Councillors have agreed to push ahead with plans to close two primary schools at the end of August.
The decisions came despite objections from parents, staff and governors from the schools – St Bartholomew’s Church of England Primary School, in Brighton, and St Peter’s Community Primary and Nursery School, in Portslade.
A protest was held outside Hove Town Hall before the meeting yesterday (Monday 22 January) but, after the decisions, Brighton and Hove City Council is due to publish statutory notices today.
These will mark the start of a four-week window to make representations – until Tuesday 20 February – so that “interested parties can comments on the proposals”.
As well as parents, staff and governors, the protest was joined by representatives of the National Education Union and Siân Berry, the Green parliamentary candidate for Brighton Pavilion.
At the meeting, St Bartholomew’s head teacher Katie Blood and St Peter’s governor Jeffery Zroback separately raised concerns about the most recent consultation.
A report to the council’s Children, Families and Schools Committee included the results of a six-week consultation that ran from Tuesday 7 November to Friday 22 December.
Ms Blood said that many of the families of children at St Bart’s spoke English as an additional language and struggled to understand the consultation questions.
Mr Zroback criticised the council for not being willing to consider alternative proposals for a smaller school with a new structure.
St Peter’s parents Emily Brewer and Kirsty Moore made emotional deputations highlighting the effects of the closure on working families and single parents.
Ms Moore, whose daughter is autistic and selectively mute, said: “It’s not as simple as putting in extra staff for support or making new friends.
“My daughter uses her friends as a way of communicating her needs with her teachers. It will take years for her to build up trust with new friends to be able to do this.”
She criticised the council for not reducing the admission numbers at larger schools over the past two years, saying those who had opposed previous reductions were “selfish”.
The committee was told that St Bartholomew’s and St Peter’s face closure because they are the two smallest primary schools in Brighton and Hove.
St Bart’s has 135 children on its roll and St Peter’s has 69. Both have budgets that are more than £200,000 in the red.
State school funding is set by the government – not the council – with grants based on pupil numbers. And primary pupil numbers have been falling locally, with further decreases forecast.
For this reason, the council said that it had to close the two primaries and reduce the formal admission numbers for the Reception Year intake at six other schools.
Green councillors Chloë Goldsmith and Sue Shanks asked the committee to vote for a pause in the process for St Bartholomew’s to consider merging with the Bright Start Nursery which the council proposes moving to the Tarner Centre.
Councillor Goldsmith said: “We can all see how much of an impact the closure St Bart’s and the damaging changes to Bright Start will have on the local community so I really hope you can vote for this motion to at least see if it’s a viable option.
“If not, I think it sends the clear message that this administration is unwilling to fully commit to their manifesto promise to keep schools open.”
She suggested reducing the published admission number – the PAN – at St Bart’s to reduce the school’s deficit.
Councillor Shanks said that the school closures and nursery move would leave a “big hole” in the city and result in empty buildings.
Labour voted down the proposal and Labour councillor Lucy Helliwell said that all the children currently attending Bright Start could be accommodated at the Tarner Hub.
Councillor Helliwell, who co-chairs the council’s Children, Families and Schools Committee, said: “Pausing the decision in relation to St Bart’s would mean we could not meet the statutory timescale for closure this year.
“Moving to St Bart’s would not achieve the savings required against the £250,000 subsidy. Moving to Tarner Family Hub will enhance support to children and families.”
A report to councillor said that 467 people responded to the latest consultation in relation to both schools, with 286 strongly disagreeing with the proposals to close them.
Conservative councillor Anne Meadows said: “Parents and teachers are hoping that you can listen. That’s what your leader has said – you are ‘a listening council’ – and that you will keep these schools open.
“The consultation shows the depth of feeling for these schools and all they do for the families and the children.”
Labour councillor Jacob Taylor, who co-chairs the council’s Children, Families and Schools Committee, said that the council had been left with little alternative to the closures.
Councillor Taylor, who is also deputy leader and speaks on finance, said that there were 2,610 Reception Year places in Brighton and Hove but, by 2027, just there would be just 1,700 pupils to fill them.
He said that the Greens and Conservatives had not offered a realistic solution and that, currently, more than half of the schools in Brighton and Hove had deficit budgets.
It would fall to the council to make good any losses, he said, and the current situation merely added to the pressures on the council’s own budget.
Councillor Taylor said: “We already have a significant problem – and the pupil numbers are only getting worse.
“We have been offered no alternatives to these very sad proposals in tackling those numbers and tackling those budgets.
“What we’ve had to do is make a decision as a council which we’ve reached with very heavy hearts. No one wants to close the schools.
“Why on earth would a councillor stand for election to propose the closure of a school? What we’ve had to make a judgment on is the overall state of the primary system in our city.”
Children at both schools would be tracked throughout the closure process, the meeting was told, and support would be provided with monitoring and oversight through a “transition board”.
One of the concerns of parents was finding another school that catered as well for their children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Labour councillor Emma Daniel said that her autistic daughter had recommended that those children be given virtual and quiet tours around potential alternative schools while they were empty to get a feeling for the place before meeting people.
Parent Carers’ Council chair Becky Robinson asked about parent care and wellbeing and what support was in place.
The council’s head of schools organisation Richard Barker said that parents should contact the schools to co-ordinate support for themselves and their children – and the schools were also urged to contact the council about any support issues.
The council faces a redundancy bill of £200,000 in addition to each school’s £200,000-plus deficit but Mr Barker said that he was unable to give any further closure-related costs at this stage.
The council had no plans to use the school buildings for anything else at this stage. Any change of use for an educational building would have to be approved by the government’s Education Secretary.
After the representation period ends on Tuesday 20 February, proposals will be prepared for a special meeting of the Children, Families and Schools Committee.
The special meeting has been scheduled for Thursday 29 February, with a final decision due to be made by the full council on Thursday 4 March.
More Labour lies and backsliding.
It’s a cautionary tale to avoid absolutes, because this is a mitigation. They are under no illusion how this would be received. Unfortunately, needed to be done with those figures. I doubt many people are going to be understanding, however.
Somewhere, in a parallel universe, far away, someone understands what you’re on about.
Things are rarely black and white. Only a fool deals in absolutes. These are very common maxims, Tom.
You don’t seem to have many friends. I wonder why.
Your mother and I share a secret and intimate relationship. That’s all I have time for now!
My god you do talk nonsense
A lack of understanding doesn’t make me incorrect here, Jim.
What kind of city do we wish to cater for? Infrastructure determines usefulness when starting families or deciding on need to move to somewhere more family oriented. Priorising what instead?
A decison that should have been taken prior to now, (but the previous administration kicked the can down the road). Quite simply the council had little other option, drastic falls in pupil numbers mean a drastic fall in the government grant to pay for education. Both sites already run in the red and that would only have got worse. Campaigners never presented a viable alternative solution, (drawing from reservers is not a solution and would not work as all schools that fun at a deficit would expect the same treatment).
Many viable alternatives were presented but shot down by councilors who want to bulldoze ahead with their plans, with a total disregard of pupil welfare.
Richard Barker couldn’t provide the cost? Funny, he’s written it in the report. 🙄 It’s estimated at around £800,000 to close St Peter’s down. He’s categorically said it will cost more to close it. And Jacob, how about owning your party mistakes? You made a promise to the electorate (quite a few actually) and you have broken them. Saying you have “no choice” when it’s very clear in the report that the nursery school (why have the numbers been omitted here) is hugely popular hence it’s 70% INCREASE in demand in just over a year. Why are you talking to Brackenbury to open one there when one works well here and could save the school?? What have you got in mind for our building which you’re so intent on ploughing ahead? Development maybe??? Wait until Labour take office and get the Secretary to approve it?? So many backhanded moves in this consultation that I wouldn’t put it past you lot. And that’s before we talk about the break in DfE policy which no one seems to be interested in. Government policy is there for a reason – to protect people and those who are vulnerable.
Simple. Long-term viability. It was very clearly explained. I really wish Brighton and Hove news had some experts to pull upon to provide commentary and explanation, it’d be so useful.
Hey troll 👋 I’ve been more involved in this consultation than you’ve spent time articulating your half-arsed response. Firstly, they’re breaking government policy (but you wouldn’t know about that MINOR detail), secondly the nursery school at St Peter’s has seen a 70% increase in demand showing just how much the community is in need for affordable preschools (four have closed in the immediate area, we’re left with expensive provisions or ones that don’t accommodate working needs – but you wouldn’t know about that now would you), there is a above average of SEND kids who can’t get into specialist schools are they are oversubscribed and the limited surplus places available are near to full and ill-fit for their needs. I could go on, and also mention about the countless pledges being broken etc. These bunch of blue roses are only interested in their vanity projects. I look forward to all of them losing their seats when the time comes. Tick tock.
Yeah yeah, your Green Party bias, beyond all others, has been well articulated. For someone who campaigns to not gaslight on this issue, you’re trying mighty hard here to gaslight. You asked this question on the 22nd; had to listen to that deputation that included a bizarre notion that consultations were fictitious. Weird, to say the least.
Your claim that is against the policy is incorrect, that same policy highlights reasons a school might be closed of which, financial viability is one of them (Opening and Closing Maintained Schools Statutory Guidance for Proposers and Decision Makers, 2023), which was included in that same meeting. Again, this was explained at the time. But that’s a MINOR detail, isn’t it?
“councillor Emma Daniel said that her autistic daughter had recommended that those children be given virtual and quiet tours around potential alternative schools while they were empty to get a feeling for the place before meeting people.”
Whilst that might work for some. I couldn’t even get my daughter in the school grounds to view the school. We’re West Sussex family so not your problem apparently.
She’s a hypocrite. I tweeted her how this is breaking government policy and she still voted for it. As a mum of an autistic child, she should know that a quiet tour of a school is not going to cut it. Large class sizes will not meet these children’s needs. They are forcing these kids at St Peter’s to go into a class of 35. The children are already panicking about this! A quiet tour to look around won’t solve the long-term damage it will create. I though she would have known better but clearly is just as ignorant.
Simple answer to your question. It is not breaking government policy. Selective bias is an important pitfall.
Why would Brighton and Hove News need an expert when we have you Benjamin?
I suspect because having a rationalised thought makes people call me an expert, even sarcastically, very much highlights the reason why!
As I have observed on many occasions your fellow commentators disagree with the inflated opinion of yourself.
And yet, rarely challenge the content, but attack the person. I don’t care for fallacious ad homenim arguments, doesn’t create any interesting thoughts.