Parents have criticised a council survey on secondary school admissions, saying that it contained a lack of information and asked “leading questions”.
Brighton and Hove City Council published the secondary school admissions questionnaire on Tuesday (2 October), seeking feedback on proposals to redraw catchment areas and reduce admission numbers.
The deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor felt the brunt of parents’ concerns about the lack of maps and background information in the survey after posting on the Brighton and Hove Catchment Areas Facebook group.
Councillor Taylor’s post encouraged participation and said: “We want a city where every child gets access to a good education. A system that’s fair and inclusive. We want to hear your views.”
One parent wrote: “The survey is ridiculous and only allows Yes or No answers to leading questions.”
Another parent said: “On the landing page for the survey and once you’re in it, there’s no way to see what the options are. The survey questions should show what each option is as they ask about it.”
In response to concerns that the background information was not clearly visible, Councillor Taylor had an extra sentence added to the introduction that said: “Please view the background information tab below to see the full information about this engagement exercise.
“There is a briefing paper and a PowerPoint presentation containing visuals of the illustrative models we are seeking views on.”
Working mother of four Leila Erin-Jenkins, who has previously stood for election as a Labour candidate, said that she appreciated Councillor Taylor sharing the information on a group with more than 1,500 participants but found it difficult to find the detailed information.
She found the full information but said that it was not with the questions. When she found the background text, she was frustrated to find it was a PowerPoint presentation that she could not open on her phone.
She said: “I expect the thinking behind it was to offer a thorough explanation of why this consultation was needed. Unfortunately, it felt excessive and it certainly was not accessible to most people.
“It’s not ok to bury information and overload people. It will mean people give up, don’t read it and don’t give their views. I wonder who approved it in that format and who tested its accessibility.
“In my opinion as soon as you click the link, you should be shown what the three models are, with an explanation beneath.”
Jayne Smith, who has one son at secondary school and another in year five at primary school, was worried that proposed catchment changes might affect sibling links.
She said: “I’ve not received anything via our school. I hope the council will be contacting the schools to make sure they cascade the information to all parents.
“There are three consultation meetings. The first is the only one which is face-to-face and is just six days after the consultation document was published.
“It’s a lot to take in and absorb in such a short space of time in order to think of appropriate questions to ask.
“The consultations are all during weekday evenings which may not be easy for parents of children who are aged nine and below who will be the ones affected by these changes.”
A fourth public meeting has since been added. The events are scheduled for
- 6.30pm on Tuesday 8 October at Hove Town Hall
- 6pm on Thursday 10 October (online)
- 6.30pm on Wednesday 16 October (online)
- 11.30am on Monday 21 October (online)
The consultation is open until Wednesday 23 October.
Questions in the survey are
- There are disparities between schools in different areas of the city. Do you think that we should maintain thriving and sustainable schools in all areas of the city?
- The council believes all of our children have the right to the same education and standards. Do you agree on a system that supports all children to achieve and thrive?
- Do you think that larger schools should reduce in size to create a more balanced school offer?
Then the survey asks for views on catchment areas, with three different options, as well as potential reductions in published admission numbers (PANs).
The council cannot reduce the PAN at some schools such as academies, free schools and some church schools. In Brighton and Hove, four of the ten schools set their own intake numbers
- Brighton Alridge Community Academy (BACA)
- Portslade Aldridge Community Academy (PACA)
- Cardinal Newman Catholic School
- The King’s School
Background information on the proposed catchment areas is available on the council’s website in the addendum to the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee agenda.
The committee is due to discuss the proposals at Hove Town Hall next Wednesday (9 October). The meeting is scheduled to start at 4pm and to be webcast on the council’s website.
The whole thing is farcical – it’s not just not difficulty accessing the documents, it’s the questions themselves. One question was something like “do you agree all children should be allowed the opportunity to achieve and thrive” or something similar – who is going to put no to that. There are only 7 questions, 3 are on the options (where it’s near impossible to find the documents so you can answer), and the other 4 are vague and leading, and just plain odd.
It’s clear that the council has an idea what they want to do, but rather than sharing this information and having a proper open and adult conversation about what they think needs to happen and why, then asking people if they agree / disagree / have concerns, they are doing this bizarre ‘engagement exercise’.
The whole thing is v questionnable!
Yes. It seems done so that they can say that the majority of respondents agree with their aims etc. For that reason, I will be answering those questions as ‘No’ and providing that commentary in the free text fields.
We will also be following up with direct emails to the email address schoolorganisation@brighton-hove.gov.uk.
Thanks Jenny – useful link. Wish they’d actually publish that rather – important people have a say and air views and the questions they force you through def don’t allow a proper opportunity for that.
This consultation is an absolute joke. It starts with three leading questions. For example, ‘The council believes all of our children have the right to the same education and standards. Do you agree on a system that supports all children to achieve and thrive?’ The questions are leading and seek to manipulate responses to provide justification for the council’s suggested changes to school catchment areas. As usual there is no mention of the impact on the children. The Council don’t care about their suggestions mean more children being bused across town. Children that have already had to deal with Covid. They should bin the entire exercise and provide extra support to schools that need it.
It’s the old story of “there are lies, dXXn lies and statistics.” The latter can be manipulated to show the desired answer whatever the real situation. If nobody fills in the questionnaire then it’s “well you had a chance to comment but didn’t, so you must be happy with the situation.”
I’ve actually thought the Catchement Area is far to big, it comes into the Whitehawk, up to the side of Co-op, and Opposite Premier all the way up the Manor, all the way from Lidl to Steine, along London Rd to Preston Park.
You can see why Families lie to get in them schools when they are in the cuff if it, wish I done it to be honest.
If you go up Manor Hill-get to the top, those roads are all for Stringer & Varndean (Craven Vale, Freshfield rd, Firle Rd & Stretch towards Elm grove)
Seems unfair the Whitehawk Estate have to take Longhill-when they are more or less 3.3 miles each way between Longhill going that way and towards Varndean (look it up on Google the distances are there)
It’s good they looking into it, but it won’t change much will it, or people will kick up a fuss won’t they.
Catchment for Dorothy Stringer & Varndean and way to big
But the back of Lidl etc is still known as Kemptown, it’s only when you go further into the estate and get to Robert lodge on the left and all the way up Manor is for Stringer/Varndean.
But if you live on the right of Manor Hill 1st houses ( up to number 13 ) is Stringer/ Varndean and the rest is Longhill to include all of Whitehawk.
I tried to look at the consultation. Impenetrable!!!
If councillor Taylor is involved in this, the poorly phrased questions and grossly inaccurate conclusions drawn from the public’s answers will not be an unfortunate oversight. They will there by design.
The whole exercise is wide open to challenge and the proposals are ridiculous. They ignore the government’s own guidance on how to achieve better outcomes for children on free school meals and would create a system where large numbers of children are having to travel long distances to school. The kids most disadvantaged by this are those whose families will struggle to afford the extra travel costs or be able to jump in the car to get a child to school because the bus is late. It’s riddled with unintended consequences and no data is given to back up the proposed reductions in PAN. The council has already achieved the stated aim by offering children on free school meals priority for their chosen school above other children in a schools catchment area.
Another thing you can guarantee the council will cock up.