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.
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.
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?