Councillors heard from experts as they considered ideas to deal with a forecast of falling pupil numbers at secondary schools.
Brighton and Hove City Council is carrying out a “public engagement” exercise on proposals that were debated by the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee yesterday (Wednesday 9 October).
Green councillor Sue Shanks said that parents regarded the current survey, in the Your Voice section of the council’s website, as a consultation. She asked what admissions changes would require the full council’s approval.
The deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said that any catchment area change would have to go before the full council by the end of February – after a formal six-week consultation.
But changes to a school’s published admission number (PAN), which is also part of the current discussion, did not require full council approval.
Councillor Taylor said that the current exercise was intended to get people talking about the issue of falling pupil numbers, with school funding based mainly on those numbers.
The council has proposed cutting 345 places in year 7 classrooms – from 2,560 to 2,215 – by September 2030.
The proposal involves cutting 90 places a year from the annual intake at both Blatchington Mill and Longhill, 60 places at both Dorothy Stringer and Varndean and 45 places at Patcham High.
No change is proposed at four schools which are academies, free schools or faith schools which set their own admission numbers.
The council has also published three maps of potential catchment areas that Councillor Taylor said were “illustrative” of what might be a way forward.
He said that the council wanted all children in Brighton and Hove to have a good education – and not one based on postcode.
The council wants greater priority given to children eligible for free school meals when allocating school places, starting with the year 7 group due to start secondary school next September.
As well as tackling falling pupil numbers, the council aims to address the “attainment gap” between disadvantaged children and those not eligible for free school meals.
Pupils in Brighton and Hove do better in GCSEs than the national average for all pupils – but disadvantaged children have below-average results.
Councillor Taylor said: “I believe that is a moral stain on the consciences of the city. We are a city that prides itself on being inclusive, progressive, caring and being welcoming. But in this area, we are in a sense failing large parts of our city.”
In response to public concerns that consultation is being rushed, Councillor Taylor said that any changes to admissions for September 2026 had to be published by next February.
Mrs Lee is right there, any Child that misses the School bus to Longhill, have to get the 21 up the Manor to get the Number 2 ( or a 1 to Bingo Hall to up Sutherland Rd)
Those school buses come from the Bus Depot & are scheduled 1 minute apart between them ,very stressful when you miss them.
But why do children in Whitehawk only get allocated Longhill as up until recently not everyone had free travel, so if willing to pay £45 a month for a Child Monthly ticket, then why can they get Varndean or Dorothy Stringer, this is why a lot of Families lie I think-use someone else’s Address as they only check that the Postcode is in the Catchment- not sure they check Address of child to every Application.
I know from Whitehawk you can put Baca, Cardinal Newman, & Hove Park
Yet there’s hardly no difference in the miles._
I’ve looked on Google maps, tapped in each school from Whitehawk
Dorothy Stringer 3.7 miles
Longhill 4.1 miles
Baca 4.3 miles
Hove Park ( Valley Campus-lower)
Varndean 4.1
Blatchington Mill 4.6
I’m not sure how correct that is, but just goes to show some kind of distance of them all.
Of course people want children to have equal access to a decent education. The “engagement” exercise the council is running really is asking the wrong questions and asking the obvious.
I’ve not heard councillor Taylor once talk about what his government will do to improve things at a national level. There is a direct connection to the issues faced locally and failings in national education policy, they should be setting out a proper long-term capital funding plan to bring all schools up to ‘good’ condition. Why are the administration seemingly afraid, or just not prepared, to challenge the new Labour government and push them to plug gaps and address failings at a national level!
Yes, the council can move the lines and tweak local arrangements, but until there is proper change to the national funding formula – eg to redirect funding back to schools in more deprived areas, then sadly I think the plans being proposed will only make marginal difference.
If Labour councillors were pushing back and challenging Ministers on the dire funding situation at a national level, I’d have more confidence that their intentions are genuine – without any sign of any challenge to Minister to address national funding flaws they seem to be complicit in the new Labour austerity agenda we’re seeing.
Proposals like breakfast clubs (whilst not unimportant) are just a gimmick unless the deeper rooted crisis in education funding is addressed by politicians.
I would suggest that is down to the MPs to inform their constituencies about what the government will do to improve things at a national level, rather than ward councillors.
Curtis James of Class Divide makes some very good points. At the edges of the City we have zero choice. The plans been clearly been engineered to achieve that.
A cross bus service from Mile Oak to Hangleton plus re drawing the boundaries so everyone gets access to 2-3 schools would help.
To achieve some kind of equal opportunity children should have a choice of at least 2 schools.
I think attainment is but a symptom of a much deeper issue of deprivation. Considering some of the postcodes in Whitehawk hit the top 3rd percentile according to the IMD index, I think this highlights a real need to tackle why children are disadvantaged in the first place, and challenge that.