A campaign group has lodged a formal complaint about bias, saying that it was excluded by the council from a public debate when a rival group was welcomed.
The Parent Support Group wanted to take part in a Brighton and Hove City Council scrutiny committee discussion on proposed changes to secondary school admission rules.
The group, formed by parents living in the Varndean School and Dorothy Stringer catchment area, said that another campaign group, Class Divide, was represented and that this had been biased and unfair.
Class Divide supports the changes proposed by the council while the Parent Support Group does not.
Council plans to change the Varndean and Stringer catchment area would give children from Whitehawk a better chance of going to those schools.
And children in Kemp Town would be moved from the Varndean and Stringer catchment into the Longhill catchment instead.
Another change would give children in four catchments – for Longhill, Patcham High, BACA and PACA – a better chance of going to the likes of Varndean, Stringer, Blatchington Mill and Hove Park.
But the Parent Support Group said that this could mean more than 140 children who live close to Varndean and Stringer missing out on a place at their local secondary school.
They would be split up from friends and face unnecessary journeys each day while those from further afield would also be making longer journeys than necessary to and from school but the other way.
In addition, the Parent Support Group said that this would make them more likely to miss lessons and more likely to miss out on after-school activities because of public transport limitations and cost.
The council is consulting parents, professionals and the public about its proposals until the end of the month and the plan was discussed by the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Before the meeting last week, the Parent Support Group asked to be represented by parent Adam Dennett.
He is professor of urban analyics at University College London and has modelled the effects of the council’s proposals, sharing his findings on the Brighton and Hove School Catchments Facebook group.
The group also asked the committee to invite Exeter University economist Ellen Greaves, based on her neutral stance when she previously appeared before the committee in October.
The committee invited Dr Greaves and rival campaign group Class Divide but not the Parent Support Group. Instead, Professor Dennett spoke at the start of the meeting, in a deputation.
Class Divide, which has pushed for better educational opportunities for children in east Brighton for the past five years, was invited to take part in the meeting.
Co-founder Curtis James and father of three Lewis Smith addressed the committee and were available to answer questions during the discussion.
The complaint letter said: “Class Divide has been campaigning actively in favour of the council’s proposals.
“In the interest of balance and fairness, the scrutiny committee should also have invited either the Parent Support Group or Professor Adam Dennett to the meeting.
“The Parent Support Group and Professor Dennett have conducted modelling and research of the implications of the council’s proposals and the challenges affecting the city’s school system which would have been relevant for the meeting to hear.
“Instead, the Parent Support Group was only able to contribute through a deputation which gave it less opportunity to participate in discussion.
“The decision to invite Class Divide to two scrutiny committee meetings without inviting the Parent Support Group to any scrutiny committee meetings is clearly unbalanced and constrains the ability of the committee to fulfil its role in analysing the council’s decisions.”
The Parent Support Group listed six points in their complaint to the council
• The committee did not act in accordance with its responsibility to scrutinise the executive.
• There were no parent governors on the committee.
• The committee did not invite a suitable range of outside experts and representatives to adequately inform its discussion.
• The chairing of the meeting was biased and focused on defending the executive rather than scrutinising the executive.
• The committee was not presented with a balanced explanation of the council’s proposals and no effort was made by the chair to elicit the extra information required to inform a balanced discussion.
• The chair sought to present concerns raised by parents as unfounded fears without adequately interrogating the nature of parental concerns and did nothing to moderate divisive comments made by other councillors during the committee meeting.
The group said: “The council’s current consultation process in respect of changes to catchment areas and school preference criteria represents significant changes to the city’s educational landscape.
“As parents, we recognise the importance of having a good choice of schools in the city that meet children’s needs. However, these proposals have consequences and rightly need to be objectively scrutinised.
“The Parent Support Group (PSG) has been focused on raising legitimate concerns, asking questions, challenging the robustness of the process, methodology and numbers.
“However, it seems counter-intuitive and inappropriate to invite parties who have been influential in driving the council’s proposals to the scrutiny committee’s discussions, describe them as ‘independent witnesses’ and not invite the PSG.”
The chair of the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Labour councillor Jackie O’Quinn, said that she welcomed the interest in participating in the meeting.
Councillor O’Quinn said: “It is not always possible to accommodate everyone due to time constraints. In the case of our scrutiny committees, involvement is at the chair’s discretion.
“While the Parent Support Group was not able to contribute to the discussion on this item at the recent meeting, a deputation was made on behalf of the group by Professor Adam Dennett, meaning they were given time to make their representation to councillors.
“I felt, given Professor Dennett would speak as part of the deputation and time on this item was limited, the group would have an opportunity to put its points across outside of the discussion.
“We also had other independent witnesses, including Class Divide and Dr Ellen Greaves, an expert in school admissions from the University of Exeter, whose involvement was requested by the Parent Support Group.
“We are confident proceedings included an appropriate range of opinions, lived experiences, professional expertise and insight, which did include the deputation on behalf of the Parent Support Group.”
“It’s not always possible to accommodate everyone…” unless your class divide. This is a contentious policy area, it really isn’t wise to have an appearance of bias. I voted labour and I support equality in education, but there also has to be democratic evenhahdedness. Don’t forget you have to be re-elected, I remind you of Ulez and the by election, and a different party could do a Trump and erase all your good work in a whole range of areas. I would recommend a bit more effort to represent all interests. While we won this time, it’s not that long ago Labour locally was taking the Pissaridou…
What they mean is. “We are angry they didn’t seem to agree with us.” The actions of this campaign group absolute reak of the privilege they claim not to have.
The group have had plenty of opportunity to share there data and meet with councillors, that’s shown in the Facebook group where they are highlight represented and bomard with data that isn’t accessible to all communities. Such a shame that they feel the amount of shouting they have done hasn’t been heard.
In response to the parent governors I really hope that there will be a representative of each community otherwise we are back to those who shout louder get their own way.
The council have still not adequately answered how they will ensure that children going through the SEND process who don’t have an EHCP will be protected from the changes proposed though.
Until they do that, the Labour council risk legal challenges for failing children with additional needs. The standard appeal process against school places frequently ignores SEND issues until children have EHCPs in place, and there is loads of data which shows that BHCC often refuse to issue EHCPs and the decisions are overturned by SEND tribunals. All the while when these families have to fight their corner via legal action children with additional needs are often out of school as it can’t be guaranteed their needs will be me where they have been offered a place.
I’m sure Longhill does what it can to support children with additional needs, but if children cannot get to school in the first place – eg because they are neurodiverse and there are issues travelling across the city, they won’t be able to access in-school support.
It’s more than just middle class parents shouting loudly and it’s an easy, dismissive, and unfair for people to suggest that’s all it’s about it’s not.
Personally, I think Class Divide raise some important points, but the council is rushing this proposal if they go ahead this year and they need to build in better safeguards before ploughing ahead.
It’s not about privilege. It’s about the council trying to pass huge changes to the enrollment process without really understanding how these changes will actually effect children, their families, childcare, mental health, safety, young carers, and SEND children. The council doesn’t have any straight forward answers or data. If they did, parents could make an informed decision. That’s why parents are worried and very anxious about an extremely stressful situation they will have to navigate if these proposals go through.
There is no denying it is an extremely stressful situation for parents.
Yes, some parents are worried and very anxious about an extremely stressful situation they will have to navigate if these proposals go through. That is completely understandable.
Many, many other parents across the city however are quietly excited that the worry and anxiety that has plagued them for years regarding the complete lack of choice for secondary education might be alleviated if these proposals go through.
This proposal is about the council addressing the inequity and injustice of the current catchment area. Every child should have a meaningful choice of a school. For children in Coombe road and the Whitehawk area, Vardean and Dorothy Stringer are their closest school. For children from Coombe road area they can walk to Vardean and DS and yet they currently have no chance of going to these schools.
Every child should have a chance of a choice of school.
These proposals will mean the majority of children currently within the DS & V catchment will have at best a 25% chance of getting a place there.
For these families, and the whole of those in this catchment it is an illusion of choice. Effectively your choice will instead be which of the under subscribed village schools you have to send your child to whilst those who live where those schools are pass you on the way.
Its ridiculous, as has been proven by the data which parents have provided in light of the council failing to do so.
Children in Whitehawk have missed out on other Schools for Years by the sound of it.
I always wonder how children get into Primary Schools from Whitehawk ( Queens park, St Luke’s, Elm Grove or elsewhere) yet the minute they give there Home Address for Secondary School, they automatically get the School there Postcode fits in.
I’m still convinced Parents lie on Address to get children into Dorothy Stringer & Varndean.
People will be doing it the other way to get Children not to go to Longhill, so will still lie to get them at other Schools.
It’s quite extraordinary the lengths that the sharp-elbowed middle classes will go to in order to preserve what they believe they are “entitled to”.
The rest of the city must be absolutely delighted that at last they too have a choice over schools.
I bet every one of these parents votes Green and claims to be “left wing”. That is until kids from Whitehawk get a fair go.
Spoken like a true middle-class Labour voting Hove resident Palmeira Seagull 🙂
The kids from Whitehawk will be in the DS & V catchment area. So they will also be penalised by the proposed open admissions priority which will mean that kids from outside the catchment will get a place at their expense. How does that give them a fair go?