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
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.

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…

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Brickiscool · 09/08/2025 11:52

Does this mean if you are richer you will have to drive your child to school? If you say have bought a house in catchment for the walking one, but then aren't allowed to go there? And will.people.living further away from the school get priority due to their finances but obviously also then have to drive there?

It is wrong that more expensive houses are catchment for better schools, but I'm unsure this will solve it. It'll just mean less kids walking to school

DrPrunesqualer · 09/08/2025 11:54

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

Exactly
Everyone tries to do the best for their kids and this would be the best solution
Intelligent people will act accordingly

AhBiscuits · 09/08/2025 11:54

JustAlice · 09/08/2025 11:18

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

Show quote history

I don't know. I would say that the % of FSM at my school would be very low.

meganorks · 09/08/2025 11:55

If you mean for grammar schools, then I think it makes sense. I think most probably already do this. I know our local grammar take 25% FSM. Still have to pass the 11+. But the other 75% have to get above a certain, higher level and then goes on catchment.

For comps I'm not sure it makes sense. I think there is a real benefit to kids being local and able to get themselves to school and socialise with their friends more easily. I think the emphasis with education should be making sure schools have the funding and resources they need rather allowing some students to travel further to school.

realtimeintrusion · 09/08/2025 11:56

Reviewing and potential changing of the admissions criteria to try and supposedly improve outcomes for certain groups is like scraping the frosting off a mouldy cake and just redoing it. They need to look at the root cause of the issues. Improve all schools get them all up to certain standard rather than shuffling round who goes to the better ones, it’s should not be acceptable for any child from any background to go to a failing or poor quality school.

ducksfizz · 09/08/2025 11:56

Hate everything about this. Hate the VAT on private schools. Terrible ideas - both of them.

realtimeintrusion · 09/08/2025 11:57

Also it’s all very well giving a child on FSM a place at a really great school miles and miles away but what if they can’t afford the transport costs?

HonoriaBulstrode · 09/08/2025 11:57

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

How do you ensure that all these pupils will be able to get to their randomly allocated schools?

Ease of travel is surely one of the factors parents consider when choosing schools.

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.

It depended on the LA, I think. Where I grew up, the secondary moderns had a curriculum different from the grammar. A few pupils transferred to the grammar each year to do A Levels. (one boy, not in my year, starred in the school play and tried for Oxford during his time in the Sixth) The two tech schools - boys and girls - were very well regarded. And there was a Tech college for post 16 education. Some grammar pupils who didn't want to do A Levels transferred there.

dogcatkitten · 09/08/2025 11:57

So children in catchment will have to travel to schools outside catchment and visa versa adding time and expense for everyone. And of course siblings may have to go to schools miles away from each other, all very helpful for parents! Just make it so all schools are equally good, swap the teachers around if you think that would improve the quality of teaching, at least that would only affect a small number of families.

EasternStandard · 09/08/2025 11:58

DrPrunesqualer · 09/08/2025 11:51

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

Show quote history

Will it win votes? A lot of their base is parents who use good state schools.

Ladylay · 09/08/2025 11:58

MidnightPatrol · 09/08/2025 11:05

The new social contract for middle and higher earners: your tax will keep increasing but you will be both excluded from using public services, and taxed again if you opt to fund private provision.

Charging VAT on private school fees and then discriminating against middle class parents accessing state schools in the next breath…

I’m increasingly radicalised against all of our political parties, as they seem happy to use me as a cash machine but increasingly exclude me from the social benefits I’m funding.

This.

80smonster · 09/08/2025 11:58

Harris Academies already do this. Seems fair enough to me, if private school parents have to pay the VAT, seems totally fair you can’t play the admissions system based on distance, i.e buying a house near a good school. Some could say that was buying privilege, tut tut.

Combinatorix · 09/08/2025 12:00

Schools need to be accountable for admissions statistics - eg if your local area has 25% of pupils eligible for fsm and your school has 5% then you need to be answerable for that and downgraded if appropriate

DrPrunesqualer · 09/08/2025 12:00

Brickiscool · 09/08/2025 11:52

Does this mean if you are richer you will have to drive your child to school? If you say have bought a house in catchment for the walking one, but then aren't allowed to go there? And will.people.living further away from the school get priority due to their finances but obviously also then have to drive there?

It is wrong that more expensive houses are catchment for better schools, but I'm unsure this will solve it. It'll just mean less kids walking to school

Further away , usually us 3miles, means free transport to school. Local councils have already sited the huge expense in this area. No idea how Labour expect to fund that.

Middle class parents will either have to pay ( I’m sure free transport will be means tested- this is Labour after all )
or
Parents will have to drive. Meaning middle earners will struggle to keep a standard full time job. It’s difficult to get you kids to school and get to work on time and then have to leave to pick them up at 3pm. In our area some schools finish at 2pm

Labours fallout……pathetic ill thought out policy