitable assistance that is available, but not general state coffers. Rather like the scout hut, in fact, which would, after all, be for the exclusive use of Scouts…
October 13th, 2008 at 9:03 am
“scientologists are not christians”
You’re quite right, BTW. Scientology is only a religion for tax purposes!
I may have been thinking of Christian Scientists…
October 13th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
you mean that Xtianity is not a religion for tax purposes………………..
October 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
James P, I share your views on many of the wrongs found among religious and the sectarian strife within christianity both historically and the bits that still go on today, but this simply isn’t found in most faith schools in England and is a complete red herring. The ecumenical views of this school in particular are made clear in the very existance of a merge school from two very different denominations. Hence the core reasons you state here for your objection to such schools are just not relevant.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“red herring”
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. The trouble is that there is a widespread perception that church schools provide an advantage, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with relatively well-off parents of, shall we say neutral belief, making an effort to get their child in and amongst other children with a similar background. Whether religious folk want their child to be among those whose parents’ beliefs are a movable feast is another matter, but the overall effect is that the school gets a (small) leg up at the expense of the rest.
As for the ecumenical views of the school, that’s fine for pupils starting now and later, but if I was a devout parent of an existing pupil, I’d be spitting blood! The merger should have been posted long enough in advance for children in the system to work through it.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
As usual, James, you’ve hit the nail on the head! A brilliant assessment of the iniquities of the system and it’s abuse.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Thank you, Steve, although I suppose I should be careful about accepting compliments from an anti-papist like yourself! (in-joke, sorry VB).
I wish I had such powers of persuasion against the council, but I’m pleased to see that the Key Stage system is starting to get dismantled, at least.
You coming for a curry?
October 14th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
“Xtianity is not a religion for tax purposes…?”
LOL, kj! You might well think so, but I couldn’t possibly comment. I’m not sure they’ve got any money now anyway - with their investment record, they probably put what’s left in an Icelandic bank!
October 15th, 2008 at 12:16 am
you might hope so…but they still own half of England
and I understand the arms trade is still going strong
October 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
on the subjest…Maharajas is celebrating 26 years on the Island with 20% discount
October 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Ok James P
Lets take on board your comments bellow as being fact
well-off parents of, shall we say neutral belief, making an effort to get their child in and amongst other children with a similar background.
and that the school gets a (small) leg up at the expense of the rest.
1. The tax payer does not pay any more for each place in these schools. In fact the church part subsidises the cost.
2. There is truth in many getting their kids in though farily spurious means, but that can be done by a family of any means who can go to a church near to them and pretend. Even if we assume their remains an inequality then it remains worse in selective non-faith schools as these mores often lead to more bias in favour of advantaged kids. Worse still (foollowing the same mode of argument) in the existence of private education for those who can afford it (suggesting that faith schools are confined to this sector would make this even worse). Why is there not as much energy spent addressing these greater inequalities?
The only bias the school has is that of religious affiliation and, if a better school exists through ths, then effort should be made to raise the standards in ALL schools not to remove something that is successful.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“that can be done by a family of any means who can go to a church near to them and pretend”
Maybe, but in practice, it tends to be the better-off. What that says about money and morality I leave to others!
October 19th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
It’s interesting , but the majority argument agasinst faith schools seem to be Strawman arguments/ The best way of examining them is to look at what effect individual schools have in practice from the sttistical evidence available and experience of both religous and non religious people who have attended them and it what way those who attend other schoools have or haven’t addtect them. Instead we a presented a characiture of a faith school when not based on myth or assumtions take facts and circumstsances from examples of faith schools far removed from the ones we are discussing. Thereafter there is an attempt to convinced that the faults of the “straw” version justify takingvappart the real one.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
ignore the message abov, I was very tired at the time should read:
It’s interesting , but the majority argument agasinst faith schools seem to be Strawman arguments. Those against them do not present reality in which the schools operate but assumptions of how they operate (and if these are based on fact they are applicable to an isolated few shcools or a bygone era) We a presented a charicature of a faith school that doesn’t look like anything that most present and former students of them would not recognise. Thereafter there is an attempt to convince that the faults of the “straw” version are reasons why the real ones shoud not operate.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I maintain that sending your child to a school with specific admission criteria that you have to perjure yourself to fulfil is not the ideal basis for an honourable career. Banking, perhaps.
No doubt the new ‘merged faith’ school has to take a quota of unbelievers and so gets round that particular hurdle, but in that case, why call it a faith school at all? Money, of course, which probably isn’t quite what Jesus had in mind either…
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
James, if there are gatecrahser at the part its a problem for the host not anyone else. Such is the deception among a minority those applying (and I would agree with you that this exists) it is a problem for those involved with faith schools to address. I can’t see how it is detrimental for those who have no interest in or are against such schools.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 am
Another problem with the faith schools as proposed by the IW Council is that all control for governance is to be handed over to the religious authorities.
The taxpayer will (through the Council) provide most of the resources, but the Council will have no representation on the governing body, which will be completely appointed by the bishops.
Having myself been a Local Authority-appointed governor at both an Island C of E Primary School, and an Island High School, I view this participation as an important independent input.
However smug we may feel about Christianity providing a moral education, the principle of complete religious control of a state school is contrary to the idea of a secular democracy.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 am
I find it a joke that active christians can provide a ‘moral’ education
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 am
I speak as an active christian, but agree with kj (for once!). The church struggles to manage itself. Why should we believe it can manage our schools? The ‘christian ethos’ and ‘moral framework’ argument is a total red-herring. Do we assume that these would not be available in a democratically operated community school or even a church VC one? The issue here is one of power and control. Contrary to what Watchdog says above, the governing body of an Aided school is not COMPLETELY appointed by the bishops, but the MAJORITY is. Is there a difference? Ask our current council!
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I completely agree with the comments immediately above. Other than the upkeep of certin principles needed by dfault in a faith school, the Bishops’ views should NOT be weighted against local representation and parents in all aspects of school governance Being a bishop does not guarantee a sound knwloedge of what’s needed education.
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
As an insider of the schools. I have a few points to make on all your comments. KJ, religion might be something you do, but this is distinguished from faith. Christ the King never claims to be a religious school but a faith based school. I would claim to be a Christian of an evagelical lilt, but not a religious person. I don’t follow ritual but listen to the bible being preached etc and openly share my faith with others. I say this because Kj, FAITH IS NOT SOMETHING JUST FOR SUNDAY’S. As a Christian, your belief should impact on every area of your life, how you behave, act and believe. Every sunday I go to a church to hear the bible being taught about, I don’t bow to an antiquated bit of wood or act in a quiet manner upon entering the building. With that said, the school timetable is almost exactly the same as any other school, the differences are that at Christ The King, the children can talk about and share their beliefs with others without fear of persecution from others at such a young age. Any pupils who do persecute are in the minority. Pupils can share in daily acts of worship, giving thanks to God etc. Those pupils who attend the school and aren’t Chrsitian, attend the school in the full knowledge they are to be present at and respect these worships - if you don’t like it, don’t come! Furthermore, a majority of our Non-Christian/pretend christian pupils come from much less well cared for backgrounds, rather than the better off as is suggested. So please, don’t assume, hypothesise yes, but many of the views of a Chrsitian school stated are very far from the mark.
However, that said, Catholicism and lower church Cof E are not good bed fellows. High church (anglo/catholic) churches are nearly the same. But the Cof E is a much more wide encompassing church than the Catholic Church, therefore the larger lower churches/evangelical bible centred cof e churches, are very uncomfortable with catholicism as these churches are from a more reformed tradtion.
My fear for the schools is that merging the two tradtions will lead to some washed out christianity that looks good and might be aesthetically pleasing to those who really don’t consider their faith, but to those who don’t follow a ‘religion’ but a belief in christ’s salvation, the merger will kill off true believers from attending the school, particularly those from the more active/charismatic/evangelical tradition.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am
“true believers”
There’s a pernicious phrase! As opposed to what, pray?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I’d suggest that anon is defining true believers as opposed to people who attend church twice in order to get their kids into a ‘good school’. It’s like joining the conservative club because the beer is cheap but not really being a tory…or like joining the BNP…oh, no, better not go there.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I’m just relieved that Lennon has been forgiven. :p
November 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
steve s, you still haven’t explained what you meant about ‘caps’ in your last post on the BNP Mashup map article. Nor have you apologised for your bigoted and offensive remarks.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
FoP … understand that you’re frustrated, but please don’t cross post ie BNP comments on this article.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Simon, see steve s at 48. Why don’t you remonstrate with him given that he deliberately posted a provocative comment? I am beginning to think that you are not as unbiased as you should be and that is a shame as I think you do a tremendous job with Ventnor Blog.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
There’s no bias here. The point Steve s made in 48 is related to the subject (even if it does, in passing, mention the BNP).
November 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
OK Simon so, if it’s alright for steve s to do it, then it’s alright for me too. I think that ‘active christians’ who gratuitously and without basis, malign more open-minded people on a blog, therefore causing distress and offense and who then decline (by the absence of) to apologise are hypocritical bigots.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“Lennon has been forgiven”
As with Galileo, I suspect that’s largely because he was right!
Rather like getting a Royal Pardon when you’ve been freed from jail, one can’t help wondering why you have to be forgiven if you’re innocent…
November 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“like joining the conservative club because the beer is cheap”
There are other reasons..?!
November 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Like going to church because you think it makes you look good?!
November 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
[comment moved by moderator toBNP Mashup posting]