Labour reviewing school admission criteria

What a fab job he is doing
Getting us all arguing amongst ourselves
And taking the spotlight of the only real issue he is not tackling
Labour will never get elected again
If they don't remove the cancer at the front

I don’t understand the second paragraph. What would it mean in real terms? That LAs leaflet houses saying what the catchments are for the next year?

I’m not saying you’re wrong at all. I just can’t see what the gap is that’s being filled by this information. Surely all parents know where the local schools are.

And would this be additional to the reserved places you mention? Presumably so. In which case surely there must be at least some displacement of children to schools further away or that are lower choices.

I agree in principle but wonder how it’d work. There’s always a loophole to be exploited too. Would women finishing work to have a lower income be one? I hope not.

My concern would be that by adding to the logistical nightmare of juggling work and the school run, many parents - and let’s face it many mothers - might decide that actually it’s best they take longer off work while they have a young family.

I’m on a second maternity leave currently and we are doing the impossible maths for wraparound care/a childminder and wondering how to do drop offs and pick ups while juggling work when we both have jobs (careers we trained for and therefore are reluctant to leave) where we can’t WFH at all. So we have to factor in getting to and home from work too. Our families are abroad, like many Londoners’, so no help there. When discussing how it’s all going to work, it is tempting to just stay off work until they’re older, even if they go to a nearby school - let alone one we have to travel to.

There are ambitious children from lower income families is that so hard to believe.

It isn't hard to believe at all. But the key factor in that child's success isn't getting them into the best school, it's the support the parents provide. We live in one of the 11+ areas, yes some do chose to tutor but there are some who get through by self tutoring - getting the books and practice papers from the library, and sitting down with their child every night doing half an hour on these.

I had very supportive parents but went to a terrible secondary (pupils achieving 5 A-C at GCSE was under 30%, they tried to close it down at least twice whilst I was there) and came out with 9 A/A* at GCSE, 4 A's at A level, the teaching and behaviour was terrible and I taught myself most of the curriculum from study guides.

That’s totally contradictory? If you have to make the effort to implement a system where the aim is to get some children into the better schools why would you then say ‘providing a good school place for every child, regardless of their background’

If all schools were good you wouldn’t need to shuffle children to different areas .. so make all schools good!

There isn't a policy.

Great idea. Level across the classes. Stop the rich middle from hogging grammar school places, and other better state school catchment areas.

I found this, there’s a paragraph a way down, from a Labour Party spokes person .

‘A government spokesman said: “This Government is committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity through our Plan for Change by providing a good school place for every child, regardless of their background.

“We are determined to make sure there is no class ceiling on the ambitions of people in Britain. That’s why we launched a consultation on the socio-economic duty. No final decisions have been made, but positive discrimination will remain illegal under the Equality Act.

“All mainstream state-funded schools are required to comply with the School Admissions Code to ensure all children have fair access to a mainstream school place where they can achieve and thrive.” ‘

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/08/08/middle-class-children-shut-out-best-schools-equality-drive/

Schools already do allocate based on their local area, as places are allocated by distance from the school. They do not have access to information on parents income when allocating spaces.

What this policy is suggesting is aligning with a national average, not a local one.

It’s just so thoroughly disappointing. How can he be so out of touch and want to cut corners like this ? He had a real opportunity to improve things in general and he’s continually making these mistakes ?

Not to mention the legal quagmire of ownership
Labour thought they could do this before they were elected and quickly backtracked when they realised they can’t.
Been there, fell at the first hurdle

Why should a child’s chances be thwarted because their parents are of a lower social economic background?

There are ambitious children from lower income families is that so hard to believe.

Grammar schools used to fill this gap, but the few remaining most children are tutored through the 11+ now.

Perhaps also introducing a test that couldn’t be tutored, allowing areas to have one school that does take the truly exceptional students regardless of household, but it’s finding a way to test that within a level playing field.

As with all systems there will be some winners and some losers. And perhaps if children were more spread out with the influence of engaged parents across more schools standards would rise across the board.

There are falling roll numbers anyway, so in theory it should be easier to get your child into your choice of school.

How does everyone feel about the socially deprived getting priority for NHS treatment as well?

OP have you got anything that backs up your thread title?

Absolutely, but that would involve levelling up education, not levelling down. The former is complicated and expensive, the latter not so much. Keir Starmer knows precisely what he’s doing, the man is an absolute weasel.

Bloody stupid idea. So locally that would mean all the kids from the deprived end of town travelling across town to the better school, and all the kids from the wealthy part of town travelling the other way to the worst schools. When both cohorts have schools on their doorsteps. Neither is walkable or cyclable from across town, the commute would be into town, change buses, and another bus to other end of town.

How would that work? Who would cover the costs of those schools, that are currently covered by the parents of those attending?

"Sir Keir Starmer plans to update the Equality Act to give public authorities a new duty to consider a person’s “socio-economic background”.
The changes could mean that schools are forced to give pupils from a working-class background priority when applying for school places, according to Conservative research"

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Are there any suggestions from Labour that they intend to amend the schools admissions process?

Yes it will be impossible for some parents to juggle this and exhausting for the children ?

Next thing KS will probably says he’s going to start school sleepover clubs as well as breakfast clubs (and expect schools to fund that themselves too!) 🤦

Or reduce diversity and lose all the best teachers….

Surely a better policy would be to actually invest in poorly performing schools and bring them up to scratch!
Are people really going to want to have to get 2 buses/a bus and a train to & from school every morning if its miles away? It’s not really a practical workable plan.

Exactly. This policy is a typical labour race to the bottom approach.

Schools with a high number of FSM already get significant extra funding (pupil premium) to try to balance the gap. Which is doesn't, as parental support and expectation is the single biggest influence of educational outcomes. A bright child with supportive ambitious parents will do well in any school.

We also have a child mental health and obesity crisis, and should be supporting children walking to school, and development and integration into local communities is crucial for families, the 'it takes a village to raise a child' concept. My daughter used to attend an 'outstanding' school in London, we moved to a village with a 'good' rated primary - her mental health is so much better as her friends now live within a 10 minute max walk from our house and there is a sense of commuinity and support, and her educational acheivement has improved as she is happier.If children are forced to attend schools further from their home it's worse for their social needs, worse for their physical health, worse for the environment with more driving, worse for the local commuinity with traffic, parking issues, harder for working families to juggle drop offs and pick ups.
It won't affect me as both mine are already in school, but on principle I think this policy is a terrible idea.

Also if there is genuine concern over pupils getting FSM they could look at alternative options such as increasing pupil premium or adding more enrichment activities in all schools for those on FSM instead they are looking at doing something which will not actually help outcomes and will land local
authorities with big bills for transport .

Exactly
and many councils are struggling to pay for the transport as it is.
Here’s Kent’s bill
and this doesn’t even include the free bus passes that the majority of eligible kids use

Exactly

Labour seem to be accepting some schools are just crap. In fact this very policy is an admission of that.

They seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room