A Brighton primary school has lodged an appeal against a decision to close the school taken by Brighton and Hove City Council.
St Bartholomew’s Church of England (CofE) Primary School has appealed to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator which has the power to overrule the council.
The governors of St Bart’s met yesterday (Thursday 21 March) and resolved to fight on, saying that the council had not done enough to explore options other than closing the school.
The council took its decision because fewer families with young children in Brighton and Hove has led to a growing surplus of primary school places.
School funding is largely based on pupil numbers but costs are mainly based around classes of 30 – so the spare places have left a number of schools with a financial deficit.
And St Bart’s is one of the smallest schools in Brighton, with a six-figure deficit, councillors were told.
A statement on the St Bart’s website said: “Following the council’s decision to close the school, the governing body met on 21 March 2024 and unanimously passed the following resolution:
“The governing body have considered the council report and the letter from the executive director providing representations on whether a referral should be made to the schools adjudicator.
“Overall, the governing body consider that the council have not taken sufficient steps to seek to implement alternative strategies to seek to avoid the closure of the school.
“We consider that the council has rushed into a closure procedure late in the school year and in so doing has placed an unreasonable strain on the whole school community.
“While further delay and uncertainty is regretted, the governing body wish the schools adjudicator to consider the proposal afresh.
“The governing body is also concerned that the council has not carefully followed the statutory guidance and our solicitors will provide further details to describe the errors in the closure process.
“The governing body remains committed to seeking alternatives to closure (such as PAN reduction and federation) which will improve its finances and to allow the school to remain open to continue to support the local school community it serves.”
The school added: “We now await the decision of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator to determine whether or not the school will be closing at the end of this academic year.
“Please, if you can, contribute to our Save our School Fund.”
So according to our lovely Labour administration there are too many schools but also a dire housing shortage?
Something doesn’t add up.
School numbers have always gone up and down but that’s no reason to close a school. Provide the kids with smaller classes for a year or two and shine in the next Ofsted inspection.
Barry, this is easily explained. Second homes and short-term holiday lets contribute to the shortage of suitable homes massively.
To the latter, I’ve mentioned this before, 4,500 homes estimated by scraped data. With some of these hitting 60% empty time, that equates to about 505 years worth of time empty.
Schools are funded on a per-pupil basis; without sufficient funding, teachers won’t be paid, supplies can’t be purchased, etc. It’s not as simple as just saying “keep them open until numbers rise”.
Councils all over the country are cash-strapped thanks to the central government funding reductions. The schools’ best bet is to petition both the local Labour Council for a stay until after the general election and then petition an incoming Labour government for additional local funding. Unfortunately all of that takes time, during which the school gets further and further into deficit – a deficit that needs to be paid eventually by the Brighton and Hove council tax payers (us).
The choice here is between closing under-placed schools, or the cost of running the deficit being pushed into higher council tax. Neither option is palatable, so a hard decision has had to be made.
>the cost of running the deficit being pushed into higher council tax
I don’t think they’re actually allowed to raise it any more than they are, so it’s a choice between closing schools and nothing.
I believe they could have gone a bit higher from one of the meetings.
I challenged this when they first mentioned it saying it may actually increase the demand on other services that are paid by the council; so would it really be a financially gain?
Still painful for a lot of people.
Meanwhile the council is spending £7m of our money (and £6m of central government funding) on VG3 which according to the councils own report delivers no real benefit (a few seconds off bus journeys and a few seconds on car journeys). The cronyism and corporate welfare of the blue Tories, is now being copied by the red Tories….and our kids are paying the price.
Money that can’t be used as you are suggesting. You’ve been corrected on this before.
Housing is an issue though, a big one. That is unfortunately though, largely out of council’s hands. That comes from central government. Realistically, that’s not going to change until an exit from Tory Austerity at the next General Election.
Yes and No Benjamin. £1.8m is direct local taxpayers money. Then a £5 million loan which will also be footed by the local taxpayer. The LEP grant makes up the other £6 million, (and this you are right has to be spent on VG3). However I have been told the build cost may be considerably higher which would have to be paid bt the local taxpayer, (or a total rethink)
Labour promised in their manifesto to keep schools open. Within a year of election they close 3 and a nursery school. You can’t trust new labour
You’re arguing Kantism Vs Utilitarianism. Unfortunately, the latter has a more pragmatic approach and is financially more cautious. Of course, if the reverse happens and we need more schools again, I hope you’ll be keen to argue for them. I’ll join you on that day.
Please post in English
My apologies, let me rephrase it.
I mean to convey that whilst Labour’s decision may seem contradictory to their promises in their manifesto, they may be prioritising what they believe to be the greater good in the current circumstances. I feel the manifesto should more pragmatically read: “We will keep schools open, where is financially practicable, reasonable, and fits within a long-term plan.”
However, that isn’t a catchy slogan. Logic rarely is, hence Labour struggles to argue against emotive comments often employed by Conservates in an exciting way to the public. “Stop the boats” is more catchy than “Fix the excessive processing time of asylum applicants that are held in a state of limbo at the cost of the government, thus reducing the financial burden of the latter.”
However, I understand your frustration, and I’ll certainly support efforts to advocate for the reopening, establishment, or expansion of schools if the need arises in the future.