On 5th December, BHCC Cabinet were convened in order to vote on the proposal to consult on their second revision of the changes to the Brighton and Hove schools admission arrangements.
You can find the meeting agenda here https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=11613&x=1&
We attended and gave the deputation below (this just means one person spoke on behalf of the group). It refers to analysis we had done using council data which showed outcomes that did not match their own minimal, inaccurate analysis.
It did not have any much effect – the cabinet is really a formality and the decision was made long before the meeting (the Labour group are very whipped it seems). Nonetheless, we made our case and it allowed us to look some of the councillors in the eye as they agreed to consult on some very poorly designed changes!
But you will note the slight amendment in the decision – this was a hasty fudge the council made the day of the meeting when our analysis showed that following the priorities as stated would lead to over 200 children being forced out of their catchments to travel to distant schools (in many cases their 10th nearest school). As of yet, no revised set of proposals has materialised and we do not have a response to our analysis.
If you’re very patient, you can watch it here (we’re 16 mins in, the man in the white t-shirt and glasses).
PSG deputation for Cabinet on 5th December
Following the engagement exercise, the Council’s analysis identified parents’ fears about increased distances to school under the Council’s earlier options. Councillor Taylor said in the previous Cabinet meeting that these concerns had been ‘heard loud and clear’. The summary also highlighted anxieties about proposals that divide communities in different areas including Fiveways, Whitehawk, Prestonville, the Friars/Surrenden area and Port Hall.
However, the Council’s response is a proposal that again increases travel distances and divides communities by forcing over 200 randomly selected children to travel long distances across the city instead of attending a local school.
Against its own expert advice, the Council proposes to layer compounding changes one on top of the other: the new FSM policy with an increased quota, changes to the catchment area for Stringer and Varndean, the open admission priority and a PAN reduction for Dorothy Stringer. The combined effect, based on the Council’s own data, would be that at least 144 children within the catchment area would not get a place at either school, not 125 as the Council states in its documents. We seem to be back to a more extreme version of Option B, which was roundly rejected during the engagement.
But our analysis suggests a worse reality: that only one in four children who live within the catchment, if they are a first born child and not eligible for free school meals, would be able to get a place at Stringer or Varndean,. We think they would have less chance of securing a place at a community school than a child living outside the catchment area applying under the open application priority. Last year, all of these children could have been admitted to their local school.
It then gets even more complex. A child in the Stringer/Varndean catchment who doesn’t get into either of those schools would not be eligible to enter the open application for other schools. As the Council concentrates surplus spaces in schools on the edge of the city, it is likely that these children would have to travel a long way to receive their education, much like the opposed Option B. The Council says this is because they have a choice of two catchment area schools, but this is clearly not ‘choice’ when they have such a low chance of getting a place.
The same issue would arise for students in the Hove Park/Blatchington Mill catchment area where the Council’s own figures suggest 57 children would be forced outside their own catchment. They would then be given the lowest priority for schools in other catchment areas because they had a ‘choice’ of schools not to get into.
Furthermore, these issues would also apply to the East of the city. By virtue of being moved into the Stringer/Varndean catchment area, a child living in Whitehawk who is not eligible for free school meals would end up with a lower chance of getting a place at one of those schools than if Whitehawk stayed in the Longhill catchment area. Whitehawk residents are again being told that they will have a better school, but the errors of implementation will mean that many of them, including those living on the edge of poverty, will never see the benefit.
The Council’s summary of the engagement exercise highlights that ‘there were strong objections to reducing the size of well-performing schools’. Published admission numbers (PANs) should align with where children live and reflect demand in different parts of the city.
During the engagement exercise, the Council provided assurance that PANs are calculated with a view to providing adequate places to accommodate children within their own catchment areas. The Council gave a similar assurance when it introduced its FSM policy for 2025. It said that the policy was unlikely to affect the chances of pupils within a catchment area obtaining a place at their catchment area school due to falling student numbers. We ask the Council to honour those assurances.
The Council has again ignored the academic evidence in developing its proposals. Prof Gorard, Dr Greaves and the Sutton Trust do not provide evidence to support requiring children to travel long distances away from their local schools. Dr Greaves is clear that admissions changes should enable children to attend another school nearby rather than to be sent to the schools that are furthest from where they live. She also highlighted the importance of monitoring the effects of the new FSM priority before considering alternatives. People have repeatedly commented on the way the Council is misusing expert evidence, and misrepresenting views from the engagement exercise, and yet it continues to do so.
According to these proposals, one child can make a choice to commit to a tolerable journey to an out of catchment school, and in doing so nominates a randomly selected child to lose their choice, and be forced to take an intolerable journey.
The complexities of ordering and layering school admissions priorities have not been properly considered and we’re now told are to be changed during the consultation! This makes it extremely difficult for a parent to have much idea of which school their child will end up at, creating unnecessary anxiety at what can already be a difficult transition point for children and their families. Can any of you here explain simply to a family how this affects them?
We oppose these rushed proposals. We do not believe it is useful to hold a consultation on the same issues that have been rejected in Option B. We do not believe it is in the interests of the city to debate ideas that deliberately target children in particular catchment areas. We ask the Council to pause and to treat the city’s school system with the care it deserves.