A senior councillor has apologised for an email error that meant more than 1,000 parents were not made aware of a ruling on school admissions.
Conservative councillor Alistair McNair asked why no one at Brighton and Hove City Council noticed that emails about a ruling by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator had been returned undelivered.
The email address of each of the intended recipients had been included in the blind carbon copy (BCC) field and the number proved too many.
A resident, Jim Blackwood, submitted a freedom of information (FoI) request through the What Do They Know website asking about the email.
He was initially told that it had been sent out as promised by council leader Bella Sankey and her deputy Jacob Taylor who is responsible for schools admissions.
But he asked for a review to look at how many “bounced back” – and the FoI review found that all 1,156 were returned, with a message stating: “Your message was not delivered to anyone.”
Councillor McNair said: “Why did the council fail to come clean about this failure immediately?
“Why has there been so much contradictory information from the council and why did it have to take a resident FoI to uncover this.”
He also asked if the council would consider rerunning the admissions process, which ended on Friday 31 October.
Parents of children in year 6 were told where they were due to go to secondary school from September on Monday 2 March.
Councillor Taylor said that the council did not want to make operational errors but the bounce-back email was filed away by a different member of staff.
He said: “It was an error and we’re sorry about that. It shouldn’t happen. Parents should get emails.
“So the team responsible is learning from that. The initial response was genuine and honest. They didn’t know that happened at the time and just gave the answer the emails have been sent.”
Councillor Taylor said that the council would not rerun the process because the only changes were to keep the same published admission number (PAN) at Dorothy Stringer and Blatchington Mill schools which were well publicised at the time.
But they all get to carry on and make further mistakes. Sadly this council and certain Councillors get to make mistake after mistake. Cover it up. Say sorry when finally found out. And move on to the next car crash. How can residents of this city trust them? Surely a vote of no confidence must be coming soon!! Or an investigation they can’t run away from.
Human error is hardly a grand deception. We all make mistakes, you’ve made three just in your comment, for example. I wouldn’t be calling for you to be fired over it, because that would be hysterical of me, right?
And in this case, auto replies, like bounce back messages and acknowledgements, can easily get filtered into spam and missed. It’s very common. It’s a weird limitation too that most people would not be aware of, myself included.
I think the problem is that the council education team’s attitude is so defensive. They treat parents like me (year six going to year 7) like the enemy. They are never open and transparent, so parents are forced to investigate and issue FOIs. They impose changes whilst only listening to a subset of stakeholders. This is my experience as a parent, who has completely lost faith in this councils competency and good faith. As far as the email, of course they shouldn’t be sacked but anyone sending 1500 emails must know not to send them as BCC. Or at least check they have been received. And the apology from councillor Taylor comes across as half hearted and grudging.
Why do you think they’re so defensive? the same thing has been playing out for two decades. People in central Brighton vote for a left-wing council and then hit the roof the moment they actually try to implement left-wing school policies. Anything that touches the idea that you buy a house in the right part of town to get into Stringer gets shot down in flames. The council knew opposition was on its way and probably treated the ‘no way’ group as the enemy because, in this context, they were. My guess is that the undeclared aim this time around was to take the shine off Stringer and Blatch by letting in low income and estate kids, hoping that in a few years opposition to evening out the numbers between schools won’t be quite so intense.
Blimey, even I don’t think the council are purposely trying to make some schools worse. I just thought that was an unintended consequence of their changes. I think all people want is a good local school. This council doesn’t seem to think that is a reasonable request. I don’t think it’s about excluding people, that’s why most people supported the free school meal changes. I didn’t vote Labour but I get your point there.
I’m not saying they’ll be any worse. I’m saying they might lose their shine now they’re letting in more poor kids and Stringer is the Whitehawk school. Parents might stop losing the plot every time the council suggests a catchment change. My kids went to Patcham. Good school but you should have seen the state of people when catchments came in and Patcham kids couldn’t get into Stringer anymore.
I think JW does make a good point. Council officers across multiple departments do get defensive very quickly. I suspect it’s a learnt behaviour. There have been plenty of times I’ve witnessed people get very… spicy… in their language on many issues; becoming accusatory, performative, and conspiratorial. Not that it is always bad faith, mind. As has been mentioned on this topic, parents are looking to ensure their children have a good education, and that heat comes from that positive desire.
Unfortunately, there are also a lot who like to be adversarial for the sake of it, and that’s even before you throw in party politics.
As for the technology…my email clients can handle 2,000 BCC easily, although for a bulk like that, I’d really be using something like Mailchimp. Had enough mailing lists get spammed with everyone’s autoreplies and OoO messages because someone replied to all, so I can absolutely see how that could happen. So maybe the lesson here is that some learning around communication needs to happen as a reaction?
Mistakes happen. Although when sending an email, that had been publicly promised by councillors several times, to more than 1000 people you would have thought someone might want to check the message has left the system.
But in this case, when they have investigated they claimed it had been sent to many parents. The council also said the same in response to previous press stories. Even yesterday in the council meeting Councillor Taylor was still saying ‘some’ emails hadn’t been sent. Which he claims is ‘clear’ – but I think we can all tell the difference between ‘some’ and ‘none’.
Basic errors shouldn’t happen – but repeated cover-ups and downplaying of the seriousness of this is the real issue here.
But I’m glad that they have finally used the word ‘sorry’ as that was sadly missing in previous council responses.
Using Outlook to send a bulk email in 2026? This is ridiculous. It is something that anyone with basic IT knowledge has known to avoid for well over 20 years.
I get that some people may not be aware of the reasons that this is such a bad idea, but why isn’t there some education of those in a position to be communicating important information to the general public and a general policy in place to stop something like this from happening?
Certainly points to a need to modernise their systems.
So in summary.
Councillor Taylor grudgingly apologised but didn’t really mean it.
The Councl uses outdated systems.
School Admssions don’t actually know what they are doing.
Certain schools don’t want the estate kids.
Council officers are very defensive.
We should except this all to happen again in the next council/ admissions/ Councillor Taylor/ Council Officers fiasco.
And when this council get voted out we will be back here again with the new council who will of course blame the old council.
Nah, representations in council actually said Cllr Taylor has been very engaged. We already knew the council uses outdated systems, which is why there are budget lines and goals to improve them. More accurately, getting schools in the right place is going to take several more years, almost certainly with the consideration of LA MATs and spaces not reflecting the replenishment ratios in BHCC.
And the cycle of using the previous group as a scapegoat is a tradition that has been used globally for centuries, lol!
Who exactly were these ‘representations’ from? Because the experience of many residents doesn’t match that picture at all.
A good example is when a resident asked about the impact of the proposed admissions changes on families eligible for free school meals at a recent council meeting. Instead of engaging with the question, Cllr Taylor dismissed it by claiming that ‘displaced’ only refers to people displaced by war, when in fact it means being forced to move away from an area. Given the current admissions situation, that definition feels uncomfortably relevant. Did she not deserve genuine engagement and response to that question?
It’s also worth remembering that experienced politicians only get to blame their predecessors for a short window – six months to a year at most. Three years in, this administration owns its decisions. Criticising council staff, who have no right of reply and are clearly struggling after three consecutive years of admissions changes, is not a substitute for genuine accountability.
I definitely don’t want to be ‘adversarial for the sake of it’ as you put it. I’d just like to know we had councillors who really cared about the views of people in the City rather than being focused on their own personal political profile with the national Labour Party.
See, I genuinely think our councillors do care, loads have been part of the community in various roles way before they were elected, and that evidences it for me.
But where I differ is that pragmaticism has to kick in, understanding where the limits are as part of constitutional liberalism, rather than popularism, like we are seeing with the far-right. Just because an idea is popular, doesn’t make it viable, reasonable, or morally correct, right?
There are definitely legacy issues that absolutely have long reaching effects, and it would be disingenuous to say they are short lived. 14 years of the road maintainance being halved can’t be reversed overnight, that neglect has happened, for example. Another would be the i360; until that loan is paid off, it will continue to be a burden on this council and the next council and the council after that. I think you are right though, that people struggle to see it that way.
Focusing back on admissions, really, this was an issue that had been kicked down the road. Our children population had been trending down for a while, and our provision capacity needed to be addressed sooner or later. It was never going to be popular. Mistakes like this email, doesn’t help either.
I don’t disagree that many councillors have long-standing community involvement. That’s exactly why the current approach feels so disappointing to so many residents.
People aren’t questioning their past commitment, they’re questioning the way concerns are being handled now.
On pragmatism, I completely agree that not every popular idea is viable. But that cuts both ways. Pragmatism also means engaging honestly with residents’ lived experience, especially when decisions have very real consequences for families. When a resident asks a straightforward question about the impact on children eligible for free school meals and is met with a rhetorical diversion about the meaning of ‘displaced’, that doesn’t feel like constitutional liberalism – it feels like avoiding the substance of the issue.
Legacy issues absolutely matter, but they can’t be used indefinitely to deflect responsibility. And on admissions specifically, yes, the demographic trend has been visible for a while – which makes it even more important that the process is handled transparently, competently, and with genuine engagement.
That’s really the heart of it for me. No one expects these decisions to be universally popular. But people do expect to feel heard, respected, and taken seriously. When that doesn’t happen, it’s understandable that trust erodes.
So could I ask you to respond directly to the original point: do you think the resident who asked about the impact on families eligible for free school meals deserved a genuine and adequate answer from Cllr Taylor?
If you could point me to the specific meeting, I can certainly form an opinion on it; there have been a few questions on free school meals, so I wouldn’t want to cross wires. If we’re referring to Alison’s question in January, she also got a written response from Cllr. Taylor, which one would assume is a much fuller answer than the several minutes allowed at a council meeting – she’s commented on here recently, so perhaps she’ll be able to tell us more about that?
Oh good, so the takeaway is: everything’s *technically* under control, it’ll just take “several more years” to actually work properly… reassuring 😅
I think most people could accept outdated systems and the occasional mistake if there was a bit more transparency from the start. Saying emails were sent when, in reality, none were delivered isn’t exactly a minor detail—it’s kind of the whole point.
But sure, as long as there are “budget lines” and “goals,” I’m sure parents currently navigating the system will feel much better about it all.
It’s funny when GPT tries to be sarcastic, because it’s own guardrails avoids being outright hostile, so it just comes across as a sassy diva, lol. #23
Benjamin it was the meeting in January I was specifically referring to. Although it is just one example. I know many parents and school leaders have experienced a similar dismissive approach to their concerns.
I’m not sure how getting a written response afterwards mitigates a dismissive response from Cllr Taylor in the council chamber. I’d also be interested to know how you know she got a written response. Is it on the public record? I’d be interested to read it if it is.
Ben is a labour member. He gets a lot of info from colleagues in Labour, why he is always backing them Up in this place. Every single article, pretty much. He even tried to get councillors onto a community centre constitition automatically with no votes. Watch this one. Thankfully I spotted that, and stopped that. And if it is reversed the community will be fuming.
With this council it’s always act dumb say nothing, until the shit hits the fan, I guess we should be grateful we even get an apology…..
You all know what to do. Labour Out!
I’m really not interested in dismissing people on the basis of their party politics. I’ve met good and bad politicians in every major party.
What matters to me is that decisions are made on the basis of evidence, that communities feel involved, and that there is openness and room for challenge.
That clearly didn’t happen with school admissions, and I agree that some of the current leadership does seem to treat concerned residents as political opponents rather than engaging with the substance of what they’re saying. That’s a cultural problem with some individuals, not a party‑political one.
On the specific point about Alison’s correspondence, I’d be interested to know whether the response she received is in the public domain. If it isn’t, but has been shared selectively with Labour Party members who aren’t councillors, then that raises legitimate questions about transparency and process. Information should either be public or handled consistently – not circulated privately to some people and not others.
This kind of selective engagement has been a problem throughout the school admissions debate. Certain lobby groups, such as Class Divide, were clearly given opportunities to feed into the thinking at an early stage, while others – including school leaders, who are directly responsible for implementing the policy – only learned about the proposals when the public consultation went live. That imbalance in who gets sight of information, and when, is part of the wider transparency issue.
I saw it on the public record here, went to look when you asked me that question. Doesn’t say what the written response was, though. https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s212674/Item%2071%20Public%20Questions.html?CT=2
I found the part you’re referring to, starting around 1:42:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3wRJG2w21o. The semantics of “displaced” probably should have been dropped. The rest of the answers to both the main question and the supplementary questions seemed comprehensive and full, and respectful, in the context of the two people asking questions.
At least in this particular instance. You mentioned others, and my personal thoughts more broadly are that there should be a bit of shake up on how residents engage with the council, deputations feel rather restrictive, and I think with devolution around the corner, it’s important to establish what local voice looks like at a regional level.
I think you have misunderstood that document you have linked to. Alison submitted a written question – which is what is listed in your link. The only response she received was the one in the chamber from Cllr Taylor. There was no written follow-up just the dismissive response in the council chamber.
I characterisation of the debate seems very different from yours. I don’t think it was at all welcoming or respectful – or at least only respectful to those who agreed with the council’s position.
Maybe you can explain you comment about ‘in the context of the two people asking the questions’? Do people who disagree with the council not deserve a full response? These are not political opponents but parents who are concerned.
Comments like:
‘“we don’t need undergraduate degrees in statistics. We just need to be able to speak and read English.”
And then rather than engaging with the statistical issue, the councillor reframed it as a matter of simple comprehension, implying the criticism was over‑technical or unnecessary.
Then when concerns were raised about the petition data. Instead of addressing the methodological point, Cllr Taylor suggested prejudice:
“I wonder if it’s the nature of the petition… mums on the school gate… that Professor Dennett thinks is so invalid.”
This shifted the debate from evidence to motive.
When Alison raised concerns about disadvantaged children being “displaced” from their local schools, the councillor did not address the underlying issue. Instead, he challenged her vocabulary:
“the definition of displaced people… is someone forced to flee their home or country… a refugee.”
This semantic diversion reframed the discussion around word choice rather than the substantive concern – that some in‑catchment, free‑school‑meal children may lose places under the proposed criteria. It allowed the councillor to avoid engaging with the policy impact.
Matthew Boot received courteous acknowledgement but no substantive engagement. Cllr Choudhury opened with:
“I want to recognise your role in engaging constructively…”
But then avoided every key point – the lack of impact assessments, withheld modelling, contradictions with previous policy aims – by pivoting to last year’s adjudicator ruling, which did not apply to this year’s process. None of the specific procedural concerns were addressed.
It is really intimidating for people to attend the council meeting. When their concerns are minimised and dismissed, and councillors openly attack them, it directly leads to a breakdown in trust between residents and those elected to represent them.
That is an absolutely fair point if she didn’t get a written response. It appeared like she spoke in the chamber and submitted a written question; if that’s the same thing, I put my hands up and admit I got that wrong.
My comment was focused on the framing of Professor Dennett’s question; he was clearly using accusatory language despite three independent reviews having already found the process and Cllr Taylor compliant and free of any wrongdoing. That conversation very much inferred that this isn’t the first time.
I think it was a good technical question, asking how the data is reliable. But starting from a position that is immediately accusatory and phrased in bad faith does suggest the intention was less about reasonable scrutiny. And humanistically, that has an effect on anything following.
I’m still in agreement with you that arguing semantics was not beneficial, and I think that partially might have been charged by the Professor directly before. Not a justification, mind. Although his response to her question was out of scope for Admissions was procedurally reasonable. Could it have been phrased better? Absolutely. Maybe he should have spoken to how the potential could be mitigated or committed to reviewing that aspect? I wouldn’t categorise it as a personal attack or minimisation, though, but that’s my interpretation of it. And I’m glad you and I can have a respectful debate about it.
You are right that it is intimidating to speak at council. I do hold the view that community engagement needs a general overhaul, maybe something like a citizens’ panel? Especially important in the future because devolution will likely change the paradigm significantly.
Thanks for the clarification, and I appreciate you acknowledging the point about the written response.
I think where we still differ is the idea that the councillor’s tone towards Alison and Adam can be explained by “context” or by the tone of Adam’s question.
Adam was asking why responses from a petition had been added to the general consultation responses in the council report as if they carried equal weight. His frustration came from the way responses from some areas of the city were minimised or misrepresented during the previous year’s consultation, while what an official described as “quality” responses from those who supported the policy were emphasised. I know that happened – I read what the AI version of the 3000+ responses said and how that differed from what was written up for the Council. That history matters. People do get upset when they feel their voices are not being heard – or even acknowledged on things that matter to them.
In any case, Cllr Taylor is the elected politician in the room. He should be able to take scrutiny from any resident and respond in a measured way. If he believed that combining petition signatures with consultation responses was appropriate, he could simply have explained the rationale.
For what it’s worth, I agree that the petition information should have been included in the council papers – but not merged into a table alongside the formal consultation responses. People signing a petition are not given options, context, or the full information that accompanies a statutory consultation. Treating the two datasets as equivalent inevitably distorts the picture. If had been a petition against the proposals I not believe it would have been treated in the same way.
That was the substance of Adam’s question. It wasn’t bad faith; it was a legitimate point about methodology and transparency. And even if you felt his tone was sharper than ideal because of frustration, that shouldn’t shape how the councillor responds to him or other residents who followed him. Alison asking about the impact on disadvantaged children and the meaning of “displacement” – reasonable questions that deserved substantive answers.
All of this sits within a wider breakdown of trust, and it’s ultimately elected representatives who need to take the lead in rebuilding that trust rather than deepening division. Maybe you could suggest to your friends on the council that they should reach out and offer that?