Why are schools allowed to discriminate on religious grounds?

[OrangeApples]

I understand this could be very contraversial topic, and I will say in advance I do not know the equality law inside out, but, I was reading a thread earlier about catholic schools and it got me thinking.

Why are schools allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, when, under the equality act 2010, religion is a protected characteristic?

Surely, applying the equality act, schools can’t say they will take religious children over non-religious or those of a different religion. Therefore, aren’t the admissions policies discriminatory and therefore going against equality.

For example, a catholic school takes catholics before all others. Well that’s discrimination isn’t it? If a catholic school was to just accept on distance like all other schools but retain the catholic ethos and teachings that that would be ok because they aren’t discriminating are they? (Just using Catholicism as an example, this point also applies to jewish, Sikh, Muslim and any other religious schools).

I really am just interested to know how this manages to bypass the equality laws.

Oh and grammars...

Personally I like choice: be it religious schools, single sex, grammars, private.... I think parents should have options.

Not all kids are the same and to me more options gives you better chance of finding a good school fit

But I attended Catholic school, I would only send my children to one as a last resort. So it's always been something I have wondered.

Also understandable. My mother went to a Catholic school, and her experiences are essentially what made me feel that I would never want that for my dd.

The sink school in our area had massive problems with racism, and as my dd is mixed race, I was absolutely adamant that I wouldn't be sending her into that environment. We had no chance of getting her into one of the two non-religious schools as it is right on the other side of town, and she was initially waitlisted for the other non-religious school that she actually ended up in, despite being in the right catchment area and at a feeder primary school. She was rejected from the Catholic school as she was too far down the priority list. Our non-Christian neighbours' child was admitted as he was slightly higher up the list as a person of another faith. I did feel that dd had been unfairly discriminated against on the basis of our beliefs.

If she hadn't eventually got a place at our preferred school via the wait list, we'd have had no option but to go private. We were in the fortunate situation of being able to afford that avenue, but we really didn't want to because we don't agree with private education anyway, we had been very underwhelmed with the school which was very expensive but actually very mediocre, and dd really didn't want to go there as it was single sex and we are all very pro co-ed. But the sink school really wasn't a viable option at all, because of the race issue, so we'd have had no choice. Obviously, parents who can't afford private literally have no other options in that situation, and I really don't think that is fair. State funded schools should not be allowed to discriminate.

Oh dear. I forgot about the grammars. And I suppose the private schools as well.

Maybe I shouldn’t have asked the question 😂 this is too complicated.

At least I’ve got to the bottom of my actual original question though. The schools are excempt under the equality act. I might not agree with it and have now started wondering why non religious schools can’t have an admission criteria that prioritises non-religions children .

In fact. What was the point in the equality act with all this non equality going on in the education system. What a wonderful world of inequality we live in.

Maybe parents should be asked to declare a preference for faith education or secular. This who want a faith education get priority at the faith schools, those who want a non-religious education get priority at the non-religious schools.

I'd scrap the grammars too!

Luckily, we don't have them here in any case. It's so much better without!

But then why should people with a religion be allowed more choice than those without a religion

Because the religion themselves built the school themselves. And it's illegal to ban a child from education. So children from religious families would always have more choice.

The discrimination things doesn't work. Because non religious children are not banned. They are just further down the list of criteria. So banning them wouldn't be the right word. But it does obviously limit the access.

The comparison to blm doesn't really work. Not because they are different groups, but because the religious schools weren't opened to discriminate against non religious people. Racism was created to discriminate against non white people.

Blm is a fight against discrimination based on colour. Religious schools are prioritising pupils from their own religion. Which was always their intention. Its not against anyone, it for religious people. But from the outside it feels its against non religious people.

Your example is more like saying BLM should give white people the same opportunity to sit on the board of blm. Because to not do would be discrimination. I don't even know if blm have a board, it's just an example. Blm was created to support black people and end racism, not to lock white people out. But, because of their aims, it makes sense to run by black people. So a consequence is white people wouldn't have the same opportunities.

Or saying that non catholics should be given the same opportunity to be Catholic priests.

The equality act is to support those at risk of being discriminated against, not to water down and erase them. By your logic disabled sports teams should allow able bodied players in their teams.

That’s a good idea. Don’t that have something similar in Scotland where they have a catholic school and a non religions school and you pick one or the other. And I’m pretty sure they are co-Ed and all comprehensive.

Our non-Christian neighbours' child was admitted as he was slightly higher up the list as a person of another faith. I did feel that dd had been unfairly discriminated against on the basis ofourbeliefs.

Our Catholic schools don't have that. It's Catholic children, then non Catholic children.

I would say about 5% of my year were non religious.

I’m religious. We got a place over others because we go to the church which is attached to the school. Our pastor wrote a letter. The reason I wanted my child to go there. Was because of its attachment to the church that we attend. It bases its learning also with the church group. They knew the people. The teachers etc and felt really safe there.

Though we did have a few non religious people. The majority went to the school because of their attendance at the church.

I think religion is protected. Much in the same way as others have said.

I don't have a problem with religious people sending their kids to religious schools. I just don't want those schools to get state funding.

@AlexaShutUp

I don't have a problem with religious people sending their kids to religious schools. I just don't want those schools to get state funding.

Completely agree

Though we took them out of school completely after that. I now home educate and wish I’d done it before they even went to school. We had to do years of unschooling to get my child to gain confidence. Which she was stripped of at school. So I shouldn’t be even in this debate

But interesting question. I love questions like this. Love a good debate and learning.

A lot of religious schools (at least the Christian ones) were set up way before schooling was obligatory for everyone.

@AlexaShutUp but all children are owed an education, and there is money set aside for it. It makes sense that it's given to the people that are actually educating them?

[quote SteveBuscemisRheumyEye]@AlexaShutUp but all children are owed an education, and there is money set aside for it. It makes sense that it's given to the people that are actually educating them?[/quote]
So are you in favour of private schools getting state funding too?

But if people want non-religious schools where non-religious children get preference shouldn't you campaign for schools like that to be built rather than force schools built by religious people to stop being religious?

@Bitofachinwag

But if people want non-religious schools where non-religious children get preference shouldn't you campaign for schools like that to be built rather than force schools built by religious people to stop being religious?

Personally, I don't actually want that. It would be fairer than what we currently have now, but my preference would be for all children to be educated together. I don't think the state should be encouraging segregation on religious grounds.

I now that its been said but how is this different to
same sex schools
grammar schools
private schools
indie schools
some academy schools.

You could even say that having a policy that prioritises siblings also discriminates against only children and first born children.

@AlexaShutUp

Yep, I'd get rid of state funded single sex schools as well.

Except that girls perform way better in single sex schools, and tend towards STEM in these environments as well. I would argue there should be more single sex schools in order to balance the workplace for women.

You could even say that having a policy that prioritises siblings also discriminates against only children and first born children.

I think that would be daft. The main reason for the sibling rule is that most schools start at the same time.

Trying to get 2 kids from the same house to school on time and picked on time would be difficult if not impossible.

Ladylokidoki

It would indeed be daft, but it fits the OP's thoughts on this.

There are also schools that give priority to linked nursery schools, some of these are also funded and run by the church.

@FrippEnos

I now that its been said but how is this different to same sex schools grammar schools private schools indie schools some academy schools.

You could even say that having a policy that prioritises siblings also discriminates against only children and first born children.

I've already said that I'd get rid of single sex schools and grammars. I don't understand the issue with academies, as I'm not aware of these discriminating with regard to admissions. If they do, then I think this should be stopped.

As for private/independent schools, I'd love to see them go as well, but I don't think that's quite the same issue as they aren't getting state funding.

Except that girls perform way better in single sex schools, and tend towards STEM in these environments as well. I would argue there should be more single sex schools in order to balance the workplace for women.

Whereas I'd argue that we need to address the issues in co-ed schools that might be causing girls to underperform in STEM subjects. My dd's school has done an excellent job in this area.

@FrippEnos

I now that its been said but how is this different to same sex schools grammar schools private schools indie schools some academy schools.

You could even say that having a policy that prioritises siblings also discriminates against only children and first born children.

I don't know why you include private/indie schools as they are not state funded. I'd be OK with faith schools that are not state funded.