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!

Very few people campaign on this issue for a number of reasons

Another one is that it takes a lot of effort to distance the debate from the louder, more aggressive, less tolerant "all church schools should be abolished because they're full of prosletysing child abusers" brigade. Those voices often pile in to debates like a mob and quickly de-rail sensible arguments for reform. Politicians don't want to be associated with that.

However, the Accord Coalition has done a fantastic job of uniting religious and secular voices on the issue, and have the ear of government. They are well worth supporting.

In my area there was a big campaign against the admissions implications of a new faith school that was supported by a whole cross section of the community, including religious people. However the school stakeholders, including priests at the pulpit, persistently labelled it as a vicious, illiberal, anti-faith campaign. They knew it wasn't true, but it helped to weaken the campaign against them because some people were wary of getting involved, not knowing who to believe.

Personally I do not think that in today's world, there is space for segregation of any kind, be it on religious, racial or financial grounds. I am wholly opposed for many reasons.

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?

Sounds like apartheid or the racial segregation of the South in the US. I can't believe you are actually suggesting this as a civilized solution.

I don't believe there's a problem with segregation - well bit in the catholic and CofE schools.

I also think the comparisons earlier in the thread to France are not that helpful. France is a fiercely secular state with firm separation between church and state, whereas we are quite different (e.g. the 16 bishops in the House of Lords).

DS went to a catholic primary but has chosen a secular secondary school- totally his choice. I'm not sure that non Catholics would want the catholic school places though - DSs school was lovely but very big in the praying and mass attendance which non Catholics are unlikely to be happy with.

Sorry - not in the catholic or CofE schools

I returned to the USA with my dc's when they were school age for exactly this reason. I am an atheist and think it's unethical (and not a society I want to be an active part of) to be required to pretend that I am religious in order to get my children educated.

And just to add a dimension to the discussion. What to do with my dd who is religious and "found god" when she was 4? She is a "practicing" Jew. In the English system, she would still not have access to a good Jewish school because I am not religious. Is that really the message that a modern society wants to give to its future generations....you are only entitled to a proper education/chance in life if your parents pretend to believe in god.

I don't believe there's a problem with segregation - not in the catholic or CofE schools

Whether or not you think there's a problem (at least in your area), there is strong evidence to show that more balanced intakes are beneficial to social cohesion: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/634118/Diversity_and_Social_Cohesion_in_Oldham_schools.pdf

Fingers crossed this will be the straw which breaks the camel's back -
the key piece of evidence Justine Greening needs to fend off Theresa May over the 50% Rule.

I have in the past been in favor of academic selection. But the problem of religious selection has changed my mind and I want ALL selection done away with.

tiggy and angel - thank you! I am so glad that "admission by flower-arranging" is now a thing of the past (even though it sounds delightfully English!)