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!

As long as non religious people have perfectly good care in the hospital next door, I don't see the issue.

But that’s not what happens with schools! If most schools were excellent and not oversubscribed I would have less of a problem with it (I’d still oppose the concept, though). However, especially in certain parts of the country, most schools are oversubscribed, and quite a few children are sent to schools which are far far away and/or very poor because their families don’t meet the religious criteria of the local, state-funded faith schools.

On a separate note: why are so many priests happy to be blatantly lied to by families that start showing up only to secure a place? Is such behaviour really so hard to detect? Do they not care because otherwise their churches would be emptier and benefit from less money donated?

Lying on the school application can cause a child’s place to be rescinded. There have been cases of places rescinded because it was found that parents had lied about the true address, for example. Why not enforce such checks on religious criteria, for example? It doesn’t take the MI5 to find which families started going to church just to get their child a place, and stopped going after admission. How is this different from lying about your address? Why should these people not have their places rescinded, too? Maybe starting to enforce this draconianly would finally open people’s eyes to how absurd and unfair the current system is.

and they are being funded BY ALL TAXPAYERS,

As far as I know, "the state" pays the same per pupil whether it's a state or faith school, so the taxpayer pays no more, no less, if little Johnny goes to Catholic High. If Catholic High didn't exist, the state would have to pay the same to Non-Faith-High to educate little Johnny. I really don't see a problem as far as funding goes.

In fact, the mere fact that faith schools are to some extent, however small, financed by the church itself means that the taxpayer saves money.

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.

As a teacher there are a number of schools where I may be able to work but where I will, quite legally, be discriminated against for promotion. As a tax payer I have to fund that discrimination.

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.

Aren't we back to the same argument re grammars, which centres around different criteria for different schools? I.e. lack of consistency? Around here, you can gain admission to a faith school with pretty minimal church attendance, in fact, some years it's been as little as a single point, which you could get by merely attending a church primary school, or if not, by attending church as little as once every month or two (as per their entry form!). Not to mention priority given to those living in it's immediate area with no points at all! It all comes down to supply and demand. If there are 1000 applicants for 100 places, then, yes, you're going to need a lot of points and will probably have to shine the priest's shoes to get full points. If there are 200 applicants for 100 places, then you've a fair chance of getting a place with minimal, if any, points.

What isn't helpful in the faith nor grammar debate, is concentrating on the extreme cases where you have to jump through all manner of hoops to secure a place, when there are probably the majority of schools, especially in the regions, where the admission criteria isn't anywhere near so extreme.

On a separate note: why are so many priests happy to be blatantly lied to by families that start showing up only to secure a place?

Because some priests do not agree with the rules they are supposed to be implementing, and think that all children who want to attend that school should be allowed.

why are so many priests happy to be blatantly lied to by families that start showing up only to secure a place

They're not being lied to. Admissions criteria have to be clear and measurable, so they are based on things like church attendance not faith. You can easily fulfill the attendance requirements without lying. Baptism requirements are more difficult because they involve a pledge of faith (though interestingly it seems to be more culturally acceptable for people who don't normally attend church to have their child baptised than it does for them to start attending church regularly).

The problem is, if I can word it a slightly different way, not that it is costing more(or less) to educate a child at a faith school, but that all taxpayers are funding the segregation of children along religious lines (and sometimes also ethnic lines too).
Segregation is a problem for all of us, it is damaging and divisive to society.

Because some priests do not agree with the rules they are supposed to be implementing, and think that all children who want to attend that school should be allowed

The ones that think that in the Church of England can (and in some cases do) do something about it, like this vicar in Kingston did: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11564793/Church-of-England-school-expels-prayers-for-places.html

In the Catholic Church they're not allowed to do that. The Catholic Education Service makes 100% faith oversubscription criteria mandatory (except at sixth form - they can prioritise academic selection over faith affiliation).

Ironically many private Catholic schools have open admissions. They wouldn't be financially viable if they didn't.

why are so many priests happy to be blatantly lied to by families that start showing up only to secure a place

It is my opinion that Priests are happy for this to happen because it gives them power over the wider community. It gives them the ability to proselytize to the heathens children. And crucially it gives them power to 'select' well behaved higher achieving children which them enable the church to say their religion provides a better education than other religions.

I am sure the government could axe the selection by rule criteria and safeguard the schools by stopping any of them being sold off to developers. It seems very discriminatory to allow discrimination against atheists but not theists.

@sashh, well said about discrimination in the workplace – funded by us taxpayers, hurrah!

@kazzyhoward , faith schools are not comparable to grammar schools. The latter discriminate by (an assessment of perceived) merit, because the rationale is that this criterion is conducive to a better teaching environment, better education for those more academically able, etc. You may agree or disagree with it (this thread is not the place to debate it) but at least there is a logic behind it. No comparable logic exists for discriminating based on faith!
Also, may I ask why you say these are extreme cases? I have looked into many schools in many areas of London over many years, and I cannot remember a single case of a state-funded faith school which doesn’t prioritise all its places by faith, or which is both good and constantly undersubscribed enough to allow enough children on non-religious grounds. Maybe there are parts of the country where it’s different, I don’t know, but the population of London makes these not exactly isolated and irrelevant exceptions. Oh, and there are also parts of the country where it’s worse, because the only non-faith school may be many many miles away!

@angelofthewotsit , I am not sure the attendance criterion can easily be met without lying! If I showed up wearing a tshirt with the text “I am an atheist but am only here to get my child a school place” , I somehow doubt the priest would be fine with it! :) More seriously, even if parents never sing along or repeat the sentences about believing in god, never (for Catholic services) go to confession and take the communion, etc., wouldn’t their mere attendance imply that, well, they are believers? Is showing up without really believing not a lie? Is it not blasphemy, which should be kind of a biggie in pretty much all religions? Also, if admission criteria were clear and measureable, parents wouldn’t start contributing and donating money to the church just to get their children in (I know of many such cases in London). The truth is, most schools require a letter from the priest; there is no scientifically measureable criterion the priest has to base his decision (of writing the letter or not) on, nor would you have much of a recourse against a priest not writing it, so, like Tesco says, every little helps.

Also, the Catholic Education Service states that www.catholiceducation.org.uk/about-us/faqs
“36% of pupils at Catholic schools are of other faiths or none.”
However, this single statistics is, by itself, utterly meaningless.

First of all, there is no distinction whatsoever between Christian and other religions / none. Many Catholic schools give priority to non-Catholic but Christian families over non-religious and non-Christian ones.

Secondly, there is no indication whatsoever of how representative that is. I strongly suspect that the % of non-Christian children admitted in the London area is probably closer to zero. I may be wrong, of course; but, if I am and this metric is really representative, then the CES shouldn’t object to reserving a minimum of, say, 30 to 40% of places based on non-religious criteria. Yet my gut tells me they’d fight it tooth and nail!

I can't speak about other areas. In mine, the form simply asks for a vicar to certify that you are a practising member of the congregation/attend church or similar. I'm a lay reader, lead services, part of my church's leadership team. My form said exactly the same as that of any other person applying. No extra points, no difference.

My concern is that there are not enough adequate schools, not that there are religious schools. I'm also not aware of staff being promoted for their faith, rather than their performance.

Although you will find christians better represented in certain jobs than others (teaching, fostering), there certainly aren't enough of us to dominate the job market.

Is this just secondary? My dd primary is faith - Coe and noticeably so (vicar governor, church regular part of school assemblies etc) but the entrance criteria are looked after, siblings, distance. There is no faith admission criteria - distance wins. Sibling is more of an issue as many move pretty much once the first are in making after school clubs a non event due to them doing activities locally (football, gym etc) rather than at school.

I'd argue distance should be got rid off in favour of a lottery over a defined radius. Where we are n London/essex selection by house price is more of an issue.

@Quokka12, yes, I wonder about admission by lottery. Brighton has been trying it for a few years, for its secondaries.
The problem with lotteries on primary schools is that even more children may be sent to a school that’s far away, making the commute of working parents a nightmare (less of an issue with secondaries). Also, you may be sent to a school that’s close to X, and X may be sent to a school that’s close to you.
However, I agree that limiting selection by income (ie by the ability to afford a house close enough) would be very welcome. Maybe if the lotteries are designed based on geographical areas which are not too wide? Or maybe if there is some kind of clearing system whereby you and X can swap places? Not sure – I really don’t have an answer.

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

All state schools in England are nominally Christian, whether they are officially faith schools or not. Unless they have a determination, all schools are supposed to hold a daily act of collective worship of a broadly Christian nature, for example.

This is more scandalous to me than faith-based admissions schemes

Agree re lotteries but if you are London/ borders the limit could be a mile or less ours or under that

I have looked into many schools in many areas of London over many years, and I cannot remember a single case of a state-funded faith school which doesn’t prioritise all its places by faith

You can't have looked at any Free Schools. They are all subject to the 50% Rule. Though perhaps not for much longer.

even if parents never sing along or repeat the sentences about believing in god, never (for Catholic services) go to confession and take the communion, etc., wouldn’t their mere attendance imply that, well, they are believers? Is showing up without really believing not a lie? Is it not blasphemy, which should be kind of a biggie in pretty much all religions?

You forget that many people in this country have been conditioned from a young age to "never sing along or repeat the sentences about believing in god". Isn't that exactly how many teenagers cope with school assemblies?

If churches had a sign on the door saying "anyone who does not have absolute faith in God must not pass" then they would be a lot more empty than they already are.

In any case, most people do not fall into the black and white categories of theist/atheist - there's a huge spectrum of agnosticism in-between.

Even complete atheists can find comfort in going to church, or else just go because they enjoy the music, or else go along to friends' weddings and funerals. Most priests will welcome them through the door. If they aren't committing "blasphemy" by going to a wedding, why are they doing so when going to a Sunday service? Nobody is going to slap them across the head if they don't move their lips during the Creed or hymns. I've seen plenty of admissions rules that require church attendance, but none that require people to take communion when they're there.

@OlennasWimple , I beg to differ.

I don't like the concept, but its practical implications are mostly harmless, unlike the practical implications of state-funded schools discriminating by faith. As long as there isn't heavy indoctrination (repent! You'll go to hell! Especially you with two mummies!) I don't see it's a huge deal.

SouthLondonDaddy what I'm getting at is that you're wasting energy in trying to shame people over making a mockery of what is a stupid admissions system. In my opinion, the more people who make a mockery of it the better, so long as they are open and honest about what they are doing and why they are doing it, and don't have to lie along the way.

I certainly know people who ticked the box for a "church attendance" place on their admissions form, because they legitimately attended church, and yet when they got their place at the school and filled in their child's registration details they wrote "no religion". They didn't lie - they played the system, and have no shame in doing that because it's a stupid system. They were just trying to get a place at their nearest local primary school, without being leapfrogged by people from further away who, in their view, had no more right to those places than they did.

@picklemepopcorn

You asked why someone might have a problem with church schools. The practical issue is the way it interacts with the other criteria ie distance. So my nearest school is Catholic, which means I can't apply with any realistic hope of a place. The next nearest is CofE, and since I don't meet the religious criteria (50% of places) and am not living practically in the playground (other 50% of places, but includes siblings so in practice very few), I won't get a place. The third closest is a community primary school, but I'm not close enough to that one to get a place. I end up with a school place one hour / two buses away, in a poorly rated school, which is my 15th 'nearest'.

What I actually want is a community school near my house. I don't want a religious school, but I'd rather have that than a failing school a long way away.

Does that make it clearer?

Diversion, what you quite rightly have a problem with there is the insufficiency of school places in your area. It's clearly not good enough. Have they expanded church schools instead of other schools?

In my area, you have to go out of your way to get to faith schools. The majority are not faith schools. The faith schools are oversubscribed, though.

It's clearly not good enough. Have they expanded church schools instead of other schools?

The picture RidiculousDiversion presented is very common in London. Because the faith schools are "popular" they are encouraged to expand and proliferate. Provided the Local Authority can offer everyone a place somewhere, they have officially ticked the box for sufficiency of places. There are no targets for ensuring everyone gets a place that is acceptable to them. Many people find it necessary to move house, join the faith-school bandwagon, or go private as a result.

But the problems aren't limited to London. I've certainly seen threads here on Mumsnet started by people in small villages, where the only local school is a CE primary. They can't get in to their local school because it is filled with churchgoing families commuting from the nearest large town. So they have to commute in the opposite direction to the town for a community place.

Why not enforce such checks on religious criteria, for example?

What the vicar shouldn't do (which I think you may be suggesting) is say to Fred Smith in the back row "You're just here for a school place. I'm not going to sign your form because you're not sincere". Vicars who have done that have been threatened with court action in the past, and quite rightly so.