Take action to oppose plans for 100% religiously selective schools

The Government is currently consulting on plans to allow new ‘faith’ schools to religiously discriminate against children for 100% of their places. The consultation ends on 12 December.

Make no mistake, if these plans go ahead our schools will be more segregated, our society more divided, and our children less prepared for life in an increasingly diverse country.

Since 2007, new ‘faith’ schools have only been allowed to select 50% of children on religious grounds. This 50% cap has been incredibly successful both in boosting integration and ensuring that families have access to their local schools.

The Government’s intention now risks reversing all of this progress, taking us further away from the fair, open and inclusive school system we all want to see, and denying children the opportunity to grow up in a society where everyone is a potential friend, no matter what their religious or non-religious background.

Please, respond to the Government’s consultation by 12 December and oppose this unthinkable extension of religious segregation in schools.

A template consultation response is provided below, which will be submitted automatically on your behalf. You can also view the consultation on the Government’s website.

We strongly encourage you to use this response as a template only. The more customised responses are, the more notice that will be taken of them. For example, you can add details of any relevant personal experiences.

Here are some examples to help:

As a young person… do you have any recent experience of school that you think is worth including? Is/was your school diverse? What impact has this had on your friendships?
Having attended a ‘faith’ school yourself… was it religiously selective? Did you mix with children from different backgrounds? If so, explain how valuable you think that was. If not, how did that impact on your school experience?
As a parent, carer, or grandparent… what kind of school do your children/grandchildren go to? Do they have classmates or friends from a range of different religious and non-religious backgrounds? Have you had problems trying to get your child into a local school as a result of religious selection? And is their experience more selective than your own education? How do you think your experience has affected your life and friendships?
As a teacher or governor… does your school religiously select? If your school is diverse, how does this enrich the children’s experience? Do you have any examples from your school of the benefits of children mixing with those from different backgrounds? If your school does religiously select, has this caused any problems?
As a resident in an area with lots of ‘faith’ schools... how diverse are they? (You can find out how socio-economically inclusive each English secondary is at fairadmissions.org.uk/map). If they religiously select, how has this impacted on the community? Do parents feel forced to attend church just to get their children into a good local school?

The Department for Education asks that respondents identify themselves as either a Parent, Pupil at a school, Student at a higher education institution, Employee of a school, Employee of a multi academy trust, Member of a local authority maintained school governing body, Member of an academy, free school, studio school or UTC governing body, Employee of a local authority, Employee of a higher education institution, Member of a faith group or 'Other (please specify)'. It would be helpful if you could add your self-identification to the introduction to your consultation response.

Title

First name *

Last name *

Your email *

Address *

Address 2

Town *

Postcode *

Subject

Hi, I am responding to this consultation as an individual. Please note my comments on the proposal to remove the 50% cap itself can be found in the response to question 32. 31. Are these the right alternative requirements to replace the 50% rule? In place of the 50% rule, the Government proposes four alternative requirements. My comments on these alternatives are below. As I reiterate throughout, my firm view is that the measures to improve integration proposed in the green paper should not be seen as replacements to the cap. Rather, to the extent that I agree with them at all, they should be seen as measures additional to the cap. <ol>
<li dir="ltr">
Prove that there is demand for school places from parents of other faiths
</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
This requirement already exists in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541945/How_to_apply_to_set_up_a_free_school_guidance.pdf">current guidance</a> on applying to set up free schools. It cannot be described as a replacement to the cap, therefore.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Requiring evidence that parents would be happy to send their children to a school which, by virtue of it being fully religiously selective, they are effectively barred from attending does not make sense and it has not been explained how this would improve integration.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
In practice, allowing a school to religiously select all of their places will inevitably result in the school becoming less attractive to parents of other religions or beliefs. This is because schools that admit only families from one particular religion have less incentive to make their ethos more inclusive as a result of the smaller proportion of pupils who come from other backgrounds. Subsequently, fewer families will apply to such schools in the first place, regardless of the selection policy.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
This vicious cycle of exclusivity and segregation can only be avoided if a cap is kept in place.
</li>
</ul>
 <ol start="2">
<li dir="ltr">
Establishing twinning arrangements with other schools not of their faith
</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
The evidence on the merits or otherwise of school twinning is relatively weak, while the evidence pointing to the benefits of mixing within schools is much stronger and more well-established.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
On twinning, the most significant programme trialled in recent years was through the Schools Linking Network, which aimed to ‘facilitate links between schools’ in around 40 local authorities. The programme ran between 2007 and 2010 and though there were some positive outcomes, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182402/DFE-RR090.pdf">evaluation</a> found ‘mixed evidence for the programme’s impact on pupils’ knowledge and understanding, their willingness to express their opinions, and perceptions of school and wider community climate.’ In a similar vein, the <a href="http://www.schoolslinking.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ACKROY1.pdf">Schools Linking Project</a> piloted in Bradford after the 2001 race riots found ‘difficulties both in terms of practicalities…and more crucially at the level of emotional engagements of all concerned’.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
On the other hand, research into mixing in schools has variously revealed that: ‘friendship at primary schools can, and does, <a href="http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/research/research-interests/sites/families-social-capital-research-group">cross ethnic and faith divides</a> wherever children have the opportunity to make friends from different backgrounds’; ‘the <a href="http://accordcoalition.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Identities-in-Transition.-A-Longitudinal-Study-of-Immigrant-Children.pdf">effects of school diversity</a> were consistent, most evidently on social relations: higher self-esteem, fewer peer problems and more cross-group friendships’; and ‘<a href="http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/21124/">ethnically mixed schools are well positioned</a> to promote inclusive out-group attitudes among native students’.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Further, the <a href="http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14146/1/communitycohesionreport.pdf">Cantle report</a> into the 2001 race riots, commissioned by the Home Office, stated that ‘ideally admissions policies should avoid more than 75% of pupils from one culture or ethnic background in multi-cultural areas.’      
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Given the limited and mixed evidence available on the merits of twinning, and the significant body of evidence on the merits of wholescale mixing, it is impossible to conclude that integration and mutual understanding would be nearly as well served by twinning arrangements as by inclusive admission arrangements.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
It also stands to reason that twinning arrangements are more likely to be effective when they involve schools that are already diverse, at least to some degree, and where the positive impact of twinning arrangements is reinforced in pupils’ everyday interactions. School twinning should therefore complement a cap on religious selection (and vice versa) rather than replace it.
</li>
</ul>
 <ol start="3">
<li dir="ltr">
Consider setting up mixed-faith multi-academy trusts, including becoming a sponsor for underperforming non-faith schools
</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
It is not appropriate for a religious organisation to be involved in the running of schools with no religious character. When religious organisations assume control over a school/academy, they are free to impose religious influences in a wide variety of ways, including by:
</li>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
Adopting a particular religious ethos, without the need for any consultation or announcement
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Discriminating on the grounds of religion in their employment policies for senior staff, including the head teacher
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Strictly enforcing the requirement for a daily act of religious worship in a way that undermines the inclusive nature of the school
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Influencing the religious education syllabus in a way that may not preserve the objective, critical, and pluralistic approach that children deserve and parents are entitled to expect
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Influencing the sex and relationships education provided to pupils to reflect the ethos and values of the particular religion
</li>
</ul>
<li dir="ltr">
Examples of these kind of problems manifesting themselves when religious organisation gain influence over schools are not difficult to find:
</li>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
<a href="https://humanism.org.uk/2013/04/15/non-religious-academy-in-solihull-decides-to-religiously-select-in-admissions/">In 2010</a> Tudor Grange (secondary) Academy entered into an affiliation agreement with a local church primary at the request of the local diocese. As part of the agreement it committed to ‘acknowledging the importance of spirituality and faith’ to school life and started giving priority in its admissions to pupils from the church primary.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
In 2014 Somerton Infant School joined a trust with a neighbouring Church of England academy. The school subsequently closed and became the infant site of another local Church of England academy.
</li>
</ul>
<li dir="ltr">
Religious multi-academy trusts should be barred from sponsoring schools with no religious character (further details of the concerns surrounding ‘mixed multi-academy trusts’, including case studies, can be found <a href="https://humanism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016-08-30-Final-Briefing-on-mixed-MATs-oral-evidence.pdf">here</a>).
</li>
</ul>
 <ol start="4">
<li dir="ltr">
Consider placing an independent member or director who is of a different faith or no faith at all on the governing body of new faith free schools
</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
This requirement is tokenistic. It only has to be ‘considered’ so has no teeth, but even if it is followed, the extent to which one independent governor can influence an entire board is not clear, as is the means of ensuring that the governor is genuinely independent. There is no evidence base suggest that it will have any positive impact on improving integration.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
That said, a requirement along these lines is unlikely to negatively impact on integration, even if it will not improve it, so provided it is introduced in addition to the cap rather than in replacement of it, there is little to object to.
</li>
</ul>
 32. How else might we ensure that faith schools espouse and deliver a diverse, multi-faith offer to parents within a faith school environment? Comments on removing the 50% cap In the absence of an explicit opportunity to comment on the merits of dropping the 50% cap, I have set out why it should stay in place here. Ethnic Integration
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
The 50% cap is having a <a href="https://humanism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016-09-15-FINAL-Ethnic-diversity-in-religious-Free-Schools.pdf">very significant impact on improving ethnic integration</a> in Christian free schools, which make up the majority of religious free schools.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
In Church of England free schools opened under the cap 63% of pupils are white, compared to 78% at CofE schools that religiously select all of their places. Similarly, in ‘other Christian’ free schools opened under the cap, 55% of pupils are white, compared to 85% at ‘other Christian’ schools that religiously select all of their places.
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
Further only 3% of pupils at ‘other Christian’ schools that are fully religiously selective are Asian, while nearly a fifth (19%) of pupils at ‘other Christian’ free schools are Asian. Only 6% of pupils at CofE schools that are fully religiously selective are Asian, while 15% of pupils at CofE free schools are Asian.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
In other words, religious schools that opened under the cap are far more inclusive of Asian pupils and significantly less ‘white-washed’ than schools that select 100% of their places on the basis of religion.
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
Removing the cap would risk losing this progress and take away the access of tens or even hundreds of thousands of non-white pupils to their local schools.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
The impact of the cap in minority religious schools has been less significant, but this is no reason to remove the cap as it is certainly not doing any harm in these schools and, if other integration measures are introduced alongside, it may well have an impact in the future.
</li>
</ul>
 Socio-economic integration
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
It is now widely accepted that religious selection almost always acts as a proxy for socio-economic selection too. Wherever religious selection criteria are employed, the access of children from poorer backgrounds is negatively affected.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
The evidence is also clear that the higher performance of some ‘faith’ schools compared to other schools in their areas is explained entirely by the socio-economically skewed intakes produced by religious selection. As the Christian think tank Theos concluded in <a href="http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/files/files/More%20than%20an%20educated%20guess.pdf">a 2013 report</a>, ‘the research seems to support the claim that students in faith schools, generally do fare better academically that their counterparts in non-faith schools. At the moment, the body of evidence appears to suggest this is probably primarily the outcome of selection processes’.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Further details of the evidence on the link between religious selection and socio-economic selection, and the effect this has on school performance, can be found <a href="http://fairadmissions.org.uk/FACoverview/">here</a>.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
The clear message of all this research is that religious selection should be restricted rather than extended. Our recommendation is therefore that the 50% cap be kept in place.
</li>
</ul>
 Demand for ‘faith’ school places
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
Contrary to the claim made in the green paper, demand for ‘faith’ schools per se is not particularly high at all. Instead, demand is for good schools. (And, as above, ‘faith’ schools perform well academically due to socio-economic selection through their admissions policies.)
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Whenever parents are asked what factors contribute to their choice of school, very few give the religion of the school as an important consideration. Rather, they attribute more importance to all of the factors one would expect – performance, location, facilities, etc.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Two recent polls carried out by YouGov demonstrate this. The <a href="http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Life-YouGov-DaybreakReligion-130910.pdf">first, from 2010</a>, found that just 9% of parents picked ‘religion of the school’ as one of the key factors in their decision-making. In <a href="http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Life-YouGov-DaybreakReligion-130910.pdf">the second, from 2013</a>, only 5% of parents chose ‘grounding of pupils in a faith tradition’ and 3% chose ‘transmission of belief about God’.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
The fact that many ‘faith’ schools are oversubscribed therefore does not imply demand for ‘faith’ school places specifically. Rather it simply indicates demand for school places in general.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to religious selection in school admissions. <a href="http://accordcoalition.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OmFaith-Schools_Q2.pdf">A recent poll</a> found 72% of the population were opposed to religious selection, including majorities in every religious group – 63% of Catholics, 68% of Christians in general, and 82% of Muslims. Even if there was high demand for ‘faith’ schools per se (which there isn’t), most people would not like to see them at the expense of more religious discrimination in the admissions system.
</li>
</ul>
 Preventing new religious schools from opening
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
The green paper states that ‘some faiths have felt unable to open new schools through the free schools route because they say it contravenes religious rules’. This claim is not supported by the facts.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
This is especially true in relation to the claims of the Catholic Education Service. The vast majority of Catholic private schools in England (<a href="https://humanism.org.uk/2016/09/09/exposed-catholic-hypocrisy-in-calls-for-end-to-restrictions-on-religious-selection-in-schools/">78 out of 101 according to a recent survey</a>) do not select all of their places with reference to religion, and many do not select at all; many Catholic state schools in Scotland do not religious select; a recent <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/school-choice-and-equity_5k9fq23507vc-en">OECD survey</a> revealed that only the UK, Ireland, Israel, and Estonia allow widespread religious selection in state-funded schools; and, crucially, there are <a href="http://www.strichardreynolds.org.uk/admissions">already</a> a <a href="http://www.stpaulsacademy.org.uk/parents/admissions-arrangements-year-7-september-2017">number</a> of <a href="http://www.de-la-salle.co.uk/files/policies/admissions%20policy.pdf">Catholic state schools</a> in England that do not select all of their places on religion.  
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
It is also concerning to note the rationale behind some of the religious lobbying. In July, for instance, a <a href="http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/160287/race-open-third-jewish-secondary-despite-warning-chief-rabbi">spokesperson for the Office of the Chief Rabbi</a> stated that the value of Jewish schools lies in providing ‘a completely immersive Jewish environment – something which is far more challenging if the 50 per cent rule associated with free schools is applied’. This runs entirely counter to the stated aims in the green paper, and raises serious questions about the commitment to integration held by those who will seek open fully selective school.  
</li>
</ul>
 Alternative ways to ensure ‘faith’ schools are inclusive 
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
To ensure ‘faith’ schools are inclusive and contribute to their pupils’ understanding of other cultures and beliefs, the Government should introduce a statutory core curriculum for religious education which all state-funded schools, including ‘faith’ schools, must be obliged to follow. This curriculum should be broad, balanced, and objective, and inclusive of a wide range of religious and non-religious beliefs.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
Religious Education in ‘faith’ schools should also be inspected by Ofsted, in addition to existing faith-based inspections if necessary, to ensure that the curriculum is balanced, critical, and pluralistic.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
The collective worship requirement should be replaced by a requirement for inclusive assemblies, focused on furthering mutual understanding and emphasising shared values. This would encourage ‘faith’ schools to be more inclusive in their ethos, and ensure that children in schools without a religious character are better introduced to the range of religions and non-religious worldviews present in modern Britain.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
The Government should clarify that religiously selective schools are not allowed to prioritise children of other religions over children from non-religious backgrounds. There is no legitimate reason for a ‘faith’ school to discriminate in this way and we do not believe that the exemptions in equalities legislation were intended to allow additional discrimination of this kind.  
</li>
</ul>
 33. Are there any other ways in which we can effectively monitor faith schools for integration and hold them to account for performance? 
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
The annual school census is a useful tool which collects data on the ethnicity of pupils and therefore one of the ways in which ethnic integration can be monitored. It shows that schools which religiously select are not as representative of minority ethnic pupils than those schools which do not.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
However, the Government would be better able to assess the level of integration in schools if more data was available, and it would be especially helpful if local data on ethnicity and free school meal eligibility was published, as it was until 2010. This would allow for comparisons between schools and their local areas, which is crucial for accurately gauging schools’ performance on promoting integration.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">
On the back of this data, any religiously selective school that fails to achieve religious, ethnic, or socio-economic diversity commensurate with its local area should lose the right to religiously select.  
</li>
</ul>
 34. Are there other sanctions we could apply to faith schools that do not meet this requirement? 
<ul>
<li dir="ltr">
Where ‘faith’ schools fail to meet the requirements for integration, the Government should withdraw the freedoms that they enjoy as a result of the exemptions contained within the Equality Act 2010. If this sanction is what the green paper means when it mentions forcing such schools to ‘become non-faith schools’, then the Government should make this clear and also clarify under what circumstances, precisely, this would happen, and who would run these schools in the event of this happening.
</li>
<li dir="ltr">The requirements and sanctions set out in the green paper, as well as those suggested in this response, should apply to all ‘faith’ schools, not just religious free schools. If integration is important, it must be promoted in every school, and we would therefore encourage the Government to extend its proposals to every religious school.</li>
</ul>

To show you're an actual person, what is 5 + 2 ? *

The British Humanist Association is a registered charity, no. 285987. Your privacy matters to us and we promise we will never pass on your data to any third party. You will only hear from the BHA about issues related to Humanism, our cause for a secular state, and events you might like to attend. You can change your communications preferences with us at any time.

I agree to you contacting me in the future using the information I have submitted.

By submitting this form, I agree to allow you to forward the above message after reviewing the content for abuse. I understand my data may be retained for monitoring purposes. Data will be processed by Organic Campaigns: Privacy policy. Acknowledgements

Take action to oppose plans for 100% religiously selective schools

Login

Search Humanists UK