Plans to redistribute scores of children “like parcels” from popular schools to shore up the budgets of less popular ones have been thwarted.
Three schools – St Luke’s Primary, Goldstone Primary and Patcham Infants – have won their appeals against Brighton and Hove City Council’s plan to shrink their intake.
The Office of the School Adjudicator (OSA) said it would have led to parents of up to 90 children each year being denied a place at the school of their choice.
And it said the council’s stated reason for shrinking the schools – all of which are financially sound – to help undersubscribed schools with budget deficits was not enough to justify the resulting frustration of parental preference.
The council has already said it will no longer pursue the plan, and is instead looking at putting the city’s schools into groups, or federations, so they can work together to tackle budget pressures and falling pupil numbers.
But those plans are in the very early stages, and have already prompted headteachers to walk out of a meeting about them.
With one in four school places set to be unfilled in September next year, the need to find effective solutions to address falling numbers is increasingly urgent.
In the OSA’s report for St Luke’s Primary School’s appeal, a parent who lodged their own appeal against the plans was quoted as saying: “We were told by a council officer … it was hoped to secure an effect that children will be ‘redistributed’ (like parcels) to other schools to protect the budgets and futures of those undersubscribed schools.”
The OSA said it was likely that about 30 families would be denied a first preference place at each school if the plans went ahead.
In its ruling for both the Goldstone and St Luke’s appeals, it concluded: “The reduction in PAN will clearly have some adverse effect on the provision at the school and will certainly significantly frustrate parental preference and so would need powerful justification.
“The justification put forward by the LA is that the reduction in PAN at the school would lead to a significant increase in the number of pupils attending other, undersubscribed, maintained primary schools I have seen little evidence that this objective would be met to an extent that would justify the resulting frustration of parental preference.
“Consequently, on balance I do not find that the adverse effect on the school and the frustration of parental preference is justified. I therefore uphold this part of the objection.”
The parent who joined the appeal against shrinking St Luke’s also uncovered via a Freedom of Information request the fact that nurseries had not been consulted on the plans – despite the council claiming they had been.
The OSA said this meant the consultation had not been carried out correctly – but also said this had not had a material impact on its outcome.
The report also noted the report outlined various reasons not to shrink another school, Queens Park, which also applied to St Luke’s, such as the absence of a ward councillor and a balanced budget – but did not include these factors when discussing the pros and cons of shrinking the latter school.
Councillor Jacob Taylor, deputy leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, said: “Our preference was to try and reduce places, to avoid having to close more schools – which we know is painful for pupils, staff and communities.
“We are disappointed with the decision of the adjudicator to overturn three of those proposed PAN reductions, because it will make it harder to manage this issue on a city-wide basis going forward.
“However, it’s worth re-iterating that our overall policy did achieve a reduction in places of 150 across the city – which was important and necessary for the overall sustainability of our primary system.”
Yet again the council has a decision overruled by the adjudicator. When will councillors actually start properly working out plans with heads and schools rather than forcing change onto people with phoney consultations and decisions they have already made behind closed doors.
With Labour in Govt AND leading the council now, if councillors care at all about proper public services in the city and the wellbeing of our young people, they should start insisting that their colleagues in Westminster properly fund local councils. This austerity drive we’re seeing from Keir and his gang of mock-Tories is doing nothing to relieve hardship or create the “change” they promised when they were knocking on doors in their red rosettes.
The falling pupil numbers is an issue that needs addressing, but Labour aren’t listening as they promised, and until they do, they will keep making poor and irresponsible decisions which are more cistly overrule. God knows how much money and officer time has been wasted pulling together the initial proposals and then preparing the appeal – waste of public money on top of the poor decision itself.
“The council has already said it will no longer pursue the plan.”
It is good that the adjudicator has demonstrated its independence by upholding the appeal. The revelation that the council’s consultation was deeply flawed due to being carried out incorrectly is rather damning of the this administration. The fact that Jacob Taylor merely expressed disappointment at the decision and did not utter a single word of contrition or apology is very revealing.
Atticus, do you feel the fundamental issue that many of our schools are in the red budget-wise still needs to be addressed? How would you see that being resolved, moving forward? I share your concerns around consultation generally speaking – there is definitely more ongoing work that needs to be done on that side of things in how it engages with residents.
Your first two questions are separate to the point I was making. I am glad that you do agree that BHCC (this administration and several previously), have a poor record when it comes to consultation and this must change. It is not intended to be a veneer used to obscure the intended transparency and accountability of the process.
In answer to Fletch (above) the appeals were made by unpaid hard working school governors who thankfully have common sense and are dedicated to managing the inadequate budgets to give the children of the city their best chances of a decent education and their parents the right to chose where that they get that .
Jacob Taylor is hell bent on doing things “his way” and steam rollering anyone who disagrees .
The meeting where the Heads all walked out and now these upheld appeals should but probably wont let him know that he needs to put people first and not his own political aspirations.
No one has confidence in you Jacob so stand aside please .
Says a lot about our council and levels of competence. How much did this cost ?
If the Labour councillors who sit on the planning committee stop nodding through developments in these areas to build high rise flats & instead family homes – then perhaps there will be more children available to go to these schools.
Enough – student accommodation
Enough – HMOs
Have you ever heard of the maxim “People in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones?”
It’s important to focus on the nuanced realities of urban planning and housing needs, something I believe the Councillor is a professional on. He overlooks the broader housing crisis and the pressure on local councils, including planning committees, to meet diverse housing demands.
High-rise flats and developments such as student accommodation and HMOs address specific needs, including housing for growing populations, students, and young professionals. The demand for family homes is undeniable, but it requires a balance with other housing types to support a diverse community.
Rather than simply blaming the Labour councillors, the focus should be on the limitations imposed by national planning policies and market forces, which local authorities have limited control over. Addressing core issues like affordability, social housing, and sustainable infrastructure would have a more significant impact than dismissing developments outright and would serve as a much better solution than simply trying to take the opportunity to bash a political party because you feel one has to.
Inflammatory politics is a sign of a weak politician, and once again Mr Lyons, I hope and expect you to do better, because I’ve seen you at your best, and you can be a real force for good for your constituents. Today, this is not the case.
You do waffle
…and I would certainly expect a bit more than ad hominem. It’s not ‘waffle’; it’s recognising realities. Dismissive soundbites would certainly explain why Conservative councillors are at their lowest level since the 1990s.
A really weak response, councillor. Please try to do better.
City schools in London closing under Khans leadership approving rampant development which pushes families out & the same happening in Brighton & Hove where the majority Labour Council nod through high rise developments – to fill housing quotas, which remain empty so are filled by second property owners, HMOs or importing people not from the city – and the cycle continues.
May I suggest that instead of being a keyboard warrior, Benjamin, to stand as a politician if you want to get things done?
A cycle that is broken with a robust housing strategy – such as the one currently being developed by this Labour council; by building more homes of various types throughout the city, actions that can be evidenced in the regular housing reports.
Addressing housing policies and advocating for local families isn’t about being a keyboard warrior – it’s about engaging in meaningful dialogue and pushing for solutions that genuinely benefit the community.
I understand the benefit of anonymity here, so you may not know that I already have a strong track record of achieving a phantasmagoria of positive outcomes for my community. I appreciate your suggestion and endorsement, though, and when the opportunity arises to advocate further for my area, I’ll be ready to take it on.