Brighton and Hove City Council has come under fire for failing to alert parents to changes to school admissions rules again this year.
Parents were expecting an update after objections to admissions changes for the September 2027 intake were lodged with an external regulator by four anonymous parents.
The Office of the Schools Adjudicator upheld some of the objections in a decision published on Thursday 22 October as schools broke up for the half-term holiday.
The deadline to apply for a secondary school place was nine days later – last Saturday (31 October).
The adjudicator David Holland said that the priority given to children who were eligible for free school meals was “unclear” in the council’s admissions criteria.
Mr Holland also ruled that the council’s waiting list arrangements “lacked sufficient clarity” and one of the rules concerning waiting lists was inconsistent with the statutory admissions code.
A school governor, who asked not to be identified, said that communications with school leaders did not include any explicit request to share the adjudicator’s rulings with families on what was the final day before the half-term break.
The governor said: “If you are disadvantaged or grappling with SEND (special educational needs and disabilities), is it even fair to expect you to have to find an update on admissions that affects you.
“A key pillar of this new admissions policy, for which the council won an award, was to support the disadvantaged.
“Yet the adjudicator highlighted the inconsistencies, which parents need to know, so it would make sense to proactively engage with families on what is already a complex admissions policy.”
Last year, parents were told that they would receive an email about a previous ruling by the adjudicator affecting the number of Year 7 places at Blatchington Mill and Dorothy Stringer secondary schools for this year’s intake.
When the adjudicator said that the intake should remain unchanged at both schools, the council emailed more than 1,000 parents but none of the emails was received. They all bounced back.
One parent who previously raised concerns about poor communication between the council and parents, Natasha Priest, was disappointed again this year.
Mrs Priest said: “Parents applying for secondary school deserved to be told the rules had changed. Instead, the council issued a press release spinning the adjudicator’s ruling.
“The changes affected kids on free school meals and how waiting lists work. Our children deserve better.”
The council said: “We made it clear to parents applying for school places on our website that arrangements were under review by the schools adjudicator.
“An update on that decision was also shared on our website last week.
“It was never our intention to email parents directly but we are aware that, while awaiting the adjudicator decision, a section of our website was not updated to reflect this.”
The council did not respond when asked which section of its website had not been updated.
The council added: “As soon as the schools adjudicator’s determination was made, we updated our website to reflect the required changes but we do apologise for any confusion.
“All the relevant information is available on our website and has been made available in good time at every stage of the process.”
Low, no, or sham public consultation on vital city decisions which severely impact residents. However every household can get a leaflet through the door the other day bragging that the city recycling scheme – still providing one of the worst recycling rates in the country – has improved! Funny, that.
Well said. For 10 years I have complained about the uncaring, finance-&-numbers before children’s education culture in the council schools admissions team, led by Richard Barker.
Somehow councillors are afraid to challenge – or be brave and make the real changes in school admissions needed.
My dear, to have one’s school admissions policy found wanting may be regarded as a misfortune. To fail to communicate the consequences to parents may be regarded as carelessness. But to do both with such apparent confidence two years in the trot suggests a quite extraordinary talent for municipal incompetence.
And who, pray, is this mysterious entity referred to as “the council”? When there is good news to announce, the names of councillors are scattered so liberally across these pages that one can scarcely find the news beneath them. Yet when the tidings are less agreeable, not a single elected name appears. How very curious.
Where is Councillor Emma Daniel when one needs her? Or is one to understand that responsibility for young people no longer extends to their education, such matters having apparently been entrusted to the rather less youthful and considerably less dashing of our two Jacobs?
I have always believed that responsibility should accompany authority. Brighton & Hove City Council appears to regard the two as entirely separate admissions categories.
Really, the whole affair is most unfortunate. Even the handbag was easier to locate.