Twenty-two schools in Brighton and Hove ended the latest financial year with a combined deficit of more than £6.6 million.
One school leader said that the figures reflected inadequate funding over a number of years while another said that all faced similar challenges and most coped.
Two secondary schools accounted for more than half the deficit and Middle Street Primary School, which is due to close in the summer, was £332,000 in the red.
The figures for 55 local state schools were compiled by Brighton and Hove City Council and showed that most had kept within their budget.
As a result of their positive balances, overall, the 55 nursery, primary, secondary and special schools had a combined net deficit of £2.28 million at the end of March.
The net deficit figure was £342,000 better than at the end of the previous financial year although the figure was flattered by two anonymous donations totalling up to £850,000.
A donation of £670,000 was made last December to the Hove Learning Federation, enabling West Hove Infant School and Hove Junior School to both end the financial year with a modest surplus.
The key numbers were presented earlier this week to the Brighton and Hove Schools Forum which is made up of head teachers, governors and other education representatives.
The biggest single deficits were £1.84 million at Hove Park, where the Hangleton Way site is expected to close, and Cardinal Newman Catholic School, which was £ 1.6 million in the red.
Brunswick Primary School had the biggest deficit among primaries, with a figure of £535,000, followed by Middle Street where this time last year an interim executive board (IEB) replaced the governors.
None of the three special schools or council-run nurseries had deficits.
Council accountant Steve Williams said that the improvement was a “significant change” in terms of the trend over the previous three years when deficits had been getting worse.
Longhill governor Sean Burke said that part of the improvement had come about as a result of the donations to two primary schools rather than because budget management had improved.
A report to the Schools Forum said: “The 2025-26 year-end balances benefited from significant donations across two primary schools totalling between £800,000 and £850,000.”
Mr Williams said that there was a “significant impact on the bottom line balance” and, without the additional money, the combined deficit would have increased by £500,000.
He said: “The overriding principle there is actually the position is significantly stabilised compared with previous financial years.”
This needs to be stopped, can’t we close more schools and make full classes? This is because Labour councillors were majority teachers so lined their own pockets for years. No cuts for their mates.
Teachers don’t form the majority of Labour Councillors on B&H CC for the simple reason any teacher who works for a council controlled school can not be a councillor.
And even if they were how would they have ‘lined their own pockets for years’ ?
As to stopping / reducing school deficits yes they can close or merge schools and make full classes and yes that is happening but it isn’t totally in the hands of the council.
But the council doesn’t control individual school budgets the school governing bodies do.
‘Lined their own pockets…’? On a teacher’s salary? Unlikely.
As always, the low demand for school placements is driven by the global trend of people having less children. The pragmatic thing would be to do some very strict consolidations, but that always attracts a lot of unhappy people, especially when the local manifesto was to avoid closures where possible. It explains the new focus on LA MATs; centralising and avoid duplication of certain aspects of work to be more cost efficient.
You may remember a couple of years ago when the council had a meeting for head teachers to discuss e.g. federating of schools to do that and several head teachers walked out of that meeting and refusing to discuss it.
The falling rolls point is fair, birth rates are a genuine factor across the city. But the LA MAT proposal raises as many questions as it answers, not least about what the council is currently offering schools that would make a closer relationship with it attractive.
When the council was making changes to secondary admission’s, multiple governing bodies noted that they could not get basic data from the council – pupil projections, financial modelling, transport impact assessments. And there is Middle Street School, with issues for the council’s education team to answer in terms of a lack of response to serious safeguarding concerns. A parent has already publicly criticised the scope of the ‘review as inadequate.
And when schools have decided to look at alternative options, such as academy trusts, they have received emails from senior councillors warning them about ‘very strong opposition’ and that political campaigns will be mounted against them.
None of it gives a sense of councillors listening to and valuing the school leadership (headteacher and governors) in the city. Indeed the opposite.
You generated the answer to your own question.
I’m not sure which question you think was answered, neither my comment nor Chris’s contained one. Both were statements of fact, sourced from published council documents and reported news. If you can point to which specific point you think undermines itself, I’d be interested to hear it.
What strikes me throughout all of this is that the schools and governors involved have been consistently professional in how they’ve engaged, raising concerns through proper channels, responding carefully to consultations, and trying to work constructively with the council even when they disagreed with what was being proposed. The question is whether that professionalism has been reciprocated.
Your generation does indeed include a question, asked passively.
“The question is whether that professionalism has been reciprocated.” – I think this premise might not be accurate.
Chris mentioned when several headteachers walked out of an important meeting around academisation and refused to discuss further. One could argue that wasn’t very professional of the headteachers. In light of that, I think we need to at least be open to the idea that there have been lapses in professionalism on the school’s side, right?
I’m not sure why Benjamin is being rude. I hope that schools form their own trusts or join others outside of LA control. This council have proved with their poorly conceived secondary consultations that they can’t be trusted. They pit parent communities against each other, care little about protecting all children (an hours long school commute anyone?) refuse to share data and disregard their own expert advice. Our schools should support each other, but as BACA has recently shown, freedom from LA control offers a better chance of success. As a parent I lost trust in the Council long ago.
Unfortunately some of the less popular and lower performing schools need to close down, Longhill being the best example. There just isn’t the volume of pupils to keep them going.
Yes it needs doing (and the process should have started a long time ago) but it’s easier said than done especially given the need to avoid excessive transport times and distances for especially young children.
And where would you send the pupils of East Brighton to?
Use your head mate. If bad schools shut then all their kids end up at the good ones. When my kids were at school stanley deason and falmer were the bad schools. Deason shut down and all the whitehawk kids went to longhill. A few years later everyone says longhill and falmer are the bad schools. Now the whitehawk kids are going to stringer. In a few years time that and falmer will be the bad schools and all the parents who moved from london 5 minutes ago will go religious to get their kids into newman.
Benjamin(tm) ‘Your generation does indeed include a question, asked passively’ – it really doesn’t. I’m also not sure why you worded this so oddly. It seems similar other day you accused someone of ‘Genetic fallacy. Avoids engaging with the point’ – particularly ironic that you accused someone else of something that you regularly do yourself – for example here.
Are you using AI to write your responses? Nothing wrong if you are – I find AI really useful for doing analysis and it is an excellent tool where there is an asymmetry of resource (for instance between the council and residents) as well as for checking my drafting – but I wouldn’t want it to write for me. I am quite capable of doing that myself (and have always liked using dashes) and I always double check the facts to make sure it isn’t hallucinating.
Worth noting that across your three replies, none of the specific points have been addressed. Including the FOI correspondence showing political campaigns being threatened against schools considering their options, the school’s concerns about lack of basic data during the admissions consultation, or the criticism of the Middle Street review scope.
Which of those would you push back on?
Kindly, it does. Specifically, if I were to rephrase it you ask the following question: What does the council’s LA MAT proposal offer, or is currently offering, schools that would make a closer relationship with it attractive? You then proceeded to answer that question by – paraphrasing – suggesting it doesn’t!
I can’t recall an incidence of using a genetic fallacy; I’m afraid that claim feels unfounded to me, if you ever catch me doing it though, please call me out on it! Your example of the other day is someone who generates entire replies in ChatGPT and believes everything it says sycophantically, to the point he believes I’m a completely different person. That really highlights the risks of AI to me.
But no, I don’t use AI to write; I don’t have a problem with others doing so, personally I find it tends to makes a lot of fundamentally flawed or limited-context arguments, introduces fallacies confidentially, ends up being quite verbose and non-specific, and misses nuance a lot, and of course hallucinations and “predicting” the right answer when it doesn’t know. They’ve evolved a bit beyond em-dashes though, so that’s good! There’s some interesting reading about how it’s killing the ability to critically think, and I’d love to debate it with you sometime.
Just to also to take you up on your offer to call you out for using the term ‘genetic fallacy’ – it was four days ago, in response to Lesley on the article about Councillor complaints. The direct quote is:
‘Genetic fallacy. Avoids engaging with the point.’
It is a little concerning that you don’t recall something you wrote such a short time ago.
Sorry Toto, but calling out a genetic fallacy is itself, not a genetic fallacy.
In answer to your challenge, my opinion is that a LA MAT could be a solution to all three, particularly if that is combined with a form of resident/external scrutiny element to it. I haven’t formed a detailed idea around what that looks like, but certainly speaks to a solution that avoids private ventures and removes oversights.
While seeking independence from the council, schools might inadvertently reduce their accountability. You mentioned FOI requests, an Academy isn’t subject to those, so we could lose even the right to basic data; the opposite of what would want to be achieved, I’m sure!
Your response includes a basic error – academies are subject to FOI. The Freedom of Information Act applies to all publicly funded schools including academies. That is set out clearly on the Information Commissioners website.
In my experience they are more transparent than the Council – who are now only answering 73% of questions on time. This is the lowest level in six years and well below the statutory target of 90%. The Information Rights team in the council have also been raising concerns about pressure to apply exemptions on grounds of potential embarrassment or reputational risk – which are not valid reasons under the Act.
On the LA MAT point, you suggest it would be a solution to all three of the points raised. It is not clear to me that LA MAT addresses any of those. Political pressure being applied to schools, data being withheld from school leadership, and safeguarding concerns not being acted on for eight months are governance and conduct failures. They would persist under any structure where the same people are making the decisions.
You’re right, I wasn’t accurate. Academy trusts are often sponsored by private companies, charities, or religious organisations. They may enter into commercial contracts, like facility management with their sponsor or other private entities. They can legitimately use the “commercial sensitivity” exemption to withhold details of these contracts, arguing that disclosure could prejudice their commercial interests. Maintained schools, being directly run by the council, have fewer such private commercial arrangements. So I should have said, Academies have far greater ways to reduce transparency compared to directly-state run schools.
Speed of response is not an indication of transparency. We’d have to look deeper into why those delays occur, which could be as simple as sheer volume of requests. I’d be interested in reading about pressures being applied – because that’s clearly not good, if you have a link?
And regarding LA MATs, it could be a solution because it moves away from a model where schools are direct departments of the council, vulnerable to political whims, towards a model of professional, educational leadership. It replaces an ad-hoc, potentially obstructive system with a formal, rights-based framework for information exchange. It creates a dedicated, specialist function with clear accountability, rather than relying on a council department that may have competing priorities. But like I said, it’s a potential step in the right direction if implemented properly.
Section 43 is not an academy‑specific exemption; it applies equally to councils, maintained schools, and trusts. The legal test is identical, and the council already uses it frequently. Trusts are also subject to a number of other transparency requirements, for example under the Academy Trust Handbook.
The Council has shown it is willing to use a variety of exemptions – including legal privilege and prejudice of public affairs – to avoid releasing basic data on schools. Some of this has already been overturned by the Information Commissioner (in spite of their backlog). School leadership teams have also stated their concerns about the lack of transparency in consultation responses.
On the LA MAT, the areas things you describe as benefits would apply as much, if not more so, to a Trust.
‘Moves away from a model where schools are direct departments of the council, vulnerable to political whims’ – the Council would be a member of the Trust and have a role in appointing the other trustees. It remains politically linked to the council.
‘A model of professional, educational leadership.’ – professional leadership is something that all Trusts provide. We have seen the benefits for this, for instance with BACA.
‘Replaces an ad-hoc, potentially obstructive system with a formal, rights-based framework for information exchange’ ‘It creates a dedicated, specialist function with clear accountability, rather than relying on a council department that may have competing priorities’ – these arguments could be made for moving to a trust model generally, but they do not provide any specific advantage for an LA‑MAT over an independent MAT. Both are subject to the same FOIA framework and both must establish internal governance and compliance functions.
So my question to you would be, why would a school pick an LA-MAT rather than a Trust when then only difference is that with an LA-MAT they get to keep being subject to the political whims of whoever is leading the council?
The internal FOI reports are available on the Council’s FOI disclosure portal. I do not think a link will work, but look up ‘freedom of information performance information’ and it should come up.
The exact wording from the report (raised a couple of times) is:
‘Nervousness around releasing certain information: leading to pressure on the team to agree exemptions. A cultural shift is needed towards greater confidence in sharing information and accepting managed risks. This then creates further work at stage 2 and challenges from ICO. Has contributed to increased internal reviews (83% increase this year).’
They also note that they have started to receive ICO decision notices for non-compliance as requests are so late going out.
The reports also show that the number of cases have been almost completely stable since March 2023. There was a jump (22%) between 2022/23 and 2023/24.
My concern on this is that there doesn’t seem to be any scrutiny or oversight of FOI performance by councillors. It only seems to have been shared with the lead Cabinet Member for performance and revealed through an FOI. Other councils proactively publish their FOI performance and take it to their audit committees.
I’m sure you agree that data held by local authorities is our data. We have a right to know how our institutions are run and our money spent – and if they’re failing to meet the standards we expect and deserve.
Surely all that lovely VAT from those rich SEND schools would pay this off ?
The schools article is about a £6.6m deficit, falling rolls and difficult decisions about the future of education in Brighton and Hove. Yet somehow Benjamin has managed to turn it into several paragraphs of semantic arguments, incorrect claims and shifting goalposts.
First, you confidently stated that academies aren’t subject to FOI. They are. That’s not an opinion; it’s a basic fact. When corrected, you immediately pivoted to “well, academies have more ways to reduce transparency.” That’s not an argument, it’s a retreat.
Second, you’ve repeatedly argued that an LA-MAT would provide professional leadership, accountability and better information sharing. Independent trusts already do those things. You still haven’t explained what specific advantage an LA-MAT offers that couldn’t be achieved by any other trust structure.
Third, the obsession with whether someone has “asked a question passively” or whether an em-dash looks like AI writing is just distraction. It’s debating punctuation while avoiding the substance: schools couldn’t get data from the council, political pressure was allegedly applied to schools considering alternatives, and concerns were raised about safeguarding responses. Those are the issues.
And on AI – nobody knows whether you use it or not. But when someone makes factual errors, gets corrected, changes the argument and writes long, overly formal paragraphs that say very little, people are inevitably going to wonder.
The reality is simple: Brighton’s schools have serious financial and governance challenges. They deserve answers, not endless word salad and debates about grammar.
He posts comments on nearly every story, so who really cares?
Whatever the pros and cons of different MATs though, there does need to be a better way organising schools locally to cooperate rather than compete. For example, Newman and Blatchington Mill have refused to cut their intake, which will likely doom the less popular, indebted Hove Park. This can’t be good.
We also need a way of planning admission changes that balances accountability and independence. The city is locked into a decades-long battle where B&H Council try to make changes only to be politically mauled by parents who’ve organised their lives around their children attending the top-rated schools. The latest secondary round has been an ignoble classic with the Council almost ambushing parents (and you suspect misdirecting them) to push changes through, whilst parent campaigners affected studious detachment to cover the usual self-interest. There really must be a better way to do this.
Are Cardinal Newman , Hove park and the other schools in deficit considered to be “failing schools” ?
I would presume they are as they have badly managed their budgets , no wonder everyone wants to send their children to C. Newman as it seems they give scant regard to how they spend the money and not worry about the concequences .