It should come as no surprise to the Labour council that their rushed plans to close two schools in the city are being fiercely opposed.
St Peter’s school, in Portslade, and St Bartholomew’s School, by London Road, Brighton, are earmarked for closure as soon as the next school year.
Parents are angry – and they’re right to be. Labour campaigned for votes in the last local election with a manifesto pledge that read “keeping schools open”.
The closure plans were announced little more than six months later, with little warning, based on no engagement and with a schedule for consultation limited to a matter of weeks.
With two petitions calling on Labour to save the schools attracting hundreds of signatories a day, it’s clear people feel passionately that Brighton and Hove must remain a welcoming place to educate and raise children.
We know increased living costs, soaring rents, extortionate energy bills and expensive nursery fees are making things harder for families.
In this context, it’s the little things that matter. Like a warm, welcoming school environment with teachers and pupils embedded in the local community – a school close to home, with minimal travel costs and cheaper nursery places, providing support for children with special educational needs and kindness around a difficult situation at home – a small school setting, with small classes.
Yet it’s two small community schools that are slated for closure. St Peter’s has been described by one parent as a “beacon of hope for children who struggle in larger educational settings due to unique SEN needs. It’s not just a school. It’s a community”.
There are concerns the closure will leave parents in South Portslade with no local primary school.
Similarly, St Bartholomew’s School supports a high percentage of children living in poverty, with 56 per cent of children meeting the government’s definition of poverty – “eligible for free school meals” – and 51 per cent of children from black and racially minoritised families, compared with 10 per cent in Brighton and Hove schools overall.
Listen first, decide later
It is doubtful that any councillor seeks to get elected in order to close down schools. But with Labour spokespeople commenting in the press that they “must take decisive action”, it’s not hard to understand why parents and teaching staff now fear the existing consultation may be nothing more than a paper exercise.
But it’s vital the consultation responses are given proper consideration before any decision is made.
Campaigners have rightly flagged a series of unanswered questions: Why these schools? What will happen to the communities in these areas? How will children cope with the transitions? Why did school staff feel uninformed of the plans? What will happen to the buildings? Why is a consultation that also affects staff jobs being scheduled over Christmas?
It’s important that these questions are answered. What’s more, alternatives to this rushed and ill-considered process do exist.
It’s telling that these closures come after Labour scrapped the council’s only body focused on addressing the challenge of falling pupil numbers in the city.
The Cross-Party Schools Organisation Working Group – made up of councillors of all parties – was tasked with proposing solutions to the issues affecting local school admissions.
During the last Green minority council, meeting after meeting took place with councillors, school governors and heads to discuss the pupil admission numbers (PAN) reduction and possible alternatives.
No stone was left unturned. Labour, Greens and Conservatives worked together to a shared goal of keeping schools open as best they could.
But rather than acknowledge this hard work, Labour has ditched this group, presenting the bizarre argument that because Labour councillors failed to support closing schools before, Labour councillors need to support the closure of schools now. But it’s not clear everyone agrees.
Against the backdrop of 13-plus years of destructive Conservative government policy, there can be no doubt it is becoming harder both for councils to support schools and for families to keep up with living expenses.
However, closing schools must be a last resort if we are to put up any resistance to the multiple crises – including in early years and education – that are being handed down by a callous government.
Families in the city centre are fighting the loss of Bright Start nursery, less than a year after money was found to keep it open, and a local primary school.
In other parts of the city, there are frustrations about a lack of consultation over pupil admission numbers (PAN).
Staff and parents at Benfield and Hangleton primary schools are challenging academisation plans being proposed by their governing body.
The picture for schools in our city is a worrying one: it’s never been clearer that our local education settings need staunch supporters.
Greens are calling on Labour to extend the consultation on school closures and to present a report to councillors detailing all possible alternatives.
The issue of falling pupil numbers is no easy one to resolve. Head teachers may be willing to discuss mergers, cross-party groups and the parent/staff consultation may yet find alternative routes.
Either way, Labour must do much, much more to convince parents they are listening and go beyond arguing that they have to close schools because none were closed before.
Councillor Sue Shanks speaks for the Greens on children, families and schools on Brighton and Hove City Council.
Yes!! I agree with all of this. A woman who speaks sense.
This is the same Councillor Shanks who wanted the council meeting yesterday to cut the time in half available to listen to deputations on school closures by merging two separate deputations from two schools into one single one.
So much for wanting to hear from parents!
Having read this piece carefully she’s not actually suggesting any real alternatives to school closures other than more discussions.
The city has too many vacant school places. Government funding is essentially based on pupil numbers which puts pressure on school budgets when the pupil numbers don’t bring in the money to be able to staff and equip schools properly. That’s why half the schools in the city have budget deficits.
No one wants to see school closures but the fact is there isn’t the money to keep them all open. I want what money there is spent on teachers and equipment not maintenance of half empty buildings.
Totally agree. Kids with SEN needs and on free school meals are best served by having outstanding schools which are fully funded with multiple forms of entry. This means more of the money goes on getting in good quality staff and less as a percentage of their funding on maintaining large underused buildings and school admin. Pupil numbers are more likely to fall further than grow in Brighton which means to protect kids they have reached a really poor compromise. We will now have lots of one-form entry schools that are really underfunded. Many within a short walking distance from each other. They should have closed down an additional poorly performing school and added extra forms into the the best schools. Of course, it would have meant some level of disruption for kids but no more than that caused by moving to a new class each year. They would have moved with many of their friends and potentially even some of the better teachers. We now have the situation that schools that were previously well-funded are being forced to move to one-form entry will become underfunded and it is the kids who will suffer and have reduced life chances as a result. Especially those with SEN needs that may not catch up so easily and whose schools will no longer have the money for specialist staff.
No what i wanted was to have more time for deputations so that the 4 that were not allowed to present could do so. The mayor had already decided to putvthe debates on schools and deputations together.
From this article
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2023/12/14/campaigners-criticise-council-decision-not-to-hear-deputation/
“Green councillor Sue Shanks said that the petitions and deputations about proposed school closures could be brought together in one debate.”
This is a political opinion. Plans on school numbers were in the pipe line when the greens where in….
The decision in school numbers is made by the civil service side of the council and not politicians. I don’t like labour but to attack them when it’s not down to them is disingenuous
Whilst staff (called officers in local government not civil servants) may make recommendations and propose options decision on pupil numbers at individual schools and on school closures are made by councillors.
It IS down to Labour – they are the ones who will be making the decisions. If they say they are closing schools because they are a ‘responsible council’ they should not have made pledges to the contrary in their election manifesto. Disingenuous? That’s this Labour administration all over.
Could you point me to where they said this please ? Thank you
This exactly school funding is purely based on central government funding based on pupil numbers. A 20% drop in numbers means a 20% drop in funding and a budget being spread far too thinly.
No one wants to see schools close but quite simply with a 20% drop in pupils something has to give, extending the consultation will not change that fact and so far no one has presented a plan, let alone a viable plan to tackle the shortfall in cash, (and whilst this is a totally useless government funding is based purely on pupil numbers). Both the schools up for closure already have sizeable deficicts and that is likely to get far, far worse. We all have sympathy for the campaigners trying to keep the schools open but it would be easier to support if there was a credible alternative given.