Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Labour reviewing school admission criteria

711 replies

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 10:16

"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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Original poster
JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:14

roses2 · 09/08/2025 11:12

Surely they could resolve this by lottery based application eg places allocated randomly within x miles of the school.

I hope as feck any policy doesnt supercede sibling priority. I've got 2 years until my youngest joins his brother!

In Brighton, siblings still have priority over FSM applicants.

OP posts:
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?

SwayingInTime · 09/08/2025 11:17

It seems like an attempt at a cheap (free?) way to raise standards that could surely be achieved by increasing the payment to the school for each FSM child? Or payments based on postcode?

Also a PP mentioned it being hard to get on FSM now - this is true but I found out from a recent thread that once on FSM you don't get taken off them for much longer. Mine were on FSM while I did a degree but at soon as I got a job they were removed 6yrs later they were no attracting longer pupil premium funding. So I don't know if PP covers a much wider range of families now than it did/ could be a blunter tool for assessing deprivation?

Original poster
JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:17

roses2 · 09/08/2025 11:12

Surely they could resolve this by lottery based application eg places allocated randomly within x miles of the school.

I hope as feck any policy doesnt supercede sibling priority. I've got 2 years until my youngest joins his brother!

I'm completely against the lottery. It should not be a gamble.

OP posts:
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…

Original poster
JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:18

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?

And what is the average % of FSM in your borough in comparison to average FSM for your school?

OP posts:
Miriabelle · 09/08/2025 11:19

MargaretThursday · 09/08/2025 10:50

One problem is that the children who are on FSM will disproportionally find getting there an issue due to lack of transport/affordability.

So, for example one of our local schools (not one my dc went to) has 7% of pupils on FSM.
It's also a pain in the neck to get to on public transport, especially at school pick up time.
So they tell them to bring it up to 25% (national average).

I would suspect that the closest alternatives to them will also be below the average, so anyone using this to get a place will generally use the more convenient schools.

So you're looking at about 20-30 children coming from 2-3 miles away. The government may well need to fund their transport or they will find that those children disproportionally have more absences - which is something that's unavoidable. Having been in the position of not having a car, if you've got to walk 2 miles there and back then the threshold for being too ill is lower. You've also got the risk that if you send them in not totally well, then picking them up halfway is much harder.

But also throw it the other way. 20-30 children from out of area getting in, means 20-30 from that area not getting in. They won't get any bonus priority, so they're going to be getting into the places the other children are from. So 2-3 miles away. So that's another 15+ cars on the road (I'm assuming they'll all have transport) etc.

It doesn't make sense,

Much more sense would be to put money and effort into the schools that have larger amounts of FSM and bring standards up there.

Exactly - instead of doing this, it would be better to fund the schools better, not to pretend that somehow if you jiggle a few kids around that’s “levelling up”. Improving opportunities requires investment, social change, good teaching and opportunities in deprived areas. Not this.

Miriabelle · 09/08/2025 11:19

MargaretThursday · 09/08/2025 10:50

One problem is that the children who are on FSM will disproportionally find getting there an issue due to lack of transport/affordability.

So, for example one of our local schools (not one my dc went to) has 7% of pupils on FSM.
It's also a pain in the neck to get to on public transport, especially at school pick up time.
So they tell them to bring it up to 25% (national average).

I would suspect that the closest alternatives to them will also be below the average, so anyone using this to get a place will generally use the more convenient schools.

So you're looking at about 20-30 children coming from 2-3 miles away. The government may well need to fund their transport or they will find that those children disproportionally have more absences - which is something that's unavoidable. Having been in the position of not having a car, if you've got to walk 2 miles there and back then the threshold for being too ill is lower. You've also got the risk that if you send them in not totally well, then picking them up halfway is much harder.

But also throw it the other way. 20-30 children from out of area getting in, means 20-30 from that area not getting in. They won't get any bonus priority, so they're going to be getting into the places the other children are from. So 2-3 miles away. So that's another 15+ cars on the road (I'm assuming they'll all have transport) etc.

It doesn't make sense,

Much more sense would be to put money and effort into the schools that have larger amounts of FSM and bring standards up there.

Exactly - instead of doing this, it would be better to fund the schools better, not to pretend that somehow if you jiggle a few kids around that’s “levelling up”. Improving opportunities requires investment, social change, good teaching and opportunities in deprived areas. Not this.

Original poster
JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:21

SwayingInTime · 09/08/2025 11:17

It seems like an attempt at a cheap (free?) way to raise standards that could surely be achieved by increasing the payment to the school for each FSM child? Or payments based on postcode?

Also a PP mentioned it being hard to get on FSM now - this is true but I found out from a recent thread that once on FSM you don't get taken off them for much longer. Mine were on FSM while I did a degree but at soon as I got a job they were removed 6yrs later they were no attracting longer pupil premium funding. So I don't know if PP covers a much wider range of families now than it did/ could be a blunter tool for assessing deprivation?

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

OP posts:
Ladamesansmerci · 09/08/2025 11:21

It won't solve anything. All it will end up doing is moving problems around. The issue isn't what school a child goes to. It starts long before that. It's related to class, lack of social mobility, poor cultural capital, deprivation, etc. Bad schools are bad due to them being in deprived areas, where there are typically more behavioural problems, higher staff burnout, etc. You need to tackle the root cause, which is unfortunately very difficult.

Penguins3 · 09/08/2025 11:21

Kids should go to their local to make it easy for them to get there and create a sense of community. All schools should be providing an equally good education level.

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.

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.

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 11:26

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

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.

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:
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 11:33

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 11:34

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.

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.

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?

clamshell24 · 09/08/2025 11:39

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

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.

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.