Why don’t politicians challenge admission to state schools based on religious attendance?

[SouthLondonDaddy]

It is common knowledge that most, if not all, religious state-funded schools discriminate (or is the technical word ‘prioritise’?) their admissions based on religious attendance. It is also common knowledge that many people baptise their children or become new-found Christians only because of schools.
I personally believe that discriminating admission to state-funded schools on the basis of religion is a disgrace, but what I don’t understand is why, AFAIK, no politician has ever tried to challenge this system. The UK is, except for Northern Ireland, a rather secular country, yet allows this blatant discrimination which would cause uproar in more religious countries (e.g. Spain or Italy).
Politics is always more about self-interest than abstract fairness, so I don’t expect many politicians to act driven by a generic sense of fairness, but I would have thought there was enough “political demand” for them to act on this point. In other words, AFAIK the number of families negatively affected by this policy should be so much greater than those who welcome it, that there should be a strong incentive for politicians to act on it. Yet AFAIK this topic has never really been on the political agenda. Why? Is the UK so full of church-going families? Are Church lobbies so powerful? Or what?

Let’s talk some numbers.
I remember reading somewhere that about a third of state-funded schools are religious in one way or another.
In the 2011 census, about 25% reported their religion as “Christian” and about 25% as none. AFAIK the census didn’t ask about attendance to weekly mass, and I am not aware of other surveys that were as far reaching as the national census, but the surveys I have seen talk about figures of between 3% and 10% of the population, which sounds realistic, at least for London (Northern Ireland may well be different).
So, 33% of state-funded schools require some kind of regular attendance to mass, which is something only between 3% and 10% of the population do regularly! Quite a disconnect!

The Lib Dems challenged it (at least for newly established schools) when they were in the coalition, but the major reform that they made during their brief brush with power is probably about to be reversed. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_50%25_Rule

But the Lib Dems have never been particularly relevant nationwide, other than during the coalition government. What amazes me is that, AFAIK, no mainstream Tory nor Labour politician has tried to challenge it; it amazes me because I would have expected lots of support, regardless of political views.

The problem is a) lots of people like the status quo, b) our religious institutions have lots of political clout and most significantly c) the CE and Catholic church own many of the buildings and historically used them to provide free education to the poor long before the government did.

The Catholic church in particular strongly resists any change (as you can see from the link in my earlier post).

There are individual MPs who have relatively liberal views on the matter - that article refers to Michael Gove for one. (Though it didn't stop him taking advantage of the faith selection process for his own child).

Church schools which are VA often own their own land and are responsible for 10% (I think) of capital costs in a way that other schools are not

That's right. But it used to be much more than 10%. It's reduced over time, and when those Voluntary Aided schools convert to academy status (as many of them are now doing) it becomes 0%. They are then funded just like other academies. But the church usually still owns the land so that is the main issue.

The Catholic church refuses to contemplate open admissions, so while their schools are popular and successful things are unlikely to change.

If you read the commons debate referenced from that Wikipedia article you'll see several (Catholic) MPs think only people in south London have a problem with it.

Of course Justine Greening may just save the day. She has publicly advocated evidence over doctrine, so let's see if she manages to stand up to Theresa May. If she saves the 50% rule, there may be some hope.

Unfortunately, it doesn't need a change in the law, so there won't be a Commons vote. The power struggle, if there is one, is happening behind closed doors. Meanwhile, the Catholic Education Service is lobbying hard.

Because VA schools are not owned by the state.

They are church schools which work in close co-operation with the state system.

Even when the country thought it was rich, it didn't attempt to buy out ownership of these schools. Indeed New Labour went further and permitted new faith schools. So I suppose those could have their status changed, as the property ownership issues do not apply. (Does Labour have anything to say about intentions on this?)

I really don't think anything more can be afforded right now.

For this to happen the government would have to take over all of the funding of the schools and in many cases buy out the buildings.

As an example the school near me is 80% dioceses funded and has just rebuilt the entire school.

The front line on this is the 50% rule. If that stays, the door is left open for it to be extended to other faith academies in the future. That is why the CES are trying to slam it firmly shut. Their carrot is the promise that they will set up dozens of new free schools (which the gvt needs) if the rule is lifted. It is a bribe.

If you swap the word religious with the word male, it shows how wrong it is and how trivial the reasons for it are:

• Schools were set up when men owned a lot of the land schools are built on.

• Men still contribute a large percentage to the education bill, so of course schools should be allowed to select boys in preference to girls.

• Lots of girls are still admitted to these schools and it is only in a minority of cases where a boy is chosen in preference to a girl, purely on the grounds of his gender.

• Sexism is the status quo, so we should let it continue.

We now think sexism is wrong, why do we still think religionism is OK?

They've got musk amicable Ray guns

Justrichmal it's not a good metaphor because schools can select by gender, and faith schools are just as popular as gender-segregated schools, if not more so. While they are popular, politicians are not going to get rid of VA schools. Gradual reform using financial carrots and sticks is the way it has been going. Unfortunately the CES has its own carrots and sticks and Theresa May is easily led.

False comparison, unless you can show any state school that is owned by men. They're owned either by religious bodies, trusts or the state. It's not the historic ownership of founding that matters - it's the current ownership.

It is legal to practice relligion in UK, and it is legal for religious bodies to use premises they own to run schools they control in close co-operation with the date.

Also unlike all boys schools, which also exist in the state system, religious schools must take pupils of other or no faith is they have vacancies, single sex schools do not have to spare offer places to those of the other sex.

Just that analogy doesn't really work. The point is that the church owns the land and the government would have to buy it all back, which would cost a fortune.

There are many church schools that don't have faith criteria for entry.

Yes, a better analogy than sexism would have been racism.

In the 2011 census, about 25% reported their religion as “Christian” and about 25% as none.

This statement is incorrect - 59.3% identified themselves as 'Christian' and 25% as having no religion.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/religioninenglandandwales2011/2012-12-11

The Labour Party relies on the Catholic (and Muslim) vote. Prominent MPs (all parties) and Prime Ministers have sent their own dc to faith schools. The average age of an MP is 51 so more likely to have a faith? Many faith schools are extremely successful.

Teresa May and many of the Conservative party are Christians (hard to believe sometimes) and so are their supporters.

Tories don't challenge because it would end middle class parents taking advantage of religious selection and general class segregation in schools. Labour doesn't challenge because they still believe in multiculturalism (besides, if the 'darkies' were allowed a decent education they would loose votes).

The census is notorious for under-reporting the non-religious population because of the way the question is designed. The Social Attitudes survey is considered more accurate and consistently puts the non-religious population at over 50% and rising: www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/half-uk-population-has-no-religion-british-social-attitudes-survey

In this day and age, education (and government) should be completely secular imo.

There should be NO state funding of religious affiliated schools in the UK. None at all.

Where schools/land actually belong to religious institution(s), we (or our representatives) should be working towards either buying those schools or, if the religious institution won't sell, replacing them with new, secular schools and defunding the religious school.

I speak as someone raised in the west of Scotland who experienced first hand the appalling effect of religious segregation in schools (and believe me, sectarian divisions run deep there still). The religious schools didn't create those divisions, but they absolutely were/are instrumental in perpetuating them).

lettucewrap plenty of people may agree with you but that is not going to happen. It's too radical. Gradual change is much more practical.

And when people can see no way forward other than an impatient, aggressive approach to reform, it makes it easy for the state and church to resist any change.

Indeed, Angel, you are right, but that's why I said "work towards"... one policy and one school at a time...
I think there could be a frame work set out, with the expectation that, over time the religious schools will have all state funding removed and new schools build to replace them if necessary.

So let's say the Catholic school decided to end the educational relationship with the state.
They decided to sell off most of their school buildings and land.

They then decided to use the money to set up small private catholic schools and/or support catholic home Educators.

What do you suggest we do about educating all the other children who had been in those schools?