Faith schools relieved by entry ruling

A top Jewish school was cleared today of accusations that its entry criteria discriminated racially against an 11-year-old boy.

In a case with important implications for faith schools generally, a judge ruled its entry policy was "entirely legitimate" and there had been no direct, or indirect, unlawful discrimination.

The judge said a decision against the school could have rendered unlawful "the admission arrangements in a very large number of faith schools of many different faiths and denominations".

The boy, identified in court only as "M", applied to attend the well-known JFS - formerly the Jews' Free School - but was declared "not an 'approved' Jew".

His father, who brought today's legal challenge, said he was "appalled" that his son had been declared "not Jewish enough" to attend the north west London school, which gains some of the best academic results in the country.

Jewish status is inherited through the mother. M's mother, an Italian national, had converted from the Catholic faith before his birth in a conversion carried out by a Progressive synagogue.

JFS is an over-subscribed state-maintained school with a culture and ethos based on Orthodox judaism, and its entry criteria gives preference to children whose "Jewish status" is confirmed by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR).

The OCR does not recognise conversions carried out by Progressive synagogues, and therefore did not recognise M as Jewish.

In a case with implications for faith-based schools generally, M's family, supported by two other families, asked Mr Justice Munby to declare there had been unlawful discrimination.

Rejecting the legal challenge, the judge said the kind of admissions policy in question "is not materially different from that which gives preference in admission to a Muslim school to those who were born Muslim, or preference in admission to a Catholic school to those who have been baptised.

"But no one suggests that such policies, whatever their differential impact on different applicants, are other than a proportionate and lawful means of achieving a legitimate end."

The judge said JFS's policy "of giving preference to children who are Jewish, applying Orthodox Jewish principles" was "essential" to its legitimate aim of pursuing its Orthodox ethos.

He added that, if M's father had succeeded in today's application for judicial review, it would probably have rendered unlawful "the admission arrangements in a very large number of faith schools of many different faiths and denominations".

M's parents are now divorced and the boy lives with his father, with whom he is an active member of the local synagogue and of the Masorti, a "progressive traditional" Jewish movement.

Dinah Rose QC, appearing for the family, argued that what had occurred amounted to racial discrimination, as other children were given preference if their mothers were Jewish by birth, even if they were "committed atheists".

Ben Jaffrey, appearing for the United Synagogue, previously said there would be "very serious potential consequences" if M and his father won the case.

He said it would affect not only the JFS but more than 20 other schools and other Jewish organisations providing services in the community.

The British Humanist Association supported M's application for judicial review.

The JFS lost on only one issue before the court.

This related to its race equality policy.

The judge ruled that, "despite the good intentions" embodied in the policy and the work that had gone into it, the school had failed to "comply in full" with section 71 of the 1976 Race Relations Act.

Section 71 required the school to direct its mind both to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations.

The judge said he could not find evidence of the JFS giving consideration to taking "active steps" to come up with specific ways to achieve those goals.

The judge said M's father was entitled to a declaration to that effect, if he wished.

But he added that it was "quite idle to imagine that the fullest and most conscientious compliance with section 71 would have led to any difference" to the outcome in M's case.

Dismissing the case, the judge gave the father until 11 July to apply for permission to appeal against his ruling.