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!

one policy and one school at a time

That is exactly what lobby groups, particularly the Accord Coalition have been doing, and making progress. Go follow them and donate to their work.

Worth bearing in mind that although the churches own most of their school buildings they can't afford to maintain them (they are funded 90% by the state for va schools and 100% for vc schools and academies), so walking away from state education would never be a serious option for them. It is all a delicate game of brinkmanship.

let's say the Catholic school decided to end the educational relationship with the state.

That is the threat but it is brinkmanship as I said.

The more immediate question is whether the gvt can afford to resist the Catholic Education Service lobbying over the 50% rule. See the Wikipedia link from my earlier post for that.

Thanks angel, I'm going to go and have a wee look at them.

Maintenance of beautiful old buildings (as schools) is a huge issue for councils... one of our local schools was rebuilt on a new edge of town site a few years ago - just not possible to expand/upgrade the old (listed building), easier and cheaper to start again. The other local secondary school is also being re-built (soon we hope!) on an edge of town site for the same reasons... I can't imagine religious institutions enjoy sinking large amounts of money into schools against a "diminishing return" (i.e. Even those attending them are less religious than in the past, or shock horror, might be the wrong religion!).

@clavinova, on the 2011 census: yes, I made a mistake, I remember reading 59ish % Christians and 25% no religion, but wrongly copied 25% for both categories. Apologies.

Of course I understand why the Christian lobbies vehemently oppose any change, but I don’t understand if/how/why a majority of people don’t. Although there are no reliable statistics on church attendance, it’s fair to say that only a small portion of the 59% who declared themselves Christian in the 2011 census attend church regularly – which is one of the main criteria in most, if not all, schools.
@thethoughtfox , while a majority of people may declare themselves Christian, it is only a minority that meet the very strict and common criterion of regular church attendance. Are people OK with it because they feel that by cheating (finding religion again, going to church only just before admission time, donating to the church, etc) they at least have a better chance of getting their children into a good school than if that school didn’t discriminate by religion? Or do people simply see this as something that always has, always will, and will never change? This is what I don’t get. All of this without considering that cheating in this way is, AFAIK, a serious form of blasphemy. If I were religious my blood would boil over it.

@TrojanWhore, I find your comments extremely misleading.
Of course it’s legal to practice religion. How does the State funding religious schools have anything to do with the freedom to practice religion? Requiring that state-funded schools don’t discriminate based on religion would not impact religious freedoms one bit, because everyone would still be free and welcome to worship whatever divinity they like.
Also, your comments that faith schools must take non-religious children if they have vacancies is technically true but practically false most of the times, because there are so many parts of the country where schools are so oversubscribed that faith schools never have vacancies to allocate based on non-religious criteria. Surely you know this?

@PebblesFlintstone, may I ask which faith schools have non-religious criteria for entry? I have never come across one in the many areas of London I have considered moving to. And all of this is without any consideration as to whether it is appropriate to use taxpayers’ money to fund religious schools, even if open to non-religious families…

But if the catholics sell off the schools, (and drop out of state education), they won't have to maintain the buildings will they?
They will either be taken in by the state education system, or the land sold off for housing.

Yes, catholics are going to fight against the 50% rule, and will not build new schools under it. This is not a bribe, it's a statement of position, a line drawn in the sand. If the government/secularists need new schools, they need to build them.

Equally, the Catholic church has dropped out of schools where the number of Catholics have dropped so low that it was ridiculous for them to be called catholic schools. (I can think of one in Preston and one in Grimsby off the top of my head.)

I know there is a shortage of school places in London and the South East, but it's a different story in the rest of the country.

Are there any schools in Britain which take children from non religious families in preference to those from religious families?

Presumably, secularists could set up and partially fund schools where families of no faith get priority?

One of the reasons MPs don't challenge it would be the anger of all the parents actively trying to get their children into the schools. Shut them, and more families would be angry than pleased.

Historically, the church cared about educating the poor before the government did.

@vanitrina, the notion that VA schools are not owned by the state is misleading because it’s far from the whole story. Do you mean the land? The buildings? Certainly the State pays for the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the salaries, doesn’t it?

@angelofthewotsit, let’s hope the 50% rule is the beginning of some change! Also, I agree that the lack of religious affiliation tends to be underreported, but my point was not debating whether non-religious Britons are 20 30 or 50% of the population, but the fact that only a small minority of the population meet the regular church attendance criterion of most, if not all, state-funded faith schools. This is why I thought there would have been a large amount of political support to end the current practice.
I wasn’t familiar with the Accord Coalition, so thank you for mentioning them; I had heard of the Humanists’ work on the issue: humanism.org.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/

@isittheholidaysyet, that’s a threat, but it sounds like a rather empty one to me. The churches would need to be very careful in assessing the demand for new fee-paying religious schools. Probably only a small minority of families currently sending their children to state-funded faith schools would be able to afford, or willing to pay, private tuition fees.
Sure, as you say, the churches might potentially sell off some of the school buildings. But it’s not as easy. First of all I have no idea about the legal arrangements between state and churches. But, even if the churches could, imagine the backlash. Imagine the tabloid titles: “millions of school places cut because greedy churches sell to dodgy developers”. And the State could retaliate in a number of ways, from limiting the planning permissions on these sites (and therefore their value), to cutting funding of other church activities, etc.
Also, it’s not only about churches owning the current sites. There was a case in Richmond (SW London) where the council bought the land for a new Catholic school and gave it to the church. The Humanist Association fought it all the way to the High Court, but unfortunately lost. Look it up. Could someone please elaborate the rationale for taxpayers’ money being used to give a new school to a church? So, @isittheholidaysyet, when you say churches are not going to build new free schools under the 50% rule, please do keep this case in mind!

@picklemepopcorn , historical considerations on whether or how much the churches cared for educating the poor in the past are totally and utterly irrelevant to the situation now, today!

Finally, the notion that a child can be Catholic Anglican Muslim or whatever is, frankly, utterly ridiculous. Religion is, like politics, something children have no maturity whatsoever to comprehend, and something they should decide on by themselves when they are mature enough to do so. Would you ever talk about a left-wing 7-year old or a conservative 8-year old??

But if the catholics sell off the schools, (and drop out of state education), they won't have to maintain the buildings will they?

No, but then they also won't be able to use them for evangelism will they? They don't run them for pure charity. They are a key vehicle for advancing their religion, and the admissions rules are part of that process.

Also, isn’t history odd…

The situation in two more religious countries like Spain and Italy is vastly different. Most, if not all, their private fee-paying schools are Catholic, yet are way cheaper (even adjusting for salary and cost of living) than in the UK. The Catholic lobbies are constantly trying to get the state to fund them in some way or another, but AFAIK the situation is not even remotely comparable to the British one, where the state pays for most, if not all, of the cost of state faith schools. And going to the “right school” is not as important there – I am not aware of anything even remotely comparable to Eton Winchester etc.

What is very odd is that the Catholic lobbies in Spain and Italy have historically been way more powerful at blocking and hindering social freedoms (think of divorce, access to abortion, same-sex marriage, the rights of unmarried couples, etc.) than in Britain

Presumably, secularists could set up and partially fund schools where families of no faith get priority?

No that is not allowed. You can prioritise "without reference to faith" but not for "no faith".

Besides, most people who feel strongly about this do so because they think people of all faiths and none should go to school together.

SouthLondonDaddy getting back to your original question about MPs if you look at the list of supporters on the Accord Coalition website there are several MPs and peers listed.

As with the EU, the issue of Faith schools has the potential to tear each political party in two. Simply because there'll be similar numbers of Tories who are against, as are in favour, likewise Labour and libdem etc. We've seen how damaging the EU has been to the major parties for the last 30+ years with the in-fighting etc. Same as with grammar schools, where you have MPs in each party for and against. It's why there are never any really fundamental changes with either faith nor grammar schools - it's a political hot potato, so the status quo prevails with the occasional minor change.

By rights, faith schools should have been scrapped at the same time the grammars were in the 70's - that would have made "comps" truly comprehensive as there'd be no selection at all. Personally, I think the faith schools have done more harm to the "comp" system than grammars do.

the notion that VA schools are not owned by the state is misleading because it’s far from the whole story. Do you mean the land? The buildings? Certainly the State pays for the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the salaries, doesn’t it?

Yes, running costs are 100% state funded. Capital maintenance costs are 90% state funded. The other 10% is funded by "voluntary" donations, mostly from parents (including any non-faith parents at the schools). It's a small amount of money, but symbolically significant to the admissions debate.

See the Wikipedia page on Voluntary Aided schools for more details of their history and funding.

Southlondondaddy I would like to see more in the media about this, not just from MPs. There is too much scoffing of the "on your knees to avoid the fees" variety and not enough recognition that people are responding to a real lack of community places in some areas.

"On your knees to avoid a 2 mile bus journey to the only school in the area that has places, and only because it's Ofsted Inadequate, passing several faith schools on the way" may not rhyme, but it's the reality for many in London.

I don't quite understand the problem with church schools, despite people trying to explain it to me. I'd get it if you had to send your dc to a faith school but didn't want to- I'd campaign with you. Why can't i send my child to one? If the problem is because the standard there is better than the non church school, shouldn't we be focussing on improving the non church school?

The problem is, they are segregating children according to the particular religious beliefs of either the parents or the religious institution that originally founded the school.

They cause, or maintain, divisions in our society by othering children of different religious backgrounds- and they are being funded BY ALL TAXPAYERS, most of whom have no (meaningful) religious beliefs.

Religion should have no place in state funded education (other than as a topic of academic study). People are free to give their children religious instruction outside of school time, of course.

@picklemepopcorn , are you kidding or are you serious?
The issue is that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund faith schools which discriminate based on religion.

How would you feel if hospital waiting lists, in hospitals funded by the taxpayers, were prioritised by religion, because the hospital site belongs to a given church? And if people started to fake their religious affiliation, or making donations to the church, to skip the queue?

And this is without even getting into the argument of whether it is sensible to send children to a religious schools in the first place – I don’t , I think it’s more beneficial to expose them to a diverse environment.

The problem is that some people believe that you can teach children in a value free way, which enables them to, as a teenager, or at some other point in their lives, to make a completely free decision as to what worldview, religion or philosophy they want to hold.

Other people think that everything people do or say, either to, or in the presence of a child influences their thinking, cutting down some options, making other options more likely. This also includes all experiences a child has.

These two (and there are probably other) ways of thinking affect how people think the country should educate/allow parents to educate/not educate the children of this country.

Two perfectly good hospitals, side by side, one prioritising religious people, one not? As long as non religious people have perfectly good care in the hospital next door, I don't see the issue. If I want to be cared for by a nurse who can pray with me if I ask her to, why would you care?

Segregation is an issue when it is enforced.

Children who have particular need to be in a particular school are prioritised anyway- adopted, looked after etc.

Going out for the afternoon, not throwing stones and running away!

No, segregation is a problem when it exists.

Segregation is an issue when it is enforced

There is no other type. If you "choose" to be segregated from me then I am "forced" to be segregated from you. Your choice has a negative effect on me (and you, whether you know it or not).

I'd get it if you had to send your dc to a faith school but didn't want to- I'd campaign with you

What if you want to send your child to a faith school but can't because you only go to church 3 times a month rather than 4, go to church A rather than church B, or (worst) didn't baptize your child before the age of 6 months.

I don't have a problem with church schools existing, but I do have a problem with many of their admissions criteria and think they would be better if they were relaxed.