Increase Faith School Places
Conservative · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Conservative’s policy “Increase Faith School Places” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Community cohesion & belonging — Hurts
minor · moderate confidence
Lifting the faith school admissions cap is likely to increase religious and ethnic segregation, which research links to weaker community cohesion — though the government argues the existing cap has not meaningfully improved diversity. The actual effect depends heavily on how many new schools open and where.
The evidence
- The policy lifts the cap on faith schools, allowing them to offer more places selected by faith and encouraging expansion. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “lift the cap on faith schools, allowing them to offer more places to children based on faith and encouraging their expansion”
- Humanists UK research suggests that 100% religious selection drives racial segregation, with such schools being less ethnically diverse than those with the 50% cap. — humanists.uk (media) — “Research from Humanists UK suggests that schools with a 50% cap are more ethnically diverse than those that select 100% of their pupils by religion, and that 100% religious selection drives racial segregation”
- The Education Policy Institute concluded in 2017 that this policy is unlikely to increase social mobility and risks increased social segregation. — faithschoolersanonymous.uk (media) — “such a policy is "unlikely to be effective" in increasing social mobility and risks increased social segregation”
- Critics including the Children's Rights Alliance for England warn removing the cap would entrench segregation and undermine community cohesion. — faithschoolersanonymous.uk (media) — “removing the cap would entrench segregation and undermine community cohesion”
- The Accord Coalition warns lifting the cap could lead to schools becoming 'cultural silos'. — accordcoalition.org.uk (media) — “scrapping the cap could lead to schools becoming "cultural silos"”
- The government argues the existing cap has not significantly improved diversity, and all faith schools will still be required to promote community cohesion and fundamental British values. — hansard.parliament.uk (government) — “the cap has not significantly improved diversity and that all faith-designated free schools will still be required to demonstrate their commitment to community cohesion and promote fundamental British values”
- A 2017 poll commissioned by the Accord Coalition found four out of five voters preferred to maintain the 50% cap, including a majority from every religious group. — accordcoalition.org.uk (media) — “four out of five voters preferred to maintain the 50% cap, including a majority from every religious group”
Biggest unknown: How many new 100%-faith-selective schools actually open and in which areas — if uptake is limited, the segregation effect is small; if the Catholic Church expands substantially, the effect could be larger.
Our reading: The core O15 question is whether lifting the admissions cap will affect social trust, integration, and inter-group relations. Multiple independent-ish bodies — the Education Policy Institute and Sutton Trust, corroborated by advocacy sources including Humanists UK and the Accord Coalition — consistently project increased segregation along religious and ethnic lines when schools can select 100% of pupils by faith. Segregation is a well-established driver of weaker inter-group trust and community cohesion. The Humanists UK evidence on racial segregation is an advocacy source and must be treated as a projected claim rather than a measurable baseline; nonetheless, the EPI and Sutton Trust findings (E18, E24, E25) provide independent corroboration pointing in the same direction. The government's counter-claim — that the 50% cap has not demonstrably improved diversity — is cited (E20) and plausible, but establishes only that the cap was ineffective at improving diversity, not that removing it is benign. Moving from 50% to 100% faith selection is a material intensification that the research evidence associates with greater segregation. The magnitude is held to 'minor' because: the community-cohesion duty on faith schools remains; actual uptake depends on new-school openings; and several critics are advocacy sources whose estimates cannot alone drive magnitude. The direction nonetheless leans toward worsening O15 on the balance of cited evidence, with the counterfactual — no policy change — maintaining at least the partial integrative effect of the 50% cap.
Education & opportunity — Mixed picture
minor · moderate confidence
Lifting the cap on faith school admissions could create more places at schools with strong Ofsted ratings, but independent researchers warn it may reduce access for poorer and non-religious families and worsen social segregation — which would widen the attainment gap rather than close it.
The evidence
- The policy would lift the cap on faith schools, allowing them to admit more pupils on faith grounds and expand. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “lift the cap on faith schools, allowing them to offer more places to children based on faith and encouraging their expansion”
- The policy is claimed not to require new legislation or additional Treasury funds. — premierchristianity.com (media) — “The policy is stated to not require new legislation or additional Treasury funds”
- As of May 2024, 91% of faith primary and 84% of faith secondary schools were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, marginally above non-faith schools. — consult.education.gov.uk (government) — “91% of faith primary schools and 84% of faith secondary schools were rated "good" or "outstanding" by Ofsted, compared to 90% of non-faith primary and 82% of non-faith secondary schools, respectively”
- Faith schools tend to show higher Key Stage 2 and GCSE results on average. — durham.ac.uk (academic) — “Faith schools also tend to show higher Key Stage 2 and GCSE results on average”
- The government argues lifting the cap will create more good school places and increase parental choice. — educationhub.blog.gov.uk (government) — “lifting the cap will lead to the creation of more "good school places" and offer parents greater choice in education”
- Academic research finds no evidence that children have better attainment because they attend a faith school — the results may reflect intake rather than school quality. — durham.ac.uk (academic) — “no evidence that children actually have better attainment because they attend a faith school”
- NFER notes that faith schools' good results may be due to pupil intake characteristics rather than school status, and stresses the need for value-added analysis. — nfer.ac.uk (academic) — “it's unclear if this is due to their status or other factors like pupil intake characteristics, stressing the need for value-added analysis”
- Faith schools tend to take fewer pupils from poorer backgrounds, according to the Sutton Trust. — schoolsweek.co.uk (media) — “faith schools tend to take fewer pupils from poorer backgrounds”
- The Education Policy Institute concluded lifting the cap is unlikely to increase social mobility and risks increased social segregation. — faithschoolersanonymous.uk (media) — “such a policy is "unlikely to be effective" in increasing social mobility and risks increased social segregation”
- Humanists UK research suggests 100% religious selection drives racial segregation and makes schools less ethnically diverse than those with the 50% cap. — humanists.uk (media) — “100% religious selection drives racial segregation”
- Critics argue non-religious families and families of different faiths may find their children excluded from local taxpayer-funded schools. — hansard.parliament.uk (government) — “critics suggest that lifting the cap will disadvantage non-religious families and families of different faiths, who may find their children excluded from local schools funded by taxpayers”
Biggest unknown: Whether faith schools' strong results reflect the schools themselves or their selective intake — if the latter, expanding faith-based admissions simply concentrates advantaged pupils without raising overall standards.
Our reading: The policy creates a genuine tension within O7's criteria. On standards, faith schools marginally outperform non-faith schools on Ofsted ratings and exam results. Proponents argue that expanding such schools increases overall good-place supply and parental choice, and the Catholic Church's blocked expansion (due to the current cap conflicting with Canon Law) is a plausible constraint on supply. However, the evidence on whether faith schools cause better outcomes — as opposed to selecting pupils who would do well anywhere — is contested: academic and NFER analysis points to intake composition as the likely driver, not school ethos. This is critical for O7, because if results are intake-driven, removing the cap does not improve education quality; it redistributes advantaged pupils. On the attainment gap — a core O7 criterion — multiple credible bodies (EPI, Sutton Trust, Humanists UK) warn the policy would reduce access for poorer and non-religious families, potentially widening inequality of opportunity. The segregation risk is material: schools admitting 100% by faith are demonstrably less ethnically and socio-economically diverse. The government's counter — that the existing cap has not improved diversity and that schools must still promote community cohesion — has some basis but does not directly rebut the intake-composition concern. The upside (marginally more places at schools with above-average Ofsted ratings) is real but small in aggregate, and may not materialise as genuine quality improvement. The downside (reduced access for disadvantaged and non-faith families, worsening attainment gap) is backed by several independent, credible organisations. The verdict is mixed, but the equity dimension leans negative for the children O7 cares most about — those from poorer backgrounds — making this a policy that improves opportunity for some while potentially worsening it for others.
Equal treatment & democratic rights — Hurts
minor · moderate confidence
Lifting the cap allows publicly-funded schools to fill more places based on religion, which by design excludes non-religious and differently-religious families from those places. The effect is real but limited to newly expanded or created faith free schools, not the existing estate.
The evidence
- The policy allows faith schools to offer more places selected by faith and encourages their expansion. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “allowing them to offer more places to children based on faith and encouraging their expansion”
- Critics argue the change will disadvantage non-religious families and families of different faiths who may find their children excluded from local taxpayer-funded schools. — hansard.parliament.uk (government) — “critics suggest that lifting the cap will disadvantage non-religious families and families of different faiths, who may find their children excluded from local schools funded by taxpayers”
- Research from Humanists UK (an advocacy source) suggests 100% religious selection drives racial segregation relative to the capped model. — humanists.uk (media) — “100% religious selection drives racial segregation”
- The Education Policy Institute concluded in 2017 that the policy risks increased social segregation. — faithschoolersanonymous.uk (media) — “The Education Policy Institute (EPI) concluded in 2017 that such a policy is "unlikely to be effective" in increasing social mobility and risks increased social segregation”
- The government argues the existing cap has not significantly improved diversity and faith schools must still promote community cohesion. — hansard.parliament.uk (government) — “the cap has not significantly improved diversity and that all faith-designated free schools will still be required to demonstrate their commitment to community cohesion and promote fundamental British values”
Biggest unknown: How many new fully-selective faith free schools actually open, and whether over-subscription in practice forces exclusion of non-faith pupils in areas where alternatives are scarce.
Our reading: The core O9 question is whether this policy advances or undermines equal treatment — specifically, whether publicly-funded school places are accessible without discrimination on protected characteristics. The policy's own text is unambiguous: additional places are allocated 'based on faith', meaning religious belief becomes a formal criterion for access to state-funded education. That is, by design, differential treatment on grounds of religion. Non-religious families and families of a different faith are structurally disadvantaged in competing for those additional places. This is a direct equal-treatment concern under O9, regardless of educational quality arguments (which belong to O7). The magnitude is constrained to 'minor' rather than 'moderate' because the mechanism only applies to new or newly expanded faith free schools — existing schools' admissions are unaffected — and uptake depends on how many faith bodies actually open or expand schools. The advocacy-heavy source base (Humanists UK, Accord Coalition, fairadmissions.org.uk) is noted; their segregation projections are treated as illustrative, not dispositive. However, the equal-treatment harm does not require those projections: it flows directly from the policy text. The government's counter — that the cap failed to improve diversity and that cohesion duties remain — addresses community outcomes (O15) rather than the individual equal-treatment question on O9. Confidence is moderate because the scale of real-world exclusion depends on how many schools open and local school availability, which the evidence does not settle.