Proposals to redraw school catchment areas and cut admission numbers have been roundly rejected by people responding to a Brighton and Hove City Council survey.
The results were published two weeks before the council’s cabinet is due to discuss what to do as pupil numbers fall.
The council has been trying to reduce the number of surplus reception class places at primary schools since 2019. And from September 2026, secondary school admissions are expected to start falling too.
The survey set out three broad proposals and a series of questions – and more than 2,400 responded over three weeks last month. Now, the council has published the survey results.
Option A proposed changing the six current catchments. Option B proposed four catchment areas instead of six. And option C had eight catchments, one for each secondary school.
For option A, 30.5 per cent of the 2,440 people who responded (744) strongly disagreed, 9.6 per cent (23) disagreed, 16.3 per cent (398) neither disagreed or agreed, 20 per cent (489) agreed and 23.5 per cent (574) strongly agreed.
For option B, 55.1 per cent (1,345) strongly disagreed, 8.1 per cent (197) disagreed, 9.5 per cent (231) neither disagreed or agreed, 10.3 per cent (252) agreed, and 17 per cent (415) strongly agreed.
For option C 50.2 per cent (1,225) strongly disagreed, 15.6 per cent (380) disagreed, 16.1 per cent (393) neither disagreed or agreed, 10.8 per cent (262) agreed and 7.3 per cent (178) strongly agreed.
The council also proposed cutting 345 places in year seven classrooms – from 2,560 to 2,215 – by September 2030.
The suggestions involve 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.
There were 1,981 responses to the question “do you think that larger schools should reduce in size to create a more balanced school offer”.
Of these 53 per cent (1,294) said no, 28.2 per cent (687) said yes and 18.8 per cent (459) did not respond.
The survey said: “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?”
Of 1,985 responses, 1,645 said yes and 340 said no.
The survey also asked: “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?”
Of 1,989 responses, 1,710 said yes and 279 said no.
An analysis of the community engagement, which ran from Wednesday 2 October to Wednesday 23 October, found that there was a preference for improving existing schools rather than redistributing students.
The summary of feedback from the in-person and online meetings and from the survey said: “Respondents called for direct investment in under-performing schools through enhanced funding, improved leadership, better resources and strengthened teaching capacity.
“Many expressed scepticism about whether moving students between schools would address underlying educational challenges, highlighting the need to tackle root causes of under-performance.
“Questions were raised about how improvement would be measured and monitored, with calls for clear metrics and regular progress updates.”
Participants objected to reducing the size of well-performing schools. Community cohesion and student wellbeing were among the strongest concerns.
The summary said: “Respondents emphasised how schools contribute to neighbourhood identity and social cohesion, expressing strong concerns about proposals that might fragment established communities.
“The potential splitting of primary school friendship groups was a particular worry, with many highlighting the value of children being able to walk to school with friends and neighbours.
“Specific areas including Fiveways, Port Hall and Prestonville expressed strong concerns about community division.
“Family impacts were highlighted, particularly regarding sibling separation and the practical challenges for working parents, especially single-parent families.”
Transport also dominated the discussion, with people concerned about longer bus journeys – potentially up to two hours a day for some students, with several bus changes.
The summary said: “The safety implications of young children travelling long distances, particularly during winter months, were frequently highlighted.
“Environmental impacts featured prominently, with worries about increased traffic pollution and carbon footprint and, in particular, specific routes (such as those between central Brighton and Longhill or from Whitehawk to Rottingdean) received particular criticism.
“The cost burden on families, especially those not eligible for free school meals, was emphasised and many respondents highlighted how extended travel times could affect children’s academic performance, participation in extra-curricular activities, mental wellbeing, punctuality and attendance.”
A report to the council’s cabinet is expected to set out refined proposals for dealing with secondary school admissions for September 2026 in light of the survey. The report is due to be published next Wednesday (27 November).
The cabinet is due to meet at 5pm on Thursday 5 December. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Good article!
It’s striking that whatever option is put forwards the only option for Portslade is PACA, and it’s a similar story for the east end of the city.
We really are discriminated against, year in, year out.
The wealthier parts of the city get lots of choice.
Agreed
Portslade get Paca, but can get Hove Park
Central Hove gets Hove Park, Blatchington Mill, or Cardinal Newman or Kings.
Central Brighton get Dorothy Stringer, Varndean,
Patcham get Patcham
Moulsecoomb/ Bevendean get Falmer
East Brighton, Woodingdean & Saltdean get Longhill ( Saltdean could get Peacehaven)
The Catchment Area for Strunger/Varndean is way to big that’s why is well over subscribed
It literally runs from the East of Brighton-Arundel road by Lidl, to go into Whitehawk- up Major hill (towards Racecourse) if you live in the left hand side Opposite Premier shop and all the way up
So Craven Vale, Freshfield, Firle Rd, along that racecourse-all the way down Elm Grove-and from the other end all the way from Lidl to Steine, along London rd, Preston Park, Ditchling Rd
The whole area is on a wide scale-those that live up Elm Grove should be considered for Longhill
Longhill have only about 180 Children per Year-that’s nothing Compared to the Other School within the Cuty and Ciuncil want to cut the Numbers at Longhill and Blatchington Mill by 2026 due to numbers falling.
I think Parents actually lie on address to get into Stringer & Varndean from Estates-the Council does not actually look at Each Address to see if the Child lives at the Address-I think they go Postcode-they physically don’t know what child lives where, but see the Postcode is in the Catchment for that School and there in
Parents don’t prove Child Benefit for Child at that Address-The Council physically doesn’t do that.
And that’s why the Ciuncil didn’t go ahead with the Secondary School at Racehill due to other schhols saying they would take the Numbers, but think they gone to far on them now
But aren’t the Council now letting Children from Estates to go to Popular Schools-I heard they now let so many in.
Think Class Divide has had a lot of interest in this-but something to do with Children being on Free School Dinners
This Catchment gets a lot of Parents back up when you start saying that they can’t get into the school that are nearer to there Homes and popular, A school is a school isn’t it-people go on the Bad reputation it once had-and some get over that-The Council shouldn’t of closed down Stanley Deason nearly 20 years ago, that could of helped right now, but then Longhill would be Empty.
Apologies what I ment was the Bad Reputation Longhill has jad over the years makes Parents not send in there Children there-also sorry for spelling mistakes-once sent you can’t Edit like you can on The Argus Website.
this makes me slightly concerned
Do the council not think that normal families and the accommodation of them are what underpin our society in every way?
Have all the students that have come to Brighton arrived from outer space .. or are they from a stable nuclear family somehere in the far east?
The way that Brighton has been run in the last 30 years or so is a total shambles
Misleading headline
Not been rejected have they, some people said they disagree
Probably posh people who don’t want their kid to meet anyone working class
Council should do it anyway
So you think kids should be sent a long way from their community to go to school?
Poor kids have been doing it for years
It’s only when rich kids might have to do it these posh people complain
Those Poor kids normally get Longhill-a school they don’t really want-but they get the Bus Fare paided don’t they
That why I reckon parents lie to get the Popular School and pay the £46 a month-which is fine
But the minute those who applied for Stringer or Varndean are told they can go to Longhill or Some Hove Park the Fare gets paided ( as the Popular School’s is oversubscribed)
Surely can’t win can they changing the Catchment Area-but everyone wants a good school and Previous Exams suggest that Baca or Longhill aren’t, you can understand why.
Middle class got cross because thier kid has to go to school with poor kids even if they bought a house to get kids in the “good school”
They like moaning
Poor families had to deal with this for years
100% This. I really hope the council do it anyway. I’m sick of not having my voice heard in these matters. Its ironic that the people with the loudest voices in this are those that are least in need. People who can affird to work part time and live in an 800k house. Whereas the poor bstards who are working full time in proper jobs rarely have the time to speak up.
Coming from north whitehawk the laungage that’s been directed at me and my community by these wealthy parents has been absolutely disgusting and intolerant. It’s like we are a bunch of lepers. This is the best part of Brighton i have lived in bar none, and a big part of that is the people. Salt of the earth.
I don’t have much sympathy for people who can afford to buy an 800K house before little Sebastian is even born to get into a good catchment area. To be blunt these aren’t the tyoes of families Brighton needs to be attracting if they want to sort there falling birth rate.
We need to attract more families to more sanely priced parts of Brighton, and catchment area A would do that.
If its “really” that much of a problem for the wealthy folk, they can simply sell their homes and buy 2 or 3 in a new catchment area for the sane price.