Labour reviewing school admission criteria

[JustAlice]

"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.
2. In Brighton, faith schools are still not impacted.

YABU - we should be happy about this
YANBU - not a good idea

It sounds too random for a Tory to make it up - they are unlikely to be aware of admission criteria for state schools in the first place.

Well, of course, it’s mainly down to the parents.

I live in a very deprived area. I’ve just checked my children’s school on the government website and it’s 57.2% of children on free school meals.

It’s the a sort of place where parents smoke weed on the school run, fight in the playground, we have no PTA or school events as a lot of them would just turn up pissed or fight. They only recently brought back parents being allowed to school plays - they were filmed and emailed for yonks as parents couldn’t be trusted, brought them back last Christmas as we had two dads lamping the shit out of each other half way though the reception nativity.

The school and the teachers try everything. I can’t fault the teachers, they are wonderful. A new head came in 3 years ago and has taken it from 15 years of failure to rated “good” for the first time in 20 years.

The children that do well, do very well because they have active, interested parents who engage with the teachers. It’s so polarised. A lot of the children don’t do well as they are brought up to think school is a punishment and teachers are all out to get them. They see their mum screaming in a teachers face at pick up, they will do that too.

Now, not all families on FSM are the same, but where I live, the stats match the school.

It’s not made up but, had you bothered to quote the entire article, everyone arguing about it would know it’s a rightwing interpretation of what might happen. The guidance has still to be published so it’s pure conjecture at this point.

Nope, if you read the article in its entirety, it says at the top that it was conservatives who came up with this.

The suggested Labour change is to put socio-economic background into the Equality Act where it was in 2010 before the Tories removed it.

When this was in the act, an explanatory note suggested that it could apply to schools admissions by making councils more mindful of whether information about how to apply to schools was equally accessible in disadvantaged areas and to work on getting that information to disadvantaged areas if not.

Absolutely NOTHING about changing admissions to prioritise FSM kids.

Still, the Tories who planted this article must be loving the people who are sucking it up as if their article, and this thread, is actual Labour policy.

I don't understand how selective state funded faith schools are still allowed, I'd much rather they got rid of them.

I don't think this would be likely to have a huge impact personally. The people on lower incomes round here that i know wouldn't be taking their child miles out of their way to go to a better school anyway, for a whole host of reasons.

Posters said the same about welfare cuts. Speculation etc

The provision to include PP children as a category in ones admissions process already exists.

I saw the article yesterday and wondered if MN will be pro or against such policy? So this thread was created to find the answer.

Isn’t a poorer parent requesting an out-of-catchment place being “sharp-elbowed” themselves? Surely to make things really fair they should randomly select pupils? Can’t have anybody trying to improve their lot or it defeats the object.

I believe this is the proposal in Brighton. No catchments and it’s luck of the draw. Hang the environment. (btw are the Greens interested in the environment any more or is that a bit passé and sandally?)

It’s a pity you didn’t quote or link to the whole article then.

It's not a proposal, it already happening in Brighton (and Labour was supported by the Greens in it)

New admission priority for Community Schools for September 2025
For children starting Secondary School in Year 7 in September 2025 onwards, a new admission priority has been introduced for the Community Schools: children eligible for Free School Meals (FSM).

Priority 4 is for children eligible for Free School Meals and living within the school’s catchment area. Priority 5 is for other children eligible for Free School Meals, up to the city average (30% for 2025).

Once children in Priority 4 (FSM in catchment area) have been allocated places, children in Priority 5 will then be considered. If the number of children allocated under Priority 4 is equal to or exceeds the number of FSM priority places available (as determined by the city average – see table below), then no places will be available for children in Priority 5.

If there are places available for some children in Priority 5, but not all, then the random allocation tie-breaker is applied to determine which of those children in Priority 5 can be offered the remaining FSM places (up to the city average). Children who are not successful under Priority 5, will still be considered under Priority 7.

For September 2025, all schools were able to admit all students from Priorities 4 and 5. If a student has not offered a place under Priority 4 or 5, it is because they have been offered a place at a higher preference school.

Find more information about the Free School Meals priority. The Free School Meals priority is not automatically applied; the parent/carer must indicate on their application if they wish for their child to be considered under this priority.

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/children-and-learning/allocation-factsheet-year-7-places-september-2025#tabnew-admission-priority-for-community-schools-for-september-2025

I’ve found it an interesting discussion.
73% YANBU is not surprising for MNet I think

Yes agree with pp, interesting to see the yanbu vote.

I’m unsure about this but for everyone going on about transport why can’t we go to school buses? My primary school had one for a further away village and there was a bus escort. My secondary school was very large and took people from all over. There were multiple school buses that came from the villages, usually making a couple of stops. I think parents paid for a bus pass, you were eligible to a council bus pass or you paid per trip. It worked really well and you just made sure you got to the bus stop on time.

The incentive to earn well, save, buy a house and protect the next generation seems to have evaporated with this government

Benefits don't work like that. You can't scale back your hours or leave a job to claim them. Trust me, I wanted to do it as a lone parent when I had toddlers and the system won't let you.
I think if you're made redundant it works, but not resignation.

It’s not good for the environment

Surely better than lots of children being driven to school? I didn’t mean buses for people within walking distance.

The only things Labour incentivise is claiming benefits (being state dependent), working for state run entities (being state dependent), going to shit state schools (being state dependent), aka fighting to get to the bottom. Whilst the few dictate and get rich at the top. Ie. Communism or socialism if you prefer a more palatable word. It never works but people try.

Because they save the government money. Faith schools get approx 10-15% less funding per pupil than state schools, and the faith group makes up the rest. So it would cost money to close them

In 14 years Tories did nothing to reduce the benefits bill . They imported millions of people instead to do the work locals can't be arsed to do anymore. So people on PIP for "anxiety", motability Land Rovers, lack of social housing, skyrocketing house prices and rents - all on them.

Poor Sir Kier can't even spend left and right - probably for the first time in Labour history. That's how bad the things are after 14 years of Tories.

My children go to the "best" secondary in the district. Its catchment area (defined on paper, not just nearest school) is actually quite large... 7 miles in one direction, although less than a mile in another. It covers a mixture of villages, but the FSM number is well below average for the district.

Theoretically they could take some children from the city centre ..but then which village of villages do they remove from catchment? Are they going to have to provide a bus, or use the public bus which takes an hour?

Lack of social housing long predates the last iteration of the Tories. That was Thatcher’s doing.

Yes a better option than all driving but still
not as ideal as all children being able to walk to their nearest school.

But of you allow in more low qualified people (like care workers) with the family and allow your chums to pay them below minimal wage, it's not helping either when the whole family becomes eligible for social housing and UC in 5 years?

So Labour are clueless but Tories even worse.