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

I’m torn. We all know how much easier it is for people with money to rig the system, even outside private schools. Whether it’s by buying in the right catchment, tutoring, social capital, knowing where to look for all the right information. That said I think for the squeezed middle I am not sure it’s fair- the super rich will still be able to pay to go private, the very disadvantaged will get priority but where does this leave everyone else. I think the devil will be in the detail.

I think trying to increase equality of opportunities is a good thing. As would be stopping rich people buying all the houses around successful schools. But I'm not convinced Labour's idea will actually solve much and I can see many issues with it.

In an ideal world of course all schools would be great. I'd much rather see the government (any government) truly solving the staff retention problems, recruitment problems, stupid curriculum problems, unnecessarily overmanaged and draconian academies, and societal problems causing parents and teachers to often work against each other.

It doesn't actually cost money. Local libraries have many study books and will order in others on request for free.

An excellent tutor local to us offered free 11+ tutoring during school time in school as she couldn't earn money at that time, but school wasn't allowed to accept.

I think its more complex than saying 'parents don't care'. Many care very much - some of my daughters friends have excellent attendance, appear very well cared for, parents com to every parents evening etc. But the ambition isn't there - I overheard them talking about what they were going to do when older - the children with professional parents said things like 'teacher,doctor, wildlife photographer, singer on west end' the ones who had parents on lower incomes said 'carer, hairdresser, nail technician' - all valuable jobs but not really 'aspirational'

My parents were both very poor growing up and has very difficult childhoods, and were determined that we would have a different upbringing, we were not rich by any standards, but I had expectations placed on me that I would do well at school,go to uni, get a professional job. 'Failure' was not an option. But now people can have a reasonably comfortable secure life in a low wage job topped up with UC, secure council housing etc. And we never want to return to the days where children grew up as my Dad did, but doing that did instill a drive and determination in him.

I think this is true. It's not fair that poor children are unfairly disadvantaged, but I don't see it's fair either for a child luckily born to rich parents with a great school down the road gets sent to a failing school and has to travel miles for the "privilege" either.

We are fortunate to have three good schools within walking distance. Traffic in the area is terrible and if we had to send our child to the neighbouring town which has bad schools, we'd a) struggle to get there as it's 100% in the wrong direction for DH's work, there's little (and v slow) public transport and we only have one car. And b) I'd still try my best to find an alternative, by either borrowing money to afford private or moving somewhere else. I don't care if there are lots of poor people at a school but I do care if a school is failing.

Conversely, less bright children were written off at age 11. If they lived in poverty, that was it, wealthier kids who failed the 11+ still had the advantage of parents engaged in their education and were able to support them through their exams, and give them opportunities to get a decent job. My parents are the perfect example of it. My dad was from a very poor family. Although he passed the 11th+, his siblings didn’t, and his parents didn’t believe in education so he did 2 years at the secondary modern then was told he needed to leave school and work. It was only because when he reached 1k he wanted better for himself than being a farm labourer and joined the army.

That had a lot to do with my mum. She was from a middle class family, she failed the 11+ (despite having been at a private school) and left school with O Grades in Art and Home Economics. Her parents never let her settle for that and organised for her to take an exam in the civil service (where her aunt worked), she went on to work there until she had her kids and then returned to office work when we went to school. My Grandma and Granda (mum’s mum and dad) had many a chat with my dad, encouraging him to see past the barriers his own mum had set, and when he said he was going to join the army, my grandma was the one who helped him and supported him whereas Granny (dad’s mum) effectively turned her back on him and had a lifelong hatred of my mum because of it. Together they eventually built a successful life, far beyond anything my dad could have expected if he had continued working as a farm labourer.

Grammar schools were never the panacea they were sold as. They broadened the class divide and left millions of kids on the scrap heap based on one guy’s assertion that IQ was fixed by the age of 11.

Because it is difficult to make a school “good” when the majority of children aren’t engaged in education, and don’t have parents who engage either. It also becomes self selecting. The minute that a school begins a to improve, more people with more money flood the school and poorer kids are pushed out.

It isn’t “bleating on about fairness” it is about providing equity. The fact is the poverty gap in education is widening. Closing that won’t disadvantage wealthier kids, it will stop disadvantaging poorer kids who, by every metric, start 10 paces behind.

Agree. Its stupidity, it achieves nothing.

I fully agree, having moved into an area with the 11+ when my oldest was 3, secondaries weren't really something we were thinking about, and I didn't come from an area which did 11+ so I didn't know much about it, but I'm not convinced it's a great idea. However, being in an area with it, we will put aside our principles and pay for tutoring.

Longer term yes I agree they should gradually be phased out. But in the short term this tutor was offering support to level up and the school couldn't accept, which was really frustrating - I see some of my daughters friends as having the ability, but the thought of even trying to self study for it isn't within their parents thought processes. One of her friends is quite ambitious and asked me if they could join my daughter at tutoring. But I can't afford to pay for 2 spaces, paying for 1 will be a stretch but we will go without any holidays and extras next year to pay for it, which I appreciate still puts us in a privileged position. I spoke to her mum and offered to photocopy all the tutoring materials for her daughter - I understood that I might upset/offend her by offering but thought the benefit to her daughter worth more than an uncomfortable conversation, and her response was that she wanted her daughter to go to same comp as she did, but thanked me for the offer.

I disagree
All schools that are failing should have additional support
More teachers
Smaller classes
After and before school activities
More discipline

Basically Investment!!
Make all schools good and all kids happy with their education and environment

Put tax money in the places where it is more effective in the long term for the good of all

Solicitor here, have worked my arse off and continue to do so, pay huge amounts of tax (DH and I both top end tax bracket) but fuck it, seems it doesn't matter.

I mean, I guess if we could have some decent public transport to actually get to these schools - both for the published start/ finish tines, and taking into account extra curricula clubs starts and finishes, go for it.

A school round us has openly said they wouldn't be able to meet the government guidance of being open 32.5 hours a week, as the busses won't facilitate it, and it would leave kids waiting 1h 45 mins for the next bus.

Not going to the local school is very much a privilege of public transport availability, or a dense population making more than one school walkable.

Meanwhile in terms of diversifying an area so a mixed cohort attend local schools.
New housing estates need to be more equally mixed in terms of smaller and larger properties and social housing. More often than not developers pay off local councils to avoid the social housing % they are required to include. This must be stopped
Estates made up mainly of detached properties fuel the education problem.

Because it is difficult to make a school “good” when the majority of children aren’t engaged in education,

I totally agree. However, this suggested policy isn’t going to help those children whose parents aren’t engaged. Those parents won’t even bother applying to schools which perform better. Changing selection criteria won’t help if parents don’t apply in the first place.

In an ideal world, all children would start on an equal footing. In reality, this will never happen because children with interested and invested parents will always have an advantage.

Social engineering doesn’t ’level things up’. What does, though, is ensuring all children get equal access to good quality education wherever they may live by ensuring ALL schools provide such an education. Do away with faith schools. Do away with private schools. Build more decent schools. But sending less affluent children to schools in more affluent areas won’t make a blind bit of difference to most children. The rich kids will not associate with the poor ones - and vice versa, I know, because I’ve lived it and see it now. A few of my Y6 children attend a local private school on a scholarship, but they are never included in friendship groups of the wealthier children - all the scholarship kids stick together precisely because they’re not seen as equal.

Have to agree - we have apparently got 40% of children eligible for pupil premium in DS’s primary. It is outstanding (both Ofsted and also generally), and outcomes are way above national and borough average. Plus lots of enrichment opportunities for all of the children (music, sport, languages, etc). It can be done.

You’re not wrong. The biggest way that children achieve in educational terms is linked to parental engagement.

• A 2024 report from the Education Policy Institute compared white British pupils’ attainment against other ethnic groups across education, from early years foundation stage to 16-19 education. They found that by the end of secondary school, most ethnic groups achieved higher GCSE grades than white British pupils in 2023. All ethnic groups (except white and black Caribbean, and white Irish pupils) had bigger improvements in attainment between 2019 to 2023 compared to white British pupils. Chinese pupils’ attainment is 27 months ahead of white British pupils, 8 months ahead of Indian pupils (the next highest attaining group), and almost 5 years ahead of Gypsy Roma pupils (the lowest attaining group). Overall, the attainment of different ethnicities has converged slightly since 2019*

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/a-to-c-in-english-and-maths-gcse-attainment-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/ White working class boys are the lowest attainers in the UK.

If you’re putting in effort Labour will make sure it works against you.

You need to level down, there’s parents who care little. Depressing.

How does this make things better for everyone! Some kids will get to go to a “better school” and some kids will be shipped half way across a town for no reason

YABU.

I agree in principle, but it shouldn't be on income as other than the super rich, most people who earn well have worked immensely hard in their careers.

They need to address WHY some schools are far more popular than others, and look at making less popular schools more desirable.

The BIGGEST factor to how successful a child will be at school isn't actually the school they attend, but their own parents support and attitude.

Perhaps the government need to have more parent-focused targets to prioritise school places - parents that attend parents evening*, parents that make sure homework is done, parents that attend school events or support the school at various events, parents that read with their children etc... THIS is what is failing our children, not the school they attend.

*I appreciate some parents work evenings and cannot attend parents evenings, which sometimes I cannot do when I have a clash with work, but I still contact the teachers and ask for feedback or ask for them to call me to discuss.

It's a difficult balance. My girls go to a good village school which has a broad mix of wealthier families, and a significant number of children from a local housing estate and also a local permenant traveller site. Previously all got into the school. Then the council sold a plot of land to a local developer who built around 40 new homes, these were a mix of private and social housing, and mainly families with younger children. This was closer to the school and therefore some children on the housing estate didn't get a place unless had a sibling there already, which has meant the school has become less balanced socially rather than more. Families who had lived there for several generations could no longer get a place. But anyone who suggested this idea at the planning stage was labelled a 'Tory Nimby'. There is a need for more housing so it's a difficult balance.

But you are wrong in saying it wouldn't disadvantage better off children. Being able to attend the local primary, having local friends and being part of the local commuinity has been hugely beneficial emotionally for my oldest, who was really struggling in a big London school. She is happier, calmer, more confident and a consequence is doing better. The school itself is no better, on ofsted gradings it's actually worse, but the smaller calmer friendlier environment has made the difference.

Agree with this too - being eligible for pupil premium does not mean your parents aren’t interested in your education! Many are very keen on education as a route for their children out of poverty.

The ones with disengaged parents will just apply for the nearest school regardless, because the parents won’t want to schlep an extra ten minutes down the road (I have seen this happen firsthand).

Once again, politics of envy from Labour.

It definitely can. Pupil premium attracts an extra 1.5k per child on average, and used wisely, this money can definitely help close the gap.

It's not making things better for everyone.

It's trying to lower everyone down to the lowest to make us all supposedly equal.

And it's not me me me. My kids are grown up. I don't need a fucking school place, thank God.

Schools that are rated as 'requires improvement' do get extra funding and support to improve. However, when they do improve that funding and support is then removed and it can become harder to maintain improvements with less money and they fall into a cycle.