most of you will have heard of this today [School choices]

[Gwylan]

The particular problem that Brighton and Hove has is that schools were built in locations that aren't evenly spread throughout the city.

Encouraging students to attend the nearest school is all very well but, if everyone did that, some schools would fill up before ANYONE from certain parts of the city found a place ANYWHERE.

This means that there has to be some mechanism for ensuring that places are available on a fair basis for all.

Inevitably it's difficult to come up with the right system. And ANY change to the system is bound to lead to SOME people complaining that they are being unfairly treated.

What is wrong is to accuse the Education Authority of being motivated by either maliciousness or incompetence.

No. the EA was motivated by the need to keep its core support in Hanover happy.

I understand the particular problem about Brighton but this is an issue that should have been addressed in the 1970s when the comprehensive system was introduced and when ESCC should have tackled the inbalance of three secondary schools (DS, Varndean and Patcham) in a small area.

What you say about all systems being unfair is absolutely true but perhaps a few of us still entertained the idea that a Labour-led admin would try to level the playing field a little and ensure that the most disadvantaged would have a chance to get into the 'better' schools. Sadly, New Labour's obsession with keeping the wealthy happy means that the well-off are the winners and the families in the more deprived areas are the losers.

Still, how naive of me to believe that the Labour party would cling to any idea of social justice.

 

[Starry]

forgive me Starry, but I do get the impression that you are not short of a bob or two and that probably means you have far better "choices" that some. being able to take your kids accross town in a 4x4 par exaple. A single mother with two kids living in Whitehawk does not have those oppertunities.

I am not saying that is your fault, far from it ( If we had the money at the time i would certainly have sent my kids to private school as I believe any help up the ladder is worth it), these days the myth of choice is just that for a huge proportion of the population

Quite. Which is why I said the poorer schools should be dragged up to standard etc. and that every school should be 'good'.

 

[Starry]

What would you do if the local school perfectly met your children's needs but didn't match up to your faith requirements, whereas the other school did not match your children's needs but did not match your faith requirements.

The answer may be obvious as you seem to be indicating that faith is not a 'need'.

He would attend the local school. Faith was not the be all and end all of our school selection, it is certainly a factor but the academic/social/emotional things were as well. We can keep faith at home if need be. We found a good school that combined both and went for that.

 

[Starry]

Faith wasn't a need a few posts ago - it was a case of 'needs' and 'faith'.

Yep, we were lucky to find a school that combined it all into one!

 

[Brovion]

No. the EA was motivated by the need to keep its core support in Hanover happy.

I understand the particular problem about Brighton but this is an issue that should have been addressed in the 1970s when the comprehensive system was introduced and when ESCC should have tackled the inbalance of three secondary schools (DS, Varndean and Patcham) in a small area.

What you say about all systems being unfair is absolutely true but perhaps a few of us still entertained the idea that a Labour-led admin would try to level the playing field a little and ensure that the most disadvantaged would have a chance to get into the 'better' schools. Sadly, New Labour's obsession with keeping the wealthy happy means that the well-off are the winners and the families in the more deprived areas are the losers.

Still, how naive of me to believe that the Labour party would cling to any idea of social justice.

Spot on. All they've done is alter the catchment area boundaries to try and save a few Council seats - and it doesn't benefit all the 'have nots' as Hawkes says, only those in marginal wards.

 

[Nobby's Betamax Video]

I've been following this saga closely & this is my take on it (apologies for the long diatribe).

The woeful decision made last night to change the schools admissions process is nothing short of scandalous!


Flawed Policy

Not only is the new process fundamentally flawed with the council knowing that the new catchment areas won’t “catch”. But large areas of the City will be without a true choice of school, with 3 single catchment areas (I.E. only 1 school per area) being introduced.

Further, the council has decided NOT to provide access to local schools for local children & many children who could walk to school will be denied places & forced to be bussed to schools up to 4 miles away. My children could walk to 3 schools within 20 minutes, but this proposal will mean that they will have to walk half way to their local school in order to then catch a bus which will take 1.5 hours to reach their “new local school”.

There will be mayhem on the already heavily congested streets of Brighton & Hove, increased risk of bad behaviour by children travelling across the city and a drastic reduction in take-up of extra curricular activities as more children face a one hour plus commute each way.


Flawed Process

The council’s process was fundamentally flawed as their “consultation period” was not all-inclusive & transparent for all areas of the city (by design) and the working groups set-up were heavily biased to those few areas wanting change. Further, the council withheld key data from the working groups to avoid exposing key flaws in their admissions forecasting.

The most damning evidence that this decision was about political expediency & progression of certain individuals’ political careers over the needs of the city’s children, was provided immediately before the 2 committee meetings convened to debate the SAR. Hours before the 1st meeting, a labour councillor on the committee (& also vice chair of that committee) was “removed” & replaced by a Labour “yes” councillor. The reason? Because she refused to follow the Labour whip and vote for the SAR because she could see clearly that the proposal was fundamentally flawed and would do significant harm. This may have been a legal manoeuvre but it is certainly undemocratic. Prior to the 2nd meeting last night, it was also announced that the single Green councillor on the committee (who represented the same ward as the “removed” Labour councillor – a ward heavily opposed to the SAR) was being replaced. Speculation is that he either was swaying to vote against the SAR or the Greens wished to insulate him from further scandal prior to the forthcoming May elections.

Even then, the voting was split & Pat Hawkes (the Labour councillor acting as Chair) had to use her casting vote to push through this appalling scheme.


Politics Before Children

So, why do the Labour & Green parties want to ride roughshod over our children’s education to pander to a very vocal minority in a particular ward? Because this ward is deemed marginal and both parties believe they have a good chance of winning it. Further, I understand that the current Leader of the Council, Simon Burgess (Labour) is also vying to become the Labour candidate as MP for this particular ward.

Within this context, one can then see why the committee fought long & hard to hand the “choice” of arguably the 2 best schools in Brighton (Dorothy Stringer & Varndean) to parents in this key ward, at the detriment of children who live in the communities who can evidence true historical links with these schools going back decades.

This is a gross dereliction of their duties as servants of our city. They have sold the majority of our children’s educational hopes up the river for the sake of party & personal politics. I hold them all in contempt &, as a Labour Party supporter, will not be giving them my support for the foreseeable future.


The Real Issues That Need Addressing

It was extremely sad & disturbing to see how the council has manipulated the scandalous lack of secondary schools places (2 secondary schools have closed over the last 10 years or so with no replacement, whilst the population is increasing) and below average performance of Brighton & Hove’s state schools (excepting Dorothy Stringer) to set parents against parents.

The council has created significant discontent & animosity to play politics & ignored the real issues affecting our city’s secondary education provision. The changing of the admissions policy is the equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.


The Feared Outcome

At least 3 secondary schools are seriously considering opting out of the LEA by becoming Foundation Schools, thereby controlling their own admissions policy. This eventuality is feared by all in the City, but only the Anti-SAR lobby have done anything to prevent this becoming a step closer to reality. The Pro-SAR Lobby have been extremely short-sighted in their consideration of the affects this policy will make on the whole of the city, just as long as they are alright. Their lack of vision will destroy the LEA and the majority of children’s opportunities for a decent secondary education provision which they deserve.

Labour, at a national level, must intervene to save our children’s future (& that of their local party). ALL parents (both Pro & Anti SAR) are united in their demands for a new secondary school both to alleviate capacity pressures on existing schools and also the current geographical disparity. The last school to close, COMART, can be re-opened if the authorities act quickly before it’s current inhabitants (City College) bulldoze the site. But the council say our city is at the back of the queue for funding.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I predict big increases in attendances at all local catholic churches.

 

[Tiptop24]

My first reaction was that the lottery system is madness.

However, thinking it through:

An area/city is perceived of as having good schools and bad schools. If you give everyone the choice, let's assume that most people will choose the good schools. So, you have a lottery. Every school then ends up with a cross-section of pupils. The standard of teachers in the different schools might still vary, possibly because better teachers have historically been attracted to the 'better' schools. However, if every school has a similar cross-section of employees, 'good' teachers might be less particular about where they teach. Schools might therefore all end up with similar standards of teachers. The end result might be a levelling out of school/education standards, with the consequence that getting children into the 'right' schools may cease to be such an issue.

Is this too idealistic?

.....then lets put the teachers in a lottery. Each teacher is put into a hat and assigned to a school. Pay wont matter as a sallary cap will be placed on teachers depending on results and years experience. The base pay will be based on experience, the bonus placed on results, such as SAT score and # of children who pass, i.e C or above, GCSES etc.

This way teachers will be assigned evenly, and pupils will be assigned evenly.

 

[cjd]

I've been following this saga closely & this is my take on it (apologies for the long diatribe).

The woeful decision made last night to change the schools admissions process is nothing short of scandalous!


Flawed Policy

Not only is the new process fundamentally flawed with the council knowing that the new catchment areas won’t “catch”. But large areas of the City will be without a true choice of school, with 3 single catchment areas (I.E. only 1 school per area) being introduced.

Further, the council has decided NOT to provide access to local schools for local children & many children who could walk to school will be denied places & forced to be bussed to schools up to 4 miles away. My children could walk to 3 schools within 20 minutes, but this proposal will mean that they will have to walk half way to their local school in order to then catch a bus which will take 1.5 hours to reach their “new local school”.

There will be mayhem on the already heavily congested streets of Brighton & Hove, increased risk of bad behaviour by children travelling across the city and a drastic reduction in take-up of extra curricular activities as more children face a one hour plus commute each way.


Flawed Process

The council’s process was fundamentally flawed as their “consultation period” was not all-inclusive & transparent for all areas of the city (by design) and the working groups set-up were heavily biased to those few areas wanting change. Further, the council withheld key data from the working groups to avoid exposing key flaws in their admissions forecasting.

The most damning evidence that this decision was about political expediency & progression of certain individuals’ political careers over the needs of the city’s children, was provided immediately before the 2 committee meetings convened to debate the SAR. Hours before the 1st meeting, a labour councillor on the committee (& also vice chair of that committee) was “removed” & replaced by a Labour “yes” councillor. The reason? Because she refused to follow the Labour whip and vote for the SAR because she could see clearly that the proposal was fundamentally flawed and would do significant harm. This may have been a legal manoeuvre but it is certainly undemocratic. Prior to the 2nd meeting last night, it was also announced that the single Green councillor on the committee (who represented the same ward as the “removed” Labour councillor – a ward heavily opposed to the SAR) was being replaced. Speculation is that he either was swaying to vote against the SAR or the Greens wished to insulate him from further scandal prior to the forthcoming May elections.

Even then, the voting was split & Pat Hawkes (the Labour councillor acting as Chair) had to use her casting vote to push through this appalling scheme.


Politics Before Children

So, why do the Labour & Green parties want to ride roughshod over our children’s education to pander to a very vocal minority in a particular ward? Because this ward is deemed marginal and both parties believe they have a good chance of winning it. Further, I understand that the current Leader of the Council, Simon Burgess (Labour) is also vying to become the Labour candidate as MP for this particular ward.

Within this context, one can then see why the committee fought long & hard to hand the “choice” of arguably the 2 best schools in Brighton (Dorothy Stringer & Varndean) to parents in this key ward, at the detriment of children who live in the communities who can evidence true historical links with these schools going back decades.

This is a gross dereliction of their duties as servants of our city. They have sold the majority of our children’s educational hopes up the river for the sake of party & personal politics. I hold them all in contempt &, as a Labour Party supporter, will not be giving them my support for the foreseeable future.


The Real Issues That Need Addressing

It was extremely sad & disturbing to see how the council has manipulated the scandalous lack of secondary schools places (2 secondary schools have closed over the last 10 years or so with no replacement, whilst the population is increasing) and below average performance of Brighton & Hove’s state schools (excepting Dorothy Stringer) to set parents against parents.

The council has created significant discontent & animosity to play politics & ignored the real issues affecting our city’s secondary education provision. The changing of the admissions policy is the equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.


The Feared Outcome

At least 3 secondary schools are seriously considering opting out of the LEA by becoming Foundation Schools, thereby controlling their own admissions policy. This eventuality is feared by all in the City, but only the Anti-SAR lobby have done anything to prevent this becoming a step closer to reality. The Pro-SAR Lobby have been extremely short-sighted in their consideration of the affects this policy will make on the whole of the city, just as long as they are alright. Their lack of vision will destroy the LEA and the majority of children’s opportunities for a decent secondary education provision which they deserve.

Labour, at a national level, must intervene to save our children’s future (& that of their local party). ALL parents (both Pro & Anti SAR) are united in their demands for a new secondary school both to alleviate capacity pressures on existing schools and also the current geographical disparity. The last school to close, COMART, can be re-opened if the authorities act quickly before it’s current inhabitants (City College) bulldoze the site. But the council say our city is at the back of the queue for funding.

A long article, but well worth reading from start to finish...........unfortunately, nothing in local politics surprises me these days.

 

[Superphil]

Education shouldn't be about choice or treating pupil like consumers. It should be about quality education, for everyone.

Absolutly 100% agree with that. IMO there is no reason why one school should be so shit compared to another, it is the responsibilty of the government to make sure that all kids get pretty much the same opportunities at whatever scholl they go to.

Trouble is, especially with this government, they don't do responsibilty, they just pass the buck to someone else.

 

[patcham seagulls]

Having been born in brighton and having lived in various parts of this city for over thirty seven years i am really disappointed by this decision.
To promote this system as one that benefits all the children of the city is a hugely misleading.
Designed to help the poorest children in society intergrate into the best performing schools, this system has actually removed any slim chance they may once have had.
Residents of whitehawk and moulsecombe will now find themselves only able to apply for struggling schools falmer and longhill, whereas the more fortunate hanover population will be able to choose from varndean or stringer, the two most successful schools in the city.
As mentioned elsewhere, the fact that local council elections are soon upon us and that the hanover ward is a politically delicately balanced ward means the council has used this agenda to drum up support.
Yes the present system is unfair and does need changing but this stinks, if the council wish to retain credability throughout the city and not just hanover they should postpone these proposals or at least open them up so every schoolchild is placed in the ballot for the top two performing schools not just a select few.

 

[Scotty Mac]

Send them all to Downlands in Hassocks. They produce an excellent calibre of individual. Take myself, Kinky and Edna for starters.

I'd say Oakmeeds is more beneficial to be honest - it has helped my standing in the local drugs community considerably

 

[queens park pete]

patcham seagulls Having been born in brighton and having lived in various parts of this city for over thirty seven years i am really disappointed by this decision.

Not all true, I'm afraid. The kids in the southern half of Whitehawk will now be able to get into DS/V along with estate kids in Pankhurst Ave/ Queensway/ Bristol Estate/ Carlton Hill who currently are bussing it as far as Hove Park.

The only reason Scoom and Bevendean has been lumbered with no choice was in order to placate the hysterical reaction from Patcham residents originally put in a dual catchment with Falmer, a single catchment was set up for Patcham and Falmer.

There are lots of marginal wards in Brighton. Hanover and QP are less vulnerable to a Tory recovery than say Preston Park- a ward Labour now seem sure to lose as a result of trying to vote for principle rather than just for narrow ward issues! Hardly cynical politics to deliberately alienate voters in genuinely marginal wards!

Falmer apart, all the other schools have been organised in such a way that they will have very similar free school meal %. They would have all been the same without the Patcham tweak!

It is misinformation to pose this as Hanover vs Brighton- anywhere south of Goldsmid Road right across to Whitehawk is currently disenfranchised. This way the "unfairness" will be randomly distributed across our city- unless Patcham does an LDC style JR!!

 

[Nobby's Betamax Video]

The only reason Scoom and Bevendean has been lumbered with no choice was in order to placate the hysterical reaction from Patcham residents originally put in a dual catchment with Falmer, a single catchment was set up for Patcham and Falmer.

Classic divide & rule tactic by the council there then! You also have to wonder why, when making Falmer a single catchment, Coldean wasn't included within it? After all, it's pretty close isn't it? Could it be that Coldean is Pat Hawkes ward? Pat Hawkes being the Chair of the CFS Committee, who used her casting vote twice to push this flawed policy through. I wonder?

If that were the case, then doesn't this remove any basis for Labour's decision to "remove" Juliet McCaffery from the committee on the grounds of "putting her ward first"?? Or, as we all know, she was "removed" because she could see the issues this would cause for the majority in the city.

This has been all over the local & national media today & I understand that the Daily's are running stories on this tomorrow.

I have a feeling this issue won't be going away for a while yet.

 

[queens park pete]

Juliet McAffrey conveniently forgot to mention how she and four Tory councillors on the working party voted for for these changes in the autumn after a year of consultation meetings.

They would never have gone before the council if the had voted them down at that stage.

Read the minutes on the BHCC website- unanimously approved after consideration of the alternatives. The Tories chose to make political capital out of it after they had agreed to the changes!!

 

[aftershavedave]

'faith' schools or at least those that cost me my taxpayers money should be banned instantly, they are the cause of most of our educational problems.

why should i subsidise a CoE or catholic school which my own kids are, by my own anti-religious views, or the school's bigotry, denied to me?

in practice 'faith' school are nothing more than a middle class block on poorer and less 'faithful' kids getting a decent education. they are a disgrace.

and finally i declare no personal interest as i'm lucky enough to be able to pay.

 

[The Large One]

My partner has her own school, and although not directly affected by these changes, she is FURIOUS with the City Council - Steve Healey and Pat Hawkes (a real nasty, spiteful piece of work) particularly.

When she tried to get her school into the state sector, her admissions policy was blasted by the LEA as plain wrong. In the list of criteria for admissions should the school be allowed into the state sector, the fifth one was 'lottery' should the school applications be over-subscribed. While privately Steve Healy told her the council had no problem with this, publicly the LEA were saying it wasn't in the government's guidelines to be able to do this - which was a blatant lie. Talk about two-faced.

And lo and behold, who introduces 'lottery' as the fourth criteria into their admissions policy now? The very reason they rejected my partner's school's admissions policy is the very thing they are introducing now.


But back to this, in this instance, I disagree with sentiments Lord Bracknell was trying to convey. While there is no real real malice in this policy, someone tell me I'm wrong when I say I cannot feel that this is little more than gerrymandering - and not particularly subtle gerrymandering at that. The policy itself is one thing - and I can see both arguements. The way that the LEA has gone about it, however, is a disgrace.

Dump the Dump Part II, anyone?

 

[Gazwag]

'faith' schools or at least those that cost me my taxpayers money should be banned instantly, they are the cause of most of our educational problems.

why should i subsidise a CoE or catholic school which my own kids are, by my own anti-religious views, or the school's bigotry, denied to me?

in practice 'faith' school are nothing more than a middle class block on poorer and less 'faithful' kids getting a decent education. they are a disgrace.

exactly, about 360 children travel from Eastbourne to Bexhill by train everyday for nothing at the tax payers expense.

 

[Gwylan]

The real laugh about this is that Dorothy Stringer and Varndean are both now talking of withdrawing from LA control and running the schools themselves. This would mean implementing their own admission criteria and reducing the council's plans to a shambles.

It's easy to point the finger at the council for this (and with their shameful gerrymandering they're an easy target) but the real culprit is the government which came to office proclaiming that their priority was "education, education, education" and has done next to nothing about the number of poorly-performing schools. If all schools were equally desirable, we'd have none of this mess.

 

[Nobby's Betamax Video]

Well said Gwylan.

I have sneaking suspicion that something may be happneing soon to start such a campaign

We need a new secondary school for central Brighton / Hove (not enough spaces currently to provide true choice)

We need to see overall performances improve. Only DS was (slightly) above the national average out of all B&H's secondary schools - despicable.