Parents and education campaigners urged Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet to think about the effects of proposed changes to school catchments, admissions rules and intakes.
Some are in favour of changes which are expected to mean more children from Whitehawk have the chance to go to popular secondary schools such as Dorothy Stringer and Varndean.
Others are concerned that a growing number of children will end up having long journeys to and from school involving two or more buses each way.
The cabinet unanimously agreed to hold an eight-week public consultation on the changes which including cutting the admission numbers at three secondaries.
The deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said that the consultation would help show whether the council had found the right balance between fairness and the geographic realities of the city.
The proposals also include adjusting two catchment areas and allowing “open admissions” for up to 20 per cent of available school places to youngsters in single-school catchment areas.
At the cabinet meeting today (Thursday 5 December), the Parents Support Group was first up, representing more than 400 parents living in the Varndean and Dorothy Stringer catchment in Brighton.
Mark Kennedy spoke for the group and called for a pause in the process. The group fears that open admissions could mean that “200 randomly selected children” travel long distances rather than attend a school close to home.
The council’s own data suggests that at least 125 children in the Varndean and Stringer catchment would be allocated a school further from home. The group believes that the figure would be more like 144.
Mr Kennedy said: “Only one in four children who live within the catchment would be able to get a place at Stringer or Varndean, if they are a firstborn child and not eligible for free school meals.
“We think they would have less chance of getting in than a child living outside the catchment area applying under the open application priority. Last year, all of these children could have been admitted to their local school.”
Class Divide, a campaign group formed to tackle educational inequalities, initially in Whitehawk, Manor Farm and on the Bristol Estate, wants to see children from lower-income backgrounds given priority for secondary school places.
The group’s co-founder Carlie Goldsmith said that communities in the east of Brighton were not served well and children had been failed for decades.
Dr Goldsmith said: “We want the cabinet to continue to make ‘bold and brave’ decisions on this issue so that the equitable system we all want to achieve is a reality. An inclusive, equitable education system is possible.
“Our aim during this consultation period is to ensure that everyone with a voice is heard and those who have been harmed in the past are empowered to shape a better approach in the future.”
Green councillor Raphael Hill was among the opposition councillors with questions and concerns and asked whether the council would consider asking a citizens’ assembly to look at the issues.
Councillor Hill said that many groups including care leavers, disabled people and people from ethnic and racial minorities were under-represented among respondents to a council survey on admissions carried out in October.
Councillor Taylor said that as part of the public consultation the council was working with community and voluntary groups to encourage more feedback from “hard to reach” communities.
Councillor Hill also asked about the “grey area” of transport funding for children allocated schools outside their catchment area as a result of the changes.
The Labour deputy leader said that there had never been a guarantee of a place in the area where a child lived since the last big overhaul of catchments in 2007.
But the home-to-school transport policy is under review in the new year.
Labour councillor Theresa Fowler asked if the council would look at the effect of offering “open admission” to a lower percentage of pupils.
She said that she had received many emails from people living in the Hollingdean and Fiveways ward who were worried about children being allocated a school out of their catchment area.
Councillor Taylor said that the consultation would show if the council had found the right balance.
Conservative councillor Anne Meadows tabled a series of questions but she was not at the meeting so they were not asked. She is expected to receive written responses.
She wanted to know why a child living next to their first or second-choice school could lose out to a child with higher priority needs resulting in both having to travel across the city.
Councillor Meadows also asked if cuts to published admission numbers were in the right places.
The consultation will start on the Your Voice section of the council’s website tomorrow (Friday 6 December).
It will seek people’s views on adjusting the Varndean and Dorothy Stringer catchment area and the neighbouring Longhill catchment.
People will also be asked about proposed cuts to the year 7 intakes at three schools in September 2026
• Blatchington Mill – down from 330 to 300 pupils
• Dorothy Stringer – down from 330 to 300 pupils
• Longhill – down from 270 to 210 pupils
An “open admissions” criterion was also proposed in the consultation. This would give pupils from catchment areas with a single school a better chance of being allocated a place in a school such as Stringer, Varndean Blatchington Mill or Hove Park.
The rule would make up to 20 per cent of places available to pupils living in the BACA, PACA, Patcham High and Longhill High catchments.
The consultation will also ask if parents and pupils should have the option of choosing up to four schools instead of three when applying for secondary place.
The council is planning to hold a number of public meetings online and in person
• Thursday 12 December from 10am to 11.30am online
• Tuesday 7 January from 6pm to 7.30pm in person at Hove Town Hall – to be confirmed (TBC)
• Saturday 11 January from 10.30am to noon in person at the Jubilee Library – TBC
The consultation is due to end on Friday 31 January.
Bunch of nimbus? We all want equality but then we all don’t want coz my darling child might have to get a couple of busses. Outrageous idea in a super metropolis of 300k habitants! Like B&H. No! End of the world.
Has cllr Fowler gone as an independent? So much for working class heroine. Has cllr Hill joined the Tories? So much for a “progressive”. That is politricks I guess.
Nonsense. It took a lot of hard work from my parents to give me and my husband a generous enough deposit to buy a property on a postcode with good schools catchment. Can’t these living in catchments with schools they don’t just get deposit money from papa and mama to buy a property with good schools catchment. Why would anyone want to review such system???
Nonsense. It took a lot of hard work from my parents to give me and my husband a generous enough deposit to buy a property on a postcode with good schools catchment. Can’t these living in catchments with schools they don’t just get deposit money from papa and mama to buy a property with good schools catchment. Why would anyone want to review such system???
Having watched 2 cabinet meetings now, it appears to be a system where something is proposed by labour, 2/3 labour councillors have a chance to say how wonderful it is and then the small cabinet votes it through. At least in the old system, there was some form of challenge from the opposition even though the majority voted everything through. It seems the only bit of actually democracy we have, is voting for our local councillors every 4 years – after that, decisions are made by the relatively small, single party cabinet.
By reading your message it is hard not to think you’re one on the 1/3 labour’s councillor. How do you know 2/3 of the labour’s councillor voted for it? This would be a breach of confidentiality, wouls it not? But if you’re, get over yourself you and go back to democracy 101.
The voting is open. It’s obvious how tbe councillors voted.
Parents are the 2nd most insufferable special interest group, after motorists.
Ah, i reckon i’d put dog owners at the top.
A fair contender for the title.
How about an increase in council tax on the highest banded properties, with the proceeds funnelled towards underperforming schools?
So Parents move into the Catchment on the understanding they will get the School that closest to there House. (Primary & Secondary)
Well those that have to take a Council House in Estate they don’t really want, have to take the Nearest Secondary School as it’s in there Catchment area-yet all Students want the Popular 1, even when they don’t know why Students have no idea why Longhill isn’t chosen.
I still think Parents in Whitehawk have lied on Address to get Stringer or Varndean, there no way they get in at Moment, be further out.
School Admissions don’t check every child to the Address, that’s too Time Consuming -they look at Postcode I think that gets them in.
But they need to open it Further so more Children can apply all around for Schools within the City
If Parents are willing to pay Fare then that’s there decision to apply for the Schools-even if it means getting 2 Buses each way at leaving at 7-7.30am
But even a school buses leave from Lidl to Stringer at 7.40, and the same from Whitehawk to Hove Park or Cardinal Newman
Longhill has 3 that go-2 mins apart at 7.41,7.42 & 7.44
Plenty of Children go across the City to Schools.
Frankly ridiculous that the Councils own website states “These proposals are informed by the results of an engagement exercise held in October 2024”
The published outcome of that engagement was a profound rejection of a less severe version of the resulting proposal.
Children of the city the losers whilst adults have a go at playing politics, ignoring the factual reality.