Proposed changes to Brighton and Hove secondary admissions may leave more than 200 children without a place at their catchment area school.
The figures come from a report to Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet which is due to meet next Thursday (5 December).
Up to 125 youngsters in the Dorothy Stringer and Varndean catchment could miss out on a place at their local school, along with 57 children in the Hove Park and Blatchington Mill catchment and 44 in Patcham.
They could miss out under a proposed new admission policy for September 2026 which would give more choice to children in a catchment area with just one school such as the Portslade Aldridge Community Academy (PACA) and Longhill.
The report said: “In some instances, there will not be places available under the categories due to the current profile of the pupils in the catchment area.
“As under the current arrangements, it is possible that a pupil may not receive a place in a catchment area school as it is subject to the pattern of preferences made across the city.
“The introduction of new priorities does not reduce the likelihood of this happening. It is most likely going to increase the potential of this happening in certain areas of the city over the coming years.”
The forecast for September 2026 has 624 children in the Dorothy Stringer and Varndean catchment and the prospect of 120 from outside the area being able to apply for places at the two schools. This could leave 125 children unable to take up a place at their local school.
In the Hove Park and Blatchington Mill catchment, there is a forecast of 434 pupils, with 103 places available to youngsters from outside the area. This could leave 57 children without a place at their local school.
For Patcham High, the forecast has 205 children living in the catchment and 64 places likely to be open to those from outside the area. This could leave 44 youngsters unable to take up a place at the their local school.
The report does not take into account pupils going to a private school or Cardinal Newman Catholic School or the King’s School.
Parent Adam Dennett, a professor of urban analytics, has looked in-depth at the issues facing schools in Brighton and Hove.
He said that he was still “unpicking the complexities” but was concerned about the effect on families with children potentially being excluded from their local catchment schools.
He said that one irony that might flow from the proposed admission changes that would bring Whitehawk and the Manor Farm estate into the Stringer and Varndean catchment was that these children could yet miss out on a place at those schools.
Professor Dennett said: “Initial indications are that these plans are as rushed and ill-thought through as those presented in the engagement exercise (last month).
“What is on the table are all of the worst bits of ‘option B’ from the original proposals – so roundly rejected by the community – in disguise.
“The council appear bent on forcing vast numbers of the city’s children to attend schools out of their catchment and a long way from their homes, with no care for the impact on those children and their learning.
“The views coming out of the engagement were unequivocal but, for reasons known only to the council, they have chosen to disregard the community and press ahead with their own ideas.”
The council carried out a three-week public engagement exercise before the cabinet report was drafted.
More than 2,400 people responded, with more than half of them against reducing admissions to the most popular schools and against the two most far-reaching options to change catchment areas.
At a meeting scheduled for next Thursday (5 December), the cabinet is being asked to approve an eight-week public consultation, starting next Friday (6 December).
The meeting is due to start at 5pm and to be webcast on the council’s website.
Utter madness to ignore the strength of feedback from the ‘engagement exercise’ – when can they be voted out?
Thing is Lars, if it’s not reasonable or feasible, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference. For example, everyone would like an extra £10,000 a month – that’s a strong strength of feedback. Never going to happen.
Solutions that are grounded in reality have to supersede emotional sentimentality sometimes. Otherwise, you get three word slogans and 14 years of objectively bad governance.
What a mess. Confusing proposals with far reaching consequences and limited data to really understand the impact on children in the city. I’d be surprised if Labour councillors are willing to bet the next election on this – it won’t end well for them.
Not only did the local community reject these plans but even one of the council’s academics urged caution. Rather than listening to the clear feedback the council have created an overly complex proposal that is the worst of all worlds, with families unable to gain entry to a local school or even plan their children’s education. They only listen to a narrow range of views which align to their own.
These councillors are so wrong with the consequences of this action. A lot of parents will not allow their kids to cross the city every day as part of some social experiment, based on a test in the USA!
Ridiculous
This article is confusing, it states that children in PACA will have more choice in this proposal… But PACA’s catchment area hasn’t changed – there are no additional schools in this catchment area for families to choose in the proposal. Has the journalist understood and reported the facts correctly? As the article is wrong on this, what other facts are incorrect? Maybe this isn’t as bad as it’s portrayed.
Im afraid you need to read the original proposal from the council or the first article from this journalist. The council are introducing two changes 1. 20% if school places in multi school catchments go on priority to families living in single catchment areas.. 2. Free school meal children will make up at least 30% of intake, this can come from in or out of catchment. The outcome is many children (likely hundreds) needing to travel far from local schools. The object is to make school admissions more equal. Will it achieve that? I don’t know. It will sure make a lot more traffic.
Oh, plus changing catchments as well.
Just found the proposal on the council website… Understand the article… Don’t understand the councils logic!
Mixing socioeconomic demographics results in improved average academic performance, to put minimalistically.
Why shouldn’t Whitehawk kids have access to the best schools in the city?Educational outcomes should not be based on whether or not your parents can afford a house in a catchment area.
I agree. I’d also want to go further and ask why there is such a disparity between the “best” and “worst” schools; and what can be done to challenge this status quo on a more fundamental level. I’d argue that a school is more than just a good mix of academic achievers and strugglers. The facilities and building itself should also be scrutinised.
The schools in Whitehawk should be improved by the council rather than making children zig zag across the city everyday. And there is plenty of affordable housing in the Stringer/Varndean catchment in Hollingdean and Roundhill.
Posh people moaning their kids might meet working class kids at school
Who do you think are the Posh kids? Varndean already has a similar level of free school meals as Longhill. Or is it the SEND kids? Or is it the millionaires in the terraced houses of Hanover?
Very misinformed comment