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

Politics of envy shouldn’t be directed at school children yet again. Another ill thought through ‘quick fix’ to a huge societal problem that creates its own layer of problems. You can move children out of area, resulting in more traffic and tired children now joining the commuting masses both ways but it won’t fix the problem. Many parents from all walks of life and socio economic groups support and help their offspring, others don’t and can’t be bothered to ensure their children even attend, so how will making the journey longer help?
Yes, children can be punished for the audacity of their working and tax paying parents having probably huge mortgages on houses in the right catchments but are they guilty of anything other than hard work and aspirations for their children? Yes, of course there are many hard working parents on low wages too, I absolutely know this.
This is not meant in a controversial way when I say it absolutely is not the job of middle class parents and their offspring to ‘bring up’ school standards out of their expected catchment and it is ludicrous to suggest so.
Posters mention access to the best teachers in the better schools yet there is always outrage when it is suggested not all teachers are up to the same standards so which is true?
This is all about moving children around instead of admitting to and tackling some of the fundamental huge issues of poverty, generations of families disengaged with education and even their own children, lack of discipline, increased drug and alcohol use, non English speakers, huge amounts of SEN, a disillusionment with future opportunities to name but a few.
When schools are working don’t mess with them but start tackling the issues at the others.
The irony is that if parents are forced to have their children educated in lower standard schools they will then be able to use that to help gain scholarships to Private schools and eventually University. All with the help of tutors if necessary.

God, this is complex. I think there is a lot to say for it, and I'm a relatively affluent person who would never vote Labour. I think there could be a lot of unintended consequences, and I hope they properly engage in any consultation. More kids travelling further will mean more cars and congestion, and a lottery will mean kids going to schools that are less suitable for them. I do think if the children of wealthier parents are better spread, there will be more skin in the game to demand they improve, and non-government resources will be directed at them, be that PTA but also spread the culture of kids with support from home into the classrooms. Still hope mine get sorted before this happens, ideally they continue to focus on raising standards and the falling birth rates may give some opportunities to close the worst schools.

I know that a lot of people think the way many o this thread do. Basically “I’m all right, Jack and devil take the hindmost.” It’s so exhausting and depressing and I wish they didn’t. You would think unenlightened self interest would make them want as well educated and engaged a population as possible.

It really is complex.

I live in such a weird area. It is a deprived town in the midlands, yet house prices have raised a lot. In the tiny area around our school we have two, huge, huge council estates (they are absolutely notorious though, you say you live near them and people wince), yet some houses that are £600-700k

None of the schools in the town are brilliant. They all have the same mix and all have issues. So we do have some families who really care and want things to improve, but not enough.

Our school has no PTA, no school events at all as they know parents will just fight. I’ve never experienced a school that has no Christmas/summer fairs, no school performances, no movie nights, no bake sales etc. it’s so sad, but I understand why they can’t do it.

My house is now worth £325k. We couldn’t actually afford to buy our own house if we were to have moved here now, prices have gone up so much in the past 5 years, but crime has gone up massively too.

I don’t understand my area at all.

These threads often reinforce why we spend my whole income on private school.

I really wish you were right @ACynicalDad but can you imagine the furore and attitude of SLTs if the new ‘posh’ families demand they improve. How can they anyway? Can’t change the teachers, can’t get more money, can’t make the other pupils attend more or be less disruptive IF these are the issues. Having been on a PTA, albeit non UK, there are only so many ways of engaging and making change happen, it’s not at the fundamental level in my experience.
It’s actually more likely these parents will be too afraid to complain and thus make things even worse for their children. They will put their heads right down and engage with tutors, tutors, tutors to make up the shortcomings. Their children will have a real opportunity to gain top school grades and awards ready for further education.

Speaking for myself alone, I don’t think that. At all.

What I do think is that changes to admissions policies is pointless and likely to be harmful to the better schools that supporters of the policy want shared around.

It wouldn’t happen anyway, because the middle class left would kick up a fuss. If your expressed values are to oppose fees and selection there’s no other way to seek advantage except through catchment chasing.

‘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.’

thats not exactly what’s happening in Brighton, it’s a small % and was prompted by the fact that in the city most areas had a choice of 2/3 secondary schools but in the East area - the ‘poorer’ area - parents only had a choice of 1 secondary school, neither particular good at the moment though improving.

Policy might be difficult to implement. I read somewhere that definition of lower socio economic group is based on what job your parents did when kid was X age. The list of jobs not considered to be lower socio economic group were very wide ranging and would include people not on huge income. Then you have to ask - will they seek proof that parent did X job. What if they identify as lower socio economic group but their job according to the policy suggests otherwise.

I do think kids from lower socio economic groups are disadvantaged but identifying who is in that group is difficult.

You won’t solve shit parenting in schools.

Wild suggestion: Maybe try to improve all schools rather than create a logistic chaos to all parents?

Sounds ridiculous to me.

This is classic talentless policy - it sounds good, but it’s likely to have a net negative effect on outcomes, as the kids that were doing well will do less well, and the kids that have no to little parental support will perhaps do a bit better but without serious investment in schools, not better enough to offset.

i suppose it’ll depend to some extent on the detail but i’m so glad mine are not going to be impacted by this…

I can only really comment on church schools and grammar schools, because those are the types my DC attended. Firstly, for the church schools, I think they should allow in more children who are not of the faith. However, those people cannot then complain that the school prays, does religious assemblies, goes to church regularly or that they have to take RS for GCSE. So the deal is you get to go, but you must attend the compulsory religious education. If anything, that should help the churches anyway, as they are meant to be recruiting more believers.
Secondly, as regards grammar schools, yes they should take their fair share of PP too and figure out what lower score is appropriate there. The score cannot be so low that the kids cannot then comfortably keep up. Grammar schools tend to have less funding due to the advantaged cohort, the pace is fast, there is an expectation that the parents support, right from the start.

My youngest is joining a superselective boys grammar in September. He is not even at the school. There have been numerous transition events and detailed Year 7 guides already. There is homework set over the summer, hours of it. There are several very busy parent WhatsApp groups discussing which calculator to get that is GCSE compliant (and these kids have not even started Year 7). Top grades never come without effort on the part of the students, the teachers, the school and the parents. Nobody has ever “bought” grades, it is down to effort. Similarly, the kids joining the grammar have been read to since infancy and encouraged educationally from the get go. I doubt any of these kids have ever spent a summer not reading a lot of books, or at least doing some basic maths. They have been doing this from Reception, sometimes even earlier. A lot of them are entering Year 7 at Year 8/9 level in Maths and English.

But the problem with lowering the standard for PP children is that they will always be behind.

You have just said yourself how much additional work does in to these children, from infancy. How will a child who has not had those advantages be able to keep up.

If they are bright enough, they will pass the entrance exam. If they are not, they wouldn't thrive anyway.

Working class does not mean shit parenting

My kids go to a church school. I actively didn't want that. It was put quite low on our schools list when we applied. But it doesn't have selection based on faith and is just in the same algorithm run by the council. It annoys me that we have all the religious stuff. They have daily "worship" and we are an atheist household. But it's that school we were allocated, so what can you do?
I do think it's unfair if I'm honest.

Fair enough @Wonderwendy - but I guess some would argue you should not have put a religious school on your list at all. Although I do agree it is unfair if you did not actively choose it, and there are no alternatives locally.

I am just bringing up the church and grammar schools question, because you cannot have a situation where all LA controlled schools are directed to take higher numbers of FSM/SEND whilst not also directing the church schools and grammars similarly.
I do not agree that all kids suitable for grammar have to pass the test in exam conditions. I think FSM pupils could be directed there by schools and have different forms of assessment. Sure it would seem unfair to some, but I think that would be the only way to do it fairly. Or insists they are given opportunities and vouchers for free mock tests by private providers. Atom Learning already provides free online access for disadvantaged pupils and if there were more of this and widely advertised, that may be a way of addressing the matter.

I’ve just had a look at the stats for the grammar dd is going to in sept.

It has an outreach program for children on FSM schools local to it (these schools aren’t in the area I live in, we are 25 mins away).

They target children from year 4 and 5, who are in receipt of FSM via workshops at the school in core subjects. They also offer those children free 11+ practice sessions and practice books to take home. SLT attend the parents evenings at those schools with a highest level of FSM to give parents information and help on applying for the 11+ exam and information on free uniform, travel and music lessons for FSM children.

It states: “(school) will develop parental interest and aspiration, by targeting them through their children. Pupils attending outreach and partnership events at (school) will be given a personal invitation for their parents to invite them back to tour the school and speak with teachers and students. This will be for all children attending the targeted events and familiarisation sessions.”

I’m sure other grammars do the same (although that is the only grammar in the area, the others are around an hour from that school in opposite directions).

What an awful and snobbish post.

It's an excellent example and very true about grammars and selective indys.

So what do you want to do? reduce standards and entry criteria so these deprived kids can be accepted but at expense of Araminta's kids quality of education? so they should end up with less than they could for the sake of social mobility? even though some of these kids will become national treasure in science, arts and business?

I think the problem is that leaving social mobility to Sixth Form or university is far too late. And often things go wrong for children from deprived backgrounds when they hit secondary school level (prime disaster time is Year 8/9/10) so it is the right time to intervene. The question is how to make the most difference without causing harm to others.
I have seen our state primary work wonders with children from poor backgrounds for it all to fall apart when they end up in the “wrong” secondary schools.
It is challenging enough to get through the early secondary years for those of us with means and good schools and hold down a job/deal with peri and all of the stresses life throws at us. I think for kids from chaotic backgrounds sent into disruptive schools - it is really very difficult for them to keep focussed, even if they are bright. Alternative would be gifted and talented pathways in those schools attracting lots of funding and extra opportunities at other local schools, free trips, academic extension, early input from universities and careers.

The growing British underclass is everyone’s problem ultimately. Everyone ends up paying one way or another. And one can want it addressed, even for selfish reasons. I do not think we are talking honest hardworking working class here. We are talking generational trauma towards education and lack of aspiration and children really quite severely held back from opportunities.

This is ridiculous. I live in Lincolnshire, quite rurally (no in sticks but not a big town). Transport round here anyway is few and far between. This may work down south where transport links are great, but not round lincs or Yorkshire. For a start council's have lowered their net for council bus transport to a 20 mile radius of a school (which has meant even existing students now are having to find new ways to get to school) If they are now gonna be offered schools even further away they parents will either have to magically find car sharing (which is good if you are close to other parents already) or sacrifice working hours to ferry kids to school. This seems like socio-economic suicide for those currently working and especially those who can't drive for medical or financial reasons. Also, what would be the point in buying houses near schools to get in, therefore house prices will be affected in those closer to great schools. Yet again they've thought of a plan that works in big cities but not anywhere else.

I think the problem is that too many people don’t care about social mobility. You can tell because they think grammar schools provide it. Actually, they know they don’t, but pretend they do because they think it makes them look caring.