Page 27 | Labour reviewing school admission criteria

JustAlice · 2025-08-09T09:16:26+00:00

"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, instead of judging applications based on how far away from a school someone lives." Last year BBC had articles on how Brighton and Hove Labour council implemented similar policy, and now substancial % of school places goes to children on FSM instead of childre living closer to the school, making average % of FSM in them closer to the council average. Protests didn't lead to anything. If Starmer is going to rollout this model for the whole country, I'm torn, because though I'm against class division and think that current model encourages it 1. I strongly disagree that the families on less than minimal wage income are the only working people in the country. Maybe call them deprived to be honest. 1. In Brighton, faith schools are still not impacted. YABU - we should be happy about this YANBU - not a good idea

KirriIrry · 09/08/2025 11:51

HappilyUrbanTrimmer · 09/08/2025 11:07

The right-wing press is full of wild speculation about what "could" be the impact of proposed changes, trying to whip up a fury of opposition against a straw-man.

The proposals will not stop childen in leafy suburbs from going to leafy-suburb schools. They will require LEAs to carefully direct their publicity budget to ensure that more disadvantaged children don't miss out on places they might already be entitled to due to their parents/carers not being as well-informed as the sharp-elbowed middle classes.

The obligation will be to ensure equality of opportunity. There is no proposal to remove any rights from comfortably privileged families. The nice schools will not fill up with loads of nasty poor people. Schools which are located in areas where poor people cannot afford to live may be required to reserve a number of places equal to or close to the LEA average for pupils receiving pupil premium. You need a lot of cognitive dissonance in your head to object to that and not acknowledge that what you are saying is "we want there to be taxpayer-funded state schools that only wealthy families are allowed to use, poor children can go to schools that are just for poor children" - if you actually believe that your children need to only attend schools with other wealthy children then you need to use private education, not state education.

Edited

This is a bit of a contradiction. If schools ‘located in areas where poor people cannot afford to live’’ have to reserve a number of places for kids receiving pupil premium, then by your own definition, those places will mostly be going to children from further away. They will need to travel further to school. And they will take places from kids who do live in the area and would other wise have gone to that school, who will now, in turn, have to travel further to the school they get offered instead. Any change to allocation of school places will have a knock-on effect. Longer school journeys and kids missing out on places they otherwise would have had are knock-on effects of this change. Making anyone who points that out to be a ‘ right-wing’ raging snob is a bit much.

DrPrunesqualer · 09/08/2025 11:51

Meadowfinch · 09/08/2025 10:55

It's ridiculous and illogical.

Sending children to schools other than their closest school means

The cost of transport is higher for everyone
Parents need longer to get children to school, limiting their employment options
Children are at different schools from their neighbours meaning they are isolated from their friends at the weekends
Parents end up with children at different schools, trying to do two different school runs in different directions at the same time

If Labour genuinely want to help, rather than just look like they're being proactive, they will increase the funding for nurseries, primary & secondary schools across the board, instead of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Edited

Agree
Labour need to improve education across the board
There should be no failing schools that they deem not worthy

This very policy acknowledges that some children are let down by the education system.
Labour seem to think it’s ok if the children of middle class parents are the ones that are let down.
What the hell is wrong with them!

Another attempt at winning votes

FumingTRex · 09/08/2025 11:51

I accidentally voted the wrong way but I meant to say yabu. Free school meals is not the best measure as it doesnt capture everyone, but its a start. Other options would be a lottery for schools with very snall catchment areas; or prioritising certain neighbourhoods/council estates.

realtimeintrusion · 09/08/2025 11:51

AhBiscuits · 09/08/2025 11:15

The catchment for our school is about 500 metres. There's a lovely community feel with all the children living so close together. It would be gutting to miss out on a place and not be part of it because of some stupid fucking labour policy.
What about the benefits to your health and the environment when you can walk to your local school?

A long journey to and from can be exhausting for children as well especially in winter

EasternStandard · 09/08/2025 11:49

clamshell24 · 09/08/2025 11:39

'Good schools' depend on their pupils and parents- not a magical formula.

Yep try hard enough and Labour will get rid of those.

CruCru · 09/08/2025 11:49

I grew up in Brighton. Part of the reason this was so unpopular was the geography of Brighton and the bus routes. If you don’t get your nearest school, there’s a good chance you will need to get a bus into the centre of Brighton and then another bus to whichever school you got allocated.

Finding out that you didn’t get into Dorothy Stringer / Blatchington Mill but instead a school that you are less inspired by AND will have to travel for 40+ minutes is really annoying. Some surprising people used to choose private school for this reason … I don’t know whether this is still the case.

realtimeintrusion · 09/08/2025 11:48

I don’t agree with this as I think in most cases children should go to their nearest school, the benefits to being able to walk to and from and having local friends etc etc

Nchangeo · 09/08/2025 11:48

If they do this then that’s the final nail in the coffin. I’m working minimal part time and going on UC

MoveOverToTheSea · 09/08/2025 11:48

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:33

Abolishing grammar schools was not only a populist, but also a cost-saving exercise, because you don't need to build and staff 2 separate schools. So win-win I guess 😎

Show quote history

You just need one bigger school instead which means building new classes.

Not sure how much difference this will mean

bumpetybumpbump · 09/08/2025 11:48

Wonder how many people on this thread fully support abolishing private schools because you shouldn’t be able to buy a better educational environment through paying fees, but are incensed that you may no longer be able to buy a better educational environment by buying a more expensive house…

MoveOverToTheSea · 09/08/2025 11:46

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 10:58

I can see a lot of children travelling by Tube or bus to faith, grammar and independent schools in London - LMS, Oratory school, Putney High, Tiffin.
Our borough even has a special route bus running through the borough only in the morning and afternoon.

Edited

Show quote history

London isn’t England though.

The reality for the rest if the country (like 80% of it) is that transport will be a massive issue. Even more so because LA do NOT have the money agd are already restricting routes etc… They aren’t going to be happy to have to open more routes/more buses. Or rather they won’t be able to.

Basically, fir most people, prob even more so those who are more ‘rural’ aka small towns, it won’t change a thing becausectye school still won’t be within reach.

goplacidly · 09/08/2025 11:44

teksquad · 09/08/2025 11:10

Level the playing field? Get rid of church schools then. Massive hypocrites.

Show quote history

The catholic faith schools I worked in are subsididised by the church and the government only pay a certain percentage towards them. So the government have to allow them to have some special rules on admissions and if they didn’t, the subsidy would go and it would cost the government too much to run them and they would close down.

starofsolomon · 09/08/2025 11:43

Its just another strand to banding, its fine. It might even things out a bit, and prevent certain schools becoming "sink" schools, - comprehensives will be more comprehensive.

clamshell24 · 09/08/2025 11:39

'Good schools' depend on their pupils and parents- not a magical formula.

Hoardasurass · 09/08/2025 11:37

Yet again instead of putting the hard work into making all schools improve and actually give all children a decent education, by doing things like bring back technical college's, promoting apprenticeships to those who are less academically minded and more practically minded, ditching the 50%+ going to university getting into tens of thousands in debt for useless degrees when really if we limited uni places to the brightest 5-10% we as a country could easily afford to make it free again whilst offering proper paid internships in business and finance and real apprenticeships.
Instead of doing any of this our labour government is all about dragging everyone down to the lowest level possible. Whatever happened to raising people up?

JudgeJ · 09/08/2025 11:36

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:33

Abolishing grammar schools was not only a populist, but also a cost-saving exercise, because you don't need to build and staff 2 separate schools. So win-win I guess 😎

Show quote history

There are still the same number of pupils so the number of buildings and staff is irrelevant, that was never Labour's reason.

JudgeJ · 09/08/2025 11:34

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:21

Look at NHS - billions poured in, but no money can save it.

Show quote history

If more of the billions were directed towards the core philosophy of the NHS, making ill people better, it would have a chance but we now have a situation wherein so many lifestyle choices are lumped as 'illnesses' that it can't cope. Sorry but living like a slob is a choice, not an illness but now it's defined as such they have an excuse.

Original poster

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:33

JudgeJ · 09/08/2025 11:31

When the welfare state was created a three tier system of Grammar, Secondary Modern and Technical schools was also established, the Grammar schools were successful and allowed many working class children to enter careers that would otherwise have been closed to them, I was one of those wc children. The Secondary Modern schools were less successful because they tried to ape the Grammar schools and the Technical schools never really got off the ground. Guess which of the three Labour decided to do away with? Instead of improving the Secondary Modern schools they threw away the successful schools in the politics of envy, schools that had place many of them where they were, if they hadn't gone to fee-paying schools.

Show quote history

Abolishing grammar schools was not only a populist, but also a cost-saving exercise, because you don't need to build and staff 2 separate schools. So win-win I guess 😎

OP posts:

JudgeJ · 09/08/2025 11:31

ExtraOnions · 09/08/2025 11:17

…just about sums up all that’s wrong with the country … this thread is just a chorus of “me me me me”. Not interest in how we improve society as a whole, how we make things better for everyone. It’s goes back to Thatcher as her “no such thing as society”

Thank goodness we weren’t like this when the welfare state was formed…

When the welfare state was created a three tier system of Grammar, Secondary Modern and Technical schools was also established, the Grammar schools were successful and allowed many working class children to enter careers that would otherwise have been closed to them, I was one of those wc children. The Secondary Modern schools were less successful because they tried to ape the Grammar schools and the Technical schools never really got off the ground. Guess which of the three Labour decided to do away with? Instead of improving the Secondary Modern schools they threw away the successful schools in the politics of envy, schools that had place many of them where they were, if they hadn't gone to fee-paying schools.

Original poster

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:30

TheignT · 09/08/2025 11:26

I bet some people are worried that their inflated house price because of the catchment school will be falling.

If a school starts taking 20% more out of catchment kids, catchment area shrinks but not vanishes.
At the same time, if the schools' results level down, people will be less drawn to particular schools.
So house prices will pretty much depend on the outcome of such policy.

OP posts:

MistyMountainTop · 09/08/2025 11:26

JudgeJ · 09/08/2025 11:22

If you want to 'level things up' maybe they can also say that everyone who is physically able, medically certified not just the opinion of the Uni of YouTube, should have a job, there are plenty going.

Show quote history

There may be plenty jobs going but they don't all pay decent enough wages to live on.

TheignT · 09/08/2025 11:26

I bet some people are worried that their inflated house price because of the catchment school will be falling.

EasternStandard · 09/08/2025 11:23

SriouslyWhutNow · 09/08/2025 10:52

That's a terrible idea. The building and teachers are only part of the picture of how "good" a school is. A good chunk of its success comes down to the students and how invested their parents are in their futures. Also, it's almost impossible to get FSM these days so loads of kids whose two parents work but who might be reliant on foodbanks etc who might have been in catchment for a good school will just be shoved aside for the latest "lets feel good about social injustice disguised as justice" nonsense. They're just bringing everyone down to a low level in yet another way.

Exactly.

TheignT · 09/08/2025 11:23

helphelpimbeingrepressed · 09/08/2025 10:52

It will cause total traffic chaos. The reason most people get school places a certain distance from their homes is so they can walk there. If that isn’t going to matter anymore, there will more people driving round their town or city to get children into school and themselves to work. Or the council bill for school transport will be worse than it already is.

Well it isn't working where I am. I'm near a primary school and I'm not sure traffic chaos can get any worse. Very few children seen to walk.

JudgeJ · 09/08/2025 11:22

ExtraOnions · 09/08/2025 10:48

..yea, because children should suffer because thier parents made bad choices, or had misfortune thrust upon them, or couldn’t access education or training opportunities.

We should absolutely be levelling things up, how are we ever going to equalise opportunity if we don’t ?

Show quote history

If you want to 'level things up' maybe they can also say that everyone who is physically able, medically certified not just the opinion of the Uni of YouTube, should have a job, there are plenty going.