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

They do level, but down. Their aim is for everyone to have the same level of education even if it means to have it worse for everyone.

@DrPrunesqualer post demonstrates it perfectly.
That’s why I’m against academic selection at age 11. The Medway towns are Grammar areas and anyone who doesn’t get in is marked for ever. The prescence of Grammar schools is why the others are rough and really quite crap.

In a rough area with parents as described, grammars give a chance to some kids to escape. Pushing academic kids into classes with disruptive ones, whose parents "just want to fight against everything and teach their children to do the same" won't save those rough kids but will bring down the former ones who did have a chance of success.

This is surely not a national need and not required everywhere? My child's school has well below FSM national average. It also isn't at capacity due to the decline in birth rate. So anyone from outside of the catchment can get in regardless of FSM status. But they don't apply despite it being an excellent school because it's rural, hard to get to and feeds into an even more remote middle school.

You don’t need to shout it

Im award it’s parents
Im aware the kids are products of their parents

Like I said
( and I don’t have a desire to shout)

That doesn’t mean we abandon kids just because…..it’s the parents and they don’t care so

Maybe mixing it about a bit, as the news article of this thread, is exactly what’s needed. 50/50 as much as possible.

Im not in favour due to practicalities. But. Maybe it is the only way. If schools are financed better. Perhaps longer hours too even and more state boarding might help.

I rarely see students from badly performing schools at my Uni. I’d like to never have to see the words ‘special measures’ ever again.

I agree. There does seem to be a race to the bottom motto coming from Labours policies in general

Exactly. It’s not dds fault that we had to move here, due to shitty circumstances. Why should she have to be held back by other children?

And like I said, grammar schools aren’t the issue here. There is one in the town 25 mins away, 6 or so scattered about the nearest city 35 mins away. Some are up to an hour away (but kids do travel more than an hour for a grammar), so they aren’t bringing down the schools where I am at all.

The local primary is a fantastic school if you want it to be. The secondary schools don’t have such good reputations, but it’s harder for the schools as children get older. But I do know children who go to them who thrive due to their parents and home lives.

Although some kids have been moved to private when all else fails. They’ve done well.

Im guessing this is what this news article is all about.

Well, the news article is about giving priority to a certain group of society to state service which is funded by all taxpayers.

Which means discrimination of other groups (non working class) who are put at the end of the queue.

I'm not even sure if it's legal.

ETA: I understand this approach when it's about SEN or foster care, these are tragic individual circumstances, but here we're talking about entire class background. I hope some clever lawyers can sort this out.

On the flip side parents need to remember that some of the nicest and most grateful children go to school in not so ‘nice’ areas with less than good reputations. It is a myth that these schools will drag your child down. Some of the worse entitled behaviour and bullying actually comes from pupils in ‘outstanding’ and private schools. I work in education and see this first hand.

A fairer way would actually be a lottery system for schools within the same town.

And the single best thing Labour could introduce, is for schools to expel children quicker and sooner for bad behaviour and no recourse to attend another school. It is troublesome children that take up too much of teachers time and cause stress for everyone around them. They should not be entertained on school premises. Somewhere else but not school.

Maybe not “drag down” behaviour wise, but certainly academically.

I have a few local friends whose children go to the closest secondary school. They have outside tutoring as so much of the teaching time is taken up with difficult behaviour and disruption that sometimes, not a lot of teaching goes on. The poor teachers are so busy fire fighting. My friends children are doing really well, but they do a hell of a lot of home with them and invest in pretty intensive tutoring to make up for the lack of teaching in class.

Again, not the fault of the school or the teachers, they are doing their best.

I read something about Starmer revising the Equalities Act

Although someone upthread noted this would be acceptable to the current version anyway. ?

It would be much better to scrap faith schools, since it is middle classes that play the system and travel to further away faith schools regardless of their religious belief.

👀

Levelling up is just ideology, doesn't happen in practice, even if you are able to level school environment that is only a number of hours per day, some children will still be disadvantaged outside.

With their revent policies on private schools they will just reduce the number of places available in the state system.

I doubt the Government can afford that

All children have a right to an education
What do you propose for expelled children given that you say

they should have ‘no recourse to attend another school’ …. How do they get an education then

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander comes to mind.

People thought it was very unfair for other people to send their children to private schools and were quite smug when the new VAT laws were introduced. There are threads and threads on MN from posters who rejoiced that some private school kids now had to go to the state schools.
Everyone is aware that the schools with better results attract parents who are more invested in their children's education, driving house prices in the catchment up.

Just as posters were happy that privately educated kids would be 'level' with state kids, I am just as happy that lower income kids will have access to the 'better' schools.

It will create the much desired education 'level' playing field.

Totally agree with this

I can see what Labour’s trying to do here — address inequality and give kids from disadvantaged backgrounds better access to good schools — but this “priority for working-class background” idea feels like a blunt instrument that’s going to create more problems than it solves.

First, “socio-economic background” is a notoriously tricky thing to define and measure. Is it purely income? Parents’ jobs? Housing status? Generational education levels? You’d need a whole new bureaucracy to police it — and parents will game the system. (Let’s not pretend they won’t; if there’s a loophole, someone will find it faster than you can say “catchment area.”)

Second, this risks punishing families who’ve scrimped and saved to live near a decent school. Plenty of people in so-called “middle-class” postcodes are stretching every penny to pay the rent or mortgage just to stay in catchment. Telling them their child could lose out to someone from further away because of a tick-box “background” assessment is going to create resentment, not fairness.

Third, the root problem is school quality, not just admissions. If every school were genuinely good, parents wouldn’t be fighting like gladiators for a handful of spots at the “best” ones. Change the funding, resources, and leadership across the board, and the postcode lottery becomes irrelevant.

This kind of policy sounds nice in theory, but in practice it’s divisive and fiddly — and it risks pitting working-class and lower-middle-class families against each other, instead of tackling the structural issues that fail kids in the first place.

Someone has to bear the cost of school transport for middle-class children who live just two miles from a decent school but lost their spot due to their social background. Now they have to attend a poorer school farther away if no place becomes available, not to mention the extra hassle of waking up earlier, eating breakfast earlier, and getting ready earlier.

They’ll probably means test school transport aswell

Losing places to kids living further away already happens in some areas.

The hypocrisy on this thread is amusing

Posters should go back to the GLEE about VAT on private schools and how unfair it was that some kids had better access than others to certain schools.

Now the tables have turned as was always going to happen.

I am very very pleased all the posters on those threads are going to get the level playing field they so desperately wanted.

I know it happens in some areas already — and I think that’s exactly why expanding it without addressing the knock-on effects is risky.
It’s one thing when distance is the deciding factor, because it’s at least a transparent and easily understood rule. But once you start adding “background” into the mix, you’re asking families to accept losing a local place based on a subjective definition that isn’t even consistent nationally.
And yes, means-testing transport might soften the blow for some, but it still doesn’t solve the bigger issue: a child spending an extra hour a day travelling, missing sleep, or losing time for homework and extracurriculars just because their parents don’t tick the right box. That’s a real, practical impact on a kid’s life — and no amount of policy theory changes the fact it’s them who carry the cost day-to-day.

Second, this risks punishing families who’ve scrimped and saved to live near a decent school. Plenty of people in so-called “middle-class” postcodes are stretching every penny to pay the rent or mortgage just to stay in catchment. Telling them their child could lose out to someone from further away because of a tick-box “background” assessment is going to create resentment, not fairness

The parents who prioritied paying for their kid's education over everything else felt similarly but the glee when VAT was introduced was nauseating. I am very pleased that the same posters will get the same 'punishment' as you call it.

The kids whose parents can no longer afford fee paying schools will potentially be missing out on the better state schools as well now. Wow. I don't believe it will happen actually. It would be political suicide. And SO bad for the planet if everyone ends up not being able to just walk to their local school. Imagine how clogged the roads will be!

Testing kids at 11 and telling some they’re not good enough for the local school isn’t right either. In fact I think it’s worse. It personally makes a kid think they are stupid whilst they sit on that bus being bused out….and yet people seem to be happy with that system

All schools need improving and this policy is simply avoiding the very real problem with our schools

The parents of the fee paying schools won't see it as an issue really. They've already had to move schools.
Oh and just in case you don't remember, the 'political suicide' line was trotted out prior to January too.

I genuinely think its a great idea to mix the kids up. It will go a long way towards levelling out state schools. I'm all for it.