The House of Lords is gearing up for a showdown with MPs over academy admissions and school phone bans, after peers passed a slew of Conservative amendments to the government鈥檚 landmark schools bill. The children鈥檚 wellbeing and schools bill, which proposes sweeping reforms to academies, children鈥檚 social care, home education and Ofsted powers, passed in the House of Commons with ease last year. But Keir Starmer鈥檚 party lacks a majority in the Lords. Conservative peers have seized the opportunity to water down some areas and strengthen others. Any peers鈥 amendments passed in the current 鈥榬eport鈥 stage then return to the Commons, in a process known as 鈥減ing pong鈥. The two chambers will pass the bill back and forth until agreement is reached. Labour鈥檚 Commons majority means most opposition amendments will ultimately fall, however. The Conservative amendments come as David Cameron, who oversaw many of the Tories鈥 flagship school reforms as prime minister, the 鈥渢otally destructive attitude of Keir Starmer鈥檚 government to the education reforms that Tony Blair started and under which I put rocket boosters鈥. Cameron warned the unamended bill would place 鈥渕uch of the remarkable progress we made in peril without any evidence that the changes will improve a single school鈥. 鈥淭hey are undoing the freedoms that made academies and free schools great, bowing to the union demands I helped Tony Blair fight all those years ago.鈥 Beefed-up schools adjudicator riles Lords The original bill proposed to not only align rules between academies and council-maintained schools, but also let the schools adjudicator set published admission numbers (PAN) for all schools. They would have powers to reduce any school鈥檚 PAN, including academies – for instance if a council objects to an academy keeping numbers fixed or expanding while rolls fall elsewhere. Many government critics fear this would stop stronger schools expanding. The Lords this week passed an amendment blocking adjudicator intervention if the school 鈥渋s not operating at or above鈥 its PAN, and has been judged as high-quality by Ofsted. The adjudicator would also have to consider 鈥渢he desirability of giving effect to parental preferences鈥 and avoid measures that 鈥渦nduly restrict access to schools that are providing high-quality education or that are in strong demand鈥. Diana Barran, shadow education minister in the Lords, acknowledged this week a 鈥減ractical problem in some areas of falling pupil numbers鈥. 鈥淏ut the way to sort this out is not by requiring the most popular, highest-performing schools in an area to cut their PAN. It pays no regard to the interests of children nor to the rights of parents to choose a high-performing school.鈥 Skills minister Jacqui Smith told the Lords school quality 鈥渨ill always remain a central consideration, while allowing for flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances鈥. But Labour was defeated, and the amendment passed. Peers back ban on phones and cap on uniform costs Fresh from voting for a ban on social media for under-16s last week, the Lords also passed an amendment this week that would force schools to ban phones during the day. The government has resisted a statutory ban, but many Labour MPs support one. Ministers may therefore struggle when the amendment reaches the Commons. It comes after peers also passed a Liberal Democrat amendment last week that would change a proposed cap on the number of branded uniform schools can require. It backed a cap on uniform costs instead, passing with Tory support. Home education Meanwhile Labour faces further battles over the bill鈥檚 reforms to home education. One would require families of children currently subject to a protection plan or enquiry to seek council permission to educate at home. The Lords voted last week to extend the clause to all children ever been subject to enquiries or on the child protection register previously. But Smith said it would be 鈥渄isproportionate in its impact鈥, drawing many people within scope. 鈥淒o we really want to treat disabled children differently simply because their parents have asked voluntarily for some help, or because they were in care before adoption? 鈥淚 know of cases where children were taken into care at the request of the wife during proceedings against an abusive husband.鈥 ‘Restore some common sense’ Laura Trott, shadow education secretary, told Schools Week the Conservatives鈥 upper-house victories would 鈥渞estore some common sense鈥. 鈥淎s the bill returns to the Commons, there is still time to reverse some of the damage that will be caused. 鈥淟abour should put ideology aside and back measures that protect children, support families and uphold standards, because the cost of getting this wrong will be felt by the most disadvantaged.鈥