Hundreds of parents have objected to plans to cut the admission numbers at some of Brighton and Hove’s larger primary schools as the council looks to trim the number of empty places.
More than 1,500 people responded to Brighton and Hove City Council’s public consultation asking for comments on its plans to reduce the published admission number (PAN) at nine schools.
Two thirds of the responders were parents directly affected by the proposals, the council said, as it revised its intitial proposals.
Out of 1,435 people who responded to a question about reducing the number of surplus school spaces in the city, 900 either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal.
People were concerned that the council was taking a “short-term approach” and “ignoring the benefits of small class sizes” and they questioned the accuracy of pupil forecasts.
A report to the council’s Children, Families and Schools Committee, which is due to meet next Monday (22 January), summarised the consultation responses.
It also recommends that the committee backs cutting the Reception Year intake by one class at Brunswick, Goldstone, Saltdean and St Luke’s primary schools and Patcham and Stanford infant schools.
The report said: “Schools are funded by the government, not the council. The funding is largely done on a per-pupil basis and nearly all of it covers staffing costs.
“If schools don’t have enough pupils attending or suffer from fluctuating numbers, they may not be able to operate in a financially efficient way and risk entering a budget deficit.
“If the number of surplus places in the city is not addressed some schools could face significant financial issues that will impact on their ability to sustain their school improvement journey.
“Where schools do not take appropriate action to adjust their expenditure in line with changes in revenue, they risk incurring a deficit budget which has an implication for the school and the council’s own budget.”
During the six-week consultation, almost 400 people attended 22 public meetings which included a daytime and evening meeting for each school.
And there were 1,511 responses to the online documents and 76 direct emails to the council’s schools organisation and admissions team.
At Brunswick Primary School, the council proposes cutting its Reception intake from 120 children to 90 from September 2025. The responses included 228 in favour of the cut and 255 against.
Other schools are more undersubscribed, according to some comments, and reducing places there and at Stanford Infants would reduce the availability of secular school places.
No members of the public attended either of the two meetings held at the school. Brunswick did not make a representation to the council and has previously outlined support for reducing its PAN.
At Goldstone Primary School, the council proposes cutting its Reception intake from 90 to 60 children. The responses included 177 in favour of the cut and 461 against.
Those commenting said that the school was thriving and oversubscribed with total preferences.
Goldstone’s governors responded formally, saying that they did not see how the school met the council’s criteria for inclusion. They successfully appealed to the school’s adjudicator against a previous proposed reduction in 2021.
At Patcham Infant School, the council proposes cutting its Reception intake from 90 to 60 children. The responses included 194 in favour of the cut and 601 against.
Concerns included whether there would be enough places for families with children living in the community and the effect on Patcham Junior School.
Both the infant and junior school made a formal representation to the council.
At Saltdean Primary School, the council proposes cutting its Reception intake from 90 to 60 children. The responses included 183 in favour of the cut and 265 against.
Some of those responding said that more families were moving to the area although the school has supported reducing its intake in the past.
At Stanford Infant School, the council proposes cutting its Reception intake from 90 to 60 children. The responses included 180 in favour of the cut and 343 against.
Concerns included the wish to have separate infant and junior schools and the limited number of secular school places in the area.
The school told the council that a reduction of 30 places would make it smaller than a single-form entry primary school. It also successfully appealed to the school’s adjudicator against a reduction in 2021.
At St Luke’s Primary School, the council proposes cutting its Reception intake from 90 to 60 children. The responses included 184 in favour of the cut and 603 against.
Some of those responding asked why the school had been included in the proposal, with the potential loss of 60 places locally if a cut also went through at Queen’s Park Primary School.
The council had also proposed reductions at Queen’s Park as well as Woodingdean and Rudyard Kipling primary schools. But they will not have their intakes cut.
There were concerns that Queen’s Park faced losing half its capacity as well as concerns about the effect on the wider community, given the proposed cut at St Luke’s.
The council had proposed cutting the intake to 45 at Rudyard Kipling and Woodingdean but those responding were concerned about mixed-age teaching.
Councillors were first alerted to the drop in Reception numbers in 2017 and started taking steps to cut intakes at larger schools in 2019 while facing opposition from parents, governors and teachers.
Even after having reduced the intake at some of the bigger schools in Brighton and Hove since September 2019, there are 2,610 Reception places available.
The council forecasts that there may be only 1,970 children requiring a Reception place in September next year, 1,953 in 2026 and 1,787 in 2027.
The council said that, across Brighton and Hove’s eight school planning areas, the highest percentage of unfilled places were in Portslade, the Deans and the centre.
There are some unfilled places in the north, in Patcham and in the east of the city.
The Children, Families and Schools Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 4pm on Monday 22 January. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Those who object PANs reduction are part of the problem and not the solution. By objecting PANs you are literally putting other local schools at risk of closure. It’s better to keep schools open and reduce PANs. Those who do not see this are merely selfish. Start accepting that we all need to work together to keep schools and nurseries open. These schools shouldn’t be given special treatment because they can’t see the logic in the change of demographics. Stop being selfish and start working together to reduce PANs and keep schools open!’
I agree with you 100%.
Shameful!
Rather loose a few places then a whole school which children rely on!!!
As a parent whos school is at risk of closure I would much prefer a pans reduction then closing our school. If we all worked together then closure wouldn’t be needed.
Our children could potentially have no school come September that’s the biggest problem here 😔
The answer is for people to get ” busy ” and have more kids!
We can’t keep schools open that are half empty. . .
What’s wrong with smaller class sizes? The birth rate dip won’t last forever and meantime kids can enjoy better educations.