LETTERS


Admissions to the Vaughan As the retired head of a Catholic comprehensive school in Westminster, I have followed the often intemperate debate over the admissions code as applied at Cardinal Vaughan School (“Battle for the Vaughan”, 12 February) with a mount- ing sense of déjà vu and a deepening concern at the scandal given. Cardinal Vaughan was, I felt, a very good school indeed academically and a thoroughly Catholic environment for the students and staff. I took many examples of good practice from it. However, it was not “genuinely comprehensive” in any sense I could recognise and there were principled misgiv- ings within Catholic education as to how this might have arisen.


Some highly intemperate use of language has been directed at Paul Barber, the dioce- san director of education. During my 20 years as a head, I saw Barber come in and do a won- derful job in very trying circumstances. There were occasions where I did not agree with his line of action, but he was always willing to explain it and put it in the context of the good of the whole. I may have still disagreed but I did not dispute his right to take decisions. Catholic education in London needs excel- lent schools such as Cardinal Vaughan, but it also needs a locus for an authoritative and systematic overview. Surely this can only rest with the bishop? Martin Earley Upminster, Essex


I understand the concern among many par- ents that some “play the system” by observing minimum religious observance to secure a good education for their children at the Vaughan. The Vaughan governors have given a lot of con- sideration to this and other issues around admissions. But the reason why I, as a foun- dation governor, support the current governors’ admissions policy of not reward- ing additional church-related activities with extra points is that, in my view, the old sys- tem was arbitrary and unfair. For example, under the old system, you


secured points for parish involvement but I know from my own experience that sometimes a priest has little interest in lay participation. Why should parents and boys in such a parish be penalised? The previous Vaughan rules awarded a point for service in a Catholic scout troop despite the fact that many parishes across London don’t have them. Why should those boys lose out? It’s unfair because not all parents want to be involved in parish activities. My own mother, who was at times in her life a daily communicant, never volunteered for any church activity. Why should that have pre- vented me from going to a good school? Besides, I am not convinced such a system even works in weeding out the “tactical Catholics”. Any parent determined enough to return to


18 | THE TABLET | 19 February 2011


Mass to secure a good education for their child will be only too willing to do a couple of hours a week of voluntary work for the sake of extra points on the application form. Michael Craven London WC1


Your readers might get a more balanced pic- ture of the problems at the Vaughan if one of your reporters visited some of the Catholic pri- mary schools in, for example, London’s White City area, few of whose pupils over the years have been considered sufficiently “Catholic” to secure a place at the Vaughan. Some of these rejected children live within walking distance of the school. I was struck by the reported sta- tistics on free school meals – the most objective indicator of deprivation. Only 10 per cent of pupils at the Vaughan qualify. In an obituary of Bishop Samuel Ruiz García last week, you quoted him as saying: “The only question we will have to answer at the end of time is how we treated the poor.” Something for the protesters at the Vaughan to reflect on? Margaret Smart Brighton, East Sussex


While I do not want to comment on the thrust of the “Battle for the Vaughan” article because I see my role as chairman of the governors as assisting the acting head teacher in the smooth running of the school, I would seek your indulgence to comment on the phrase “waiting in the wings”. I sincerely hope there is somebody waiting in the wings to be the head teacher of this school. The identification of that person, whether it is a he or a she, remains the sole responsibility of the governing body aided by its professional advisers from the local authority and diocese in accordance with national guidelines laid down by the Department for Education for such a senior appointment as this particular post. People can have an opinion as to the appointment but it has to remain solely that – just an opin-


The Editor of The Tablet 1 King Street Cloisters, Clifton Walk, London W6 0GY


Fax 020 8748 1550 Email thetablet@thetablet.co.uk All correspondence, including email, must give a full postal address and contact telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to shorten letters.


ion. This is because the whole process in terms of whether the successful person is an inter- nal or external candidate must be subject to open competition. We need to ensure there are always people waiting in the wings to lead our Catholic schools and that responsibility rests with gov- erning bodies, head teachers and the dioceses of England and Wales. Catholic schools will not be successful in the future if this does not occur. Talent spotting and encouraging young teachers at an early stage to take on leader- ship roles is of vital importance. It is tomorrow’s leaders as well as today’s leaders who will ensure the continuing success of our Catholic schools. So yes, we do want people “waiting in the wings”. J.M. O’Donnell Chairman of Governors, Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, London W14


Arcic and the place of Mary Sam Adams (News from Britain and Ireland, 12 February) states that a briefing paper pre- pared for the General Synod of the Church of England on the report, “Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ”, set out a series of supposed problems with the Arcic report. As chairman of the Faith and Order Advisory Group, which prepared the briefing paper and an earlier collection of essays on the subject, I con- sider this a somewhat misleading statement. In both the briefing paper and the essays,


the attempt was made to introduce readers to what the group considered the strengths and weaknesses of the report. Arcic had to con- sider the role of the Theotokos not only from the perspective of devotion and (ultimately Christological) doctrine –in both of which areas Anglican piety and faith have allowed a wide measure of difference – but specifically in view of the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas which have been promulgated during the years of the Church’s divisions. Thus the questions of the authority on which binding declarations are made and the obli- gation of all Christians to receive them are pressing issues for all non-Roman Catholic Christians, especially for those who long for the full visible and sacramental unity of the Church, and who see Rome as an essential dimension of this unity. As the briefing paper makes clear, Anglicans should welcome the report and see it as an impetus for further joint study. The General Synod agreed. (The Rt Revd) John Hind Bishop of Chichester


Danger of gut instincts Peter Hennessy’s revelations (“A very British bomb”, 12 February) about the decision- making process relating to British nuclear weapons are very revealing. None of those mak- ing these decisions mention the long-standing legal obligation to begin to negotiate the elim-


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40