A group of parents urged Brighton and Hove City Council to delay any possible changes to secondary school catchments.
Families with children at primary schools near Dorothy Stringer and Varndean shared their concerns with the council’s cabinet yesterday (Thursday 14 November).
Those concerns arose from a survey carried out last month when the council said that it would to necessary to reduce the published admission number (PAN) at several schools.
At the same time, the council indicated that catchment areas may have to change to give more pupils a fairer chance of attending a good secondary school – and it published three examples setting out possible changes.
The council carried out the survey last month before a report on school admissions for 2026 and said that pupil numbers had fallen across the primary schools in the area since 2019.
Now admissions are falling at secondary schools too, putting a strain on finances because funding is based on pupil numbers.
Parent Adam Dennett, a professor of urban analytics, told the cabinet that reducing the number of places at two popular secondary schools would leave hundreds of children facing long journeys to school.
Professor Dennett said: “It is clear from the council’s own data that the proposals are partially motivated to ensure the viability of Longhill school.
“It has a PAN of 270 but has not admitted more than 200 students for a decade.
“Longhill’s challenges are long-term, structural and run deeper than a single poor Ofsted report.
“Put simply, our analysis shows clearly it’s too large and in the wrong place to naturally attract enough students for its current size.
“If it were smaller and/or relocated it could still be viable but we do not think forcing children to travel excessive distances to boost numbers at a school far from their homes is a viable long-term solution for the school or for the city’s communities.
“Forcing high-demand schools to reduce their PAN to service a fantasy PAN at Longhill simply denies the geographic and demographic reality of Brighton and Hove.”
He asked the cabinet to slow down moves to reduce admission numbers and changes to catchment areas in favour of a “cross-community open engagement process” before going to any future consultation.
Labour councillor Jacob Taylor said that he had met Professor Dennett and they broadly agreed about the problems facing the city in terms of education.
Councillor Taylor said: “What’s happening now the engagement is closed is I and officers are meeting with lots of different groups, including Adam and the parent support groups, PaCC (the Parent Carers Council), Class Divide, various professors and others to talk through the detail of what came out in the engagement and what the next steps might be.
“It’s really important to do that, draw on the experience, knowledge, views and input of all those different groups as we start to form the policy. Ward councillors and cabinet members are at the core of it.
“The concerns raised in the deputation are consistent with the issues raised in the engagement and we’ll see when we publish it.
“The journey and transport – I won’t give responses on what’s going to happen but these were heard loud and clear that one of the proposed models concerned parents about the implied distances or journey time.”
Councillor Taylor said that before any proposals were put together the council would publish the data from the engagement exercise which had more than 2,600 responses.
Apart from dealing with the falling pupil numbers, the council also wants to improve equality and reduce a large attainment gap between disadvantaged children and those who were better off.
Even though pupils are performing well academically, out of 152 local education authorities in the country, Brighton and Hove has the 17th largest attainment gap.
Council leader Bella Sankey said: “I know that there has been a lot of discussion in community groups and I want to reassure all involved that no decision has been made.
“The exercise was carried out in good faith, going beyond what the council is required to do in terms of consultation, and has been hugely informative. Thanks to everyone who has provided constructive feedback.”
The council’s cabinet is due to discuss school admissions again on Thursday 5 December. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Is that the sound of massive back-peddling I can hear on Bella Sankey and Jacob Taylor’s part by having to “reassure that no decision has been made”.
The biggest issue with their plans is administration councillors never really factored the crisis and delays faced by children with special educational needs. Their plans threaten to to bus them to schools over the city whilst they are still going through the assessment process so they can access support they need to stay in school (and for some get to school). It doesn’t matter how good the SEND support in a school is if children can’t navigate the journey and get there. The council’s plans potentially mean that some children waiting for assessments, or appealing wrong council decisions through the courts (where parents appeals are generally upheld at SEND tribunals) will be impacted.
Class Divide raise some good points on the need to address poor outcomes in the city’s schools, but the council massively rushed this whole process and the engagement exercise was a shambles. Anyone who actually read the questions in it could see that. The fact that they seemingly didn’t foresee the problems their plans might have on children going through the EHCP assessment process is naive at best, and shameful at worst if they plough ahead and ignore the impact on this cohort without making changes to address this massive (and potentially not legal) flaw in their plans.
I’d be interested to hear Dennett’s view on how the school can operate at its current staffing level with a revised PAN. Failing that, I’d like to hear how he can justify cutting teachers’ jobs so his kids don’t have to get a bus.
Posh people worried the value of their house will go down if their kid has to go to school with common kids
Some children that go to Stringer or Varndean from Whitehawk pay for the Bus Fare-£46 a month
B&H School Admissions are now starting to let Children from outside Catchment, in letting them go to more popular schools other than Longhill, if free school dinner or low wage-may get help, otherwise they pay
All the Children want these Popular Schools, that’s why numbers are low at others or get given Longhill ( from Whitehawk)
Why are the Exams results so different between all schools, they all get the Exam Papers ( as Class Divide says) results in the East are lower than the rest
Without being rude if your Children go to City Academy then they go to Longhill-they go with friends they have grown up with from Primary-but it’s only when they get to View them all they all change there minds n want to go where they can’t (parents know they aren’t going to get in)
I feel my Boys ( both have left Longhill) they had a good time there, made some good friends etc but youngest didn’t get good results-but once he was in he made friends and didn’t want to move-I wish I put down Hove Park but the Bus Journey on school bus is 40 mins and Stinger is either a school bus that gets you there really early, or 2 buses from estate into town to go further on.
Wish I put Down Hove Park because I knew I was out of the Catchment for Dorothy Stringer or Varndean
I put them and Blatchington Mill down and I didn’t get any but appealed, still didn’t win, should of put Hove Park and at the time think about how Education is with all the schools like they are now, and the Bus Fare was £37 a month.
The city will never have a fair catchment area review because the sharp elbowed middle class will not tolerate the ifea of having to go to Longhill with the poor kids.
No matter how they try and dress it up the snobbery in this city is nauseating. Particularly from sanctimonious & smug Green voters. Seriously guys, just admit you want to protect your privilege.
You’ve hit the Nail right on the head there, bang on with that comment for sure.