Parents have started a petition to end what they have described as a “flawed” consultation.
The petition, headed “Flawed and rushed consultation on school boundaries for Brighton and Hove”, was submitted on Sunday 6 October.
It went live on Brighton and Hove City Council’s website a few days later and promptly attracted almost 300 signatures.
Parents have spoken out after the council started a “public engagement” exercise looking at what can be done to keep secondary schools viable as pupil numbers fall across Brighton and Hove. Solutions include smaller intakes and redrawn catchments.
One parent, Paul Herbertson, of Friar Crescent, Brighton, set up the petition after speaking with his neighbours.
The petition said: “A poorly publicised, rushed and flawed consultation has already seen many questions raised about the process including but not limited to
- limited data available on the proposed schemes impacts. That which is available not presented in an accessible way.
- limited time and opportunity for feedback from the key community the council should be seeking feedback from (parents) with meetings at times when parents are putting kids to bed, etc) and with limited warning to plan for this.
- a leading and flawed questionnaire that forces people to answer yes or no to complex questions.
“The proposals have far-reaching implications and although the objectives of reducing inequality are welcomed, the process by which this has been managed so far is not adequate for a meaningful consultation.”
Mr Herbertson said that his neighbours shared his concerns that among the proposals were three potential changes to catchment areas. Two of these would remove streets immediately next to Varndean High School from its catchment area.
All three options removed the neighbourhood from Dorothy Stringer’s catchment.
The council has proposed cutting 345 places in year 7 classrooms – from 2,560 to 2,215 – by September 2030.
The proposal involves cutting 90 places a year from the annual intake at both Blatchington Mill and Longhill, 60 places at both Dorothy Stringer and Varndean and 45 places at Patcham High.
Mr Herbertson, 45, said: “The engagement has basically forced people to choose an option without providing them with the information needed to make that decision. There needs to be meaningful consultation.
“They’re shipping kids across an already congested city at rush hour where we already know the bus service is failing them.”
His six-year-old currently attends a nearby primary school to be “be part of the community” because during his early years he missed out on socialising with children of his own age because of covid-19 pandemic restrictions.
One of the petition’s supporters is Rob Lloyd who moved to Friar Road earlier this year to be closer to his preferred secondary schools.
He has two children at primary school and can see Varndean from his bedroom window.
Mr Lloyd, 45, said: “Geography tells you we should be able to send our kids to that school. None of them need to use public transport, so there’s zero carbon footprint. Why destroy that?”
When secondary schools are oversubscribed, the council allocates places using a number of criteria before, ultimately, relying on a lottery system.
In recent years, with a “bulge” caused by high birth rates passing through the schools, some youngsters have had to travel to schools more than an hour away from their homes.
Mr Lloyd said that it was “bonkers” to potentially send his children to a school miles away rather than at the bottom of their garden.
The council’s proposed shake-up is also intended to address the “attainment gap” between disadvantaged children and those not eligible for free school meals.
Mr Lloyd said: “The focus should be on improving schools in areas where they aren’t performing well. Every child has the right to attend a local school embedded in their community.”
The deputy leader of the council, Jacob Taylor, said that any potential changes to catchment areas would need to go before the full council by the end of February, after a formal six-week consultation.
He has assured parents that “sibling links” would be retained, making it more likely that youngsters can go to a secondary school if they have an older brother or sister there.
Councillor Taylor acknowledged the concerns of Friar Road parents but defended the plans, saying: “Wherever you draw catchment areas, there will always be parents on either side of those lines who may be upset or confused. It’s a difficult issue.
“I completely understand why parents would want to share their views on this. For many people, their nearest school will seem like the best option and, often, it will be. We also have to consider the transport factor.
“What we haven’t proposed this time, which has been considered by previous councils, is removing catchments altogether or introducing city-wide catchments. That would probably be too complicated in terms of transport routes.”
No changes have been proposed for four schools which are academies, free schools, or faith schools because they set their own admission numbers.
More than 1,500 people have responded since the “public engagement” went live on the Your Voice section of the council’s website.
If the council are doing this consultation for equality reasons, and they say journey time to school is not the key driver behind the changes they are making, why is Hove not included in the consultation.
If I were being cynical, why are the council leaving out a part of the city with some of the most affluent households, where the leader of the council’s own ward is. Hove Park and Blatchington Mill are only about another mile further away from Longhill than Dorothy Stringer and Varndean. I just can’t fathom why they are not being included in the consultation if equality and equal access to decent education is what the council is trying to achieve.
Flawed consultation BHCC – surely not ! They are so open and transparent and don’t bring their own agendas in their tireless quest for public service ?
That’s a bit of a flawed argument, because it’s standard for a city to have an overall strategy, and therefore an *agenda*.
Why does the overall “strategy” in this case not include Hove. It’s OK to bus children 5 miles from Stringer to Longhill, but not a mile further from Hove.
I think there’s an underlying point about addressing inequality in schools, but why exclude the most affluent area of the city – it does start to make it look like a political decision rather than a “strategy”.
It’s a fair point, my answer to that would be that East Brighton has far deeper underlying deprivation, therefore needs specific and prioritised addressing, first at least.
I know the rationale is about addressing deprivation in East Brighton schools, the point is, why is it only schools Varndean / Stringer and Patcham High (where there’s an assumption or evidence there’s less deprivation) that are being asked to redress the balance and even out the inequalities in the city’s schoold. Why not Hove.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the first comment – it’s not OK to expect just a section of the city to balance out inequalities felt by another section of the city. If unequal educational outcomes is the reason for the consultation, it is a city wide issue, and it needs a city wide solution – not a solution impacting on one pocket of the city – and ignoring others.
The risk you might have with generalising it to a citywide issue, and more broadly on challenges in the city in general, are that there are extremely varied demographics across different parts of the city, and what might be a good change in one part, potentially is a bad one in another. Because of this, limiting the scope of a change can be quite logical.
I’m speaking quite broadly, and I’m not as well versed in the educational challenges compared to some topics; we have some really invested commenters on here who might be able to provide more specific insights.
Because there’s already more then one choice of school for Hove families. East Brighton has struggled with single choice school options for long time.
Cutting the Intake at Longhill?
They hardly have many Children per Year as it is-about 180
There intake already is a lot Lower than Dorothy Stringer & Varndean.
But it all seems rushed doesn’t it-if Mr Henderson Child gets a School further than his own back Garden then who would pay there Bus Fare, as I wouldn’t as they can walk.
got to cut off the catchment boundaries somewhere. always going to be someone unhappy where ever it falls.
Agreed. Same with any non-tapered threshold.
I think that the crux of the matter is whether we agree it’s right to potentially remove a well-behaved, higher-performing child from their local social group and impose increased travel time of up to an hour each way, in the name of reducing the “attainment gap”.
I’m inclined to agree with other posters here that the council should be focusing on alternative methods to improve standards in under-performing schools.
I think that’s a slight misrepresentation, but I agree that perhaps a more sustained solution is not simply mix the weak elements to average out, but support the schools and families that are underachieving to do better.
Otherwise, are we simply just displacing the problem of children underperforming?
It has been proven over and over that streamed ability teaching gets better results. Why should more clever kids be held back by the not so clever.
Until parents of all classes value education and push their kids to do better nothing will change, bar introducing a race to the bottom.
I also think we should put more emphasis on trades rather than academia – and lets face it good tradespeople can earn excellent money ! Why not do an apprenticeship rather than sign up to swell the coffers of universities and end up with a degree that actually hold you back, that you will never pay off. In addition trade-craft skills are not subject to being obsoleted by AI !
Some interesting points there Chris; there’s a cultural aspect of almost acceptance of being low intelligence through a lack of effort. Generational families living fully on benefits are a good example of this, I feel.
Trades and handicrafts are skills and professions that get a bad reputation as being jobs for those who can’t do university, and I completely agree that’s a mindset we all need to change. Nothing wrong with going to university though; especially if it is something you are passionate about – doesn’t have to be purely focused on the acquisition of wealth.
As for tradecraft skills not being obsoleted…may I remind you of the loom? Of the arc furnace? Of nuclear power? Subject to the same modernisations just as plenty of other jobs out there. Lot of academia out there showing the trend in moving towards a service-based economy over the years.
I’m struggling with this: “Removing better behaved higher performing children”
Really?
I think you will find high performing primary schools across the city where there are happy kids without behaviour issues. You are making a classist assumption.
I’ve read the research this relates to. The general idea is mixing up higher socio-economic status children with lower brings up the lower whilst not significantly reducing the higher.
it’s about changing the generational attainment gap over a number of years.
The problems with the schools is such a huge issue with no nice, easy answers. I really feel for the councillors, whatever decision they make it’s going to from a selection of terrible options, and will almost certainly cost them the next election. Let’s just hope that in 5 or 10 years time it’s ok and the education provided across the city is excellent. – Other wise my husband, baby and I are out of here. 🙁
Definitely a complicated one. I’ve mentioned it before, but I think school numbers and the financial overspending they are generally suffering from is simply a symptom of a lack of housing more than anything. Attainment is another topic which I think has more to do with the quality of the education paradigm than which building a child is in.
How does the Council propose to justify the policy of bussing children around with it’s stated aim of being carbon neutral by 2030?
Well, personally, I would say while it may seem counterintuitive, increasing the use of school buses can lead to fewer individual car journeys, which are typically less efficient and more polluting. By consolidating transport into fewer vehicles, the Council can significantly reduce emissions and traffic congestion.
Also, the flaw in your argument lies in the assumption that more buses will be introduced to support this policy. In reality, many of the buses required for this already exist and are being underutilised. Even if there is an increase in buses, this will have a minimal effect on carbon neutrality.
1 hour 10 minute bus journey each way with a change in central Brighton for an 11 year old starting at 6:45am for 2000 days of their life (+ time getting to the bus and waiting)
or 35 min in car.
People are going to take cars.
That only provides an argument for ensuring comprehensive bus routes, ignores car ownership figures, assumes an adult is available for a 70 minute round trip, and has the time and flexibility to undergo this trip twice a day, assuming collection, five days a week.
Perhaps they should focus their efforts on supporting schools in east Brighton and improving parental influence on performance. Rather than some unsettling and massively inconvenient plan to make children move long distances across Brighton twice a day.
Given that the council’s broke, how exactly do you propose they accomplish any of that?
Following that chain of thought, how do you go about affecting a positive improvement to parental influence on academic performance?
It’s a great aspiration, but is it feasible?
Talking of flawed and biassed, where are the views of parents representing the other side of this argument in the article? Why do you only consider the views against the proposed changes?
Many communities in the city are already being drained as people leave due to the unfair catchment boundarys.
Varndean Is our nearest secondary, but due to the current arrangements she could have to bus in to a much further school.
This is such an emotive topic, but change is needed to make things fairer.
Yes to the bias. I wonder where the writer of this article lives?
Well said. There’s been chances for Varndean to take more of the burden from Longhill in the past but Governors pushed back. Emotive topic as everyone wants the best for their children. Diversity for all environments in the city, including schools.
Yup. Am in East brighton. Am not “deprived” nor “on benefits”.
Think these plans are wonderful.
The simple crux of the matter is this is the only place In brighton where we could afford a house.
A lot of families in this area are in the same boat.
With longhill having such a reputation we would have to either of moved house or gone private.
With the labour tax on private schools incoming it would have been highly unlikely we could have afforded either so we would have to have left the city.
Brighton has a problem with not enough families in the city, so this plan will really help.
It’s hard to feel too sympathetic for people who can afford to buy expesnisive houses in the good catchment areas so well ahead of time.
And some of the classest items I’m reading here are frankly sickening. The assumption that everyone from East Brighton is poor stupid and on benefits. Shame on you. There are lots of very nice decent people here.
Fairness would be improving everyone’s local schools and diversifying neighbourhoods surrounding them.
Shortcuts that bring people down in life to raise others do not lead to a net benefit.
If there were spaces remaining in the desirable schools, none of this would be an issue. Everyone would welcome diversity in their classrooms and the disadvantaged would get a leg up.
However, since they are oversubscribed and the council wants to force children to go to Longhill to increase its numbers (so are cutting good places even more), the proposals cause a divisive competition for limited resources that introduce new harms, just mostly to different children from families being blamed for living in an average neighbourhood of Brighton.
I wonder why other solutions for Longhill, like federalisation with a top-performing school, are being ignored perhaps because a counsellor from Longhill and a new school head are keen to make their mark and save the day (at great expense to others). All they need is bums on seats, wherever they come from. Egos.
Bulge and high birth rate!
My daughters primary school has just closed because of low birth rate!
So, which is it?
Rhetorical question as I’m sure the council actually doesn’t have a clue
Both can be true since ladies don’t pop out a child immediately into a reception class. There’s a time delay of several years. Also have to consider areas are different. Also, different schools have different tolerances to lower/higher children of any particular year(s).
Your rhetorical question was fundamentally flawed.
Has the council looked at the numbers that might come from Private/public schools when the 20% increase happens?
Now that’s an interesting point. What’s private and local? Be interesting to see what the figures will be after that change.