Myths vs Reality

Brighton & Hove stands at a crucial moment in its commitment to educational equality. As Councillors prepare to vote on school admission changes, it is vital to understand the context of resident feedback and distinguish between outdated concerns and current realities.

  • Reality: Nobody can currently say what the travel time will be to schools because the bus timetables will be changed to support the travel journeys of the children in the city. This process happens every year. Though there is currently no need for a school bus from Fiveways to Longhill, there is a school bus that runs the other way, the 91 from Ovingdean to Cardinal Newman. This route takes 50 minutes to travel from Longhill to Fiveways.

    For students going to BACA, the train offers an efficient alternative. Many city centre locations have direct train access to Falmer station, which serves BACA. This journey can be comparable to - or in some cases quicker than - bus journeys to schools like Varndean or Dorothy Stringer. For example, trains from London Road (Brighton) station to Falmer take just 6 minutes, making BACA potentially more accessible than many realise.

  • Reality: All the city’s schools already work very hard to tackle student absence, but the schools with a higher % of absentee students have to spread their efforts more thinly. There is a strong correlation between student absence and deprivation, meaning the more middle class a student body is, the lower the absenteeism will be, and the more focussed the school can be on supporting a smaller number of students into school.

  • Reality: The schools with the longest average journey times in Brighton and Hove are Cardinal Newman and Kings. The citywide rate of persistent absenteeism is 29.1%. The absenteeism rates at Cardinal Newman and Kings are 26.2% and 13.9% respectively. The absenteeism at Longhill and BACA are 42.4% and 51.8% respectively.

  • Reality: An FOI request has revealed that In 2024, 82% of children in the Varndean or Stringer catchment area were allocated places in that area but only 75% of them ended up taking them. [citation]

  • Reality: The 1 in 4 figure is based on an early claim by the PSG based on a misunderstanding about the allocation of places to children on Free School Meals. Even their own “explainer” has it as 1 in 3. Other predictions have it at 48%. The council's January 2025 modelling shows significantly different outcomes than PSG's predictions.

    Estimates vary because it is not possible to accurately model. In truth, it’s hard to predict how many families will choose a school in their catchment area. The council's admissions system is dynamic, with 130-140 places typically changing after initial allocation through appeals and reallocation. Research consistently shows that mixed schools benefit all students, and the random allocation system only comes into play after higher priorities (like siblings and FSM) are filled.

  • Reality: The highest admission priorities remain unchanged - children with EHCPs, looked after children, and siblings still get priority. For children eligible for Free School Meals, those within catchment are prioritised before any out-of-catchment FSM students. The "open admission" priority would only affect 20% of places and is designed to give some choice to children in single-catchment areas. The majority of places will still go to catchment area children. Even under the current system, proximity to a school doesn't guarantee entry - what matters is living within its catchment area.

  • Reality: The council is actively engaging with SEND concerns through dedicated consultation events with PaCC (Parent Carers' Council) and recognises the need for careful planning around SEND provision. While natural anxieties exist around change, the council's commitment to maintaining support criteria and developing comprehensive transport solutions demonstrates awareness of SEND students' specific needs. The 18-month implementation timeline allows for thorough planning of individual support requirements. There are existing complexities including underfunding in regards to SEND. But these can be improved and these proposals don’t mitigate the possibility of schools working with families to support children’s individual needs.

  • Reality: Stigmatising narratives about 'failing schools' ignores substantial evidence about how schools actually perform. Research shows school performance is heavily influenced by intake mix rather than teaching quality. Current labels often reflect demographics rather than educational quality. The evidence from integrated schools shows no decline in standards when schools become more mixed - in fact, balanced intakes often improve overall school performance. While not being offered at a family’s first or second choice school will always be a disappointment, the OFSTED reports show that Brighton has good schools that can offer diverse experiences. The best school is whichever school is the best fit for each child.

  • Reality: Because of changes to PAN numbers in response to falling primary school enrollments, if these numbers aren’t reduced, the council will have to consider closing a community school.

  • Reality: Choice for those in two catchment areas actually stays the same under these proposals. The change comes from giving more children in other catchment areas more choice and a better chance of being offered a place from only one school option. This does change probability (in ways not easily predicted at this stage) but choice remains the same or improves across the city.

  • Reality: While schools' financial concerns shouldn't be dismissed, it's important to understand school funding in context. The headline figures can appear dramatic but actually represent the normal per-pupil funding adjustment that happens whenever student numbers change. A £2.7m reduction over five years sounds significant, but this 5.6% change directly corresponds to having fewer students to teach, support and resource. The gradual nature of these changes - implemented over several years - allows schools to plan and adapt their resources appropriately. While some fixed costs won't reduce proportionally, the measured implementation timeline gives schools an opportunity to adjust their financial planning.

  • Reality: The council has demonstrated unprecedented commitment to these proposals, with 18 months of development incorporating expert input and extensive community engagement. Eight public consultation meetings have been held - more than any previous admissions consultation - ensuring voices from across the city are heard. While implementation details are still being finalised, the groundwork of research, modelling, and community feedback provides a strong foundation. The council's thorough approach, supported by external expertise, shows this isn't a rushed process but a carefully considered reform based on evidence and community input.

  • Reality: Labour councillors were elected on a manifesto that explicitly promised to "do everything in its power to safeguard and enhance" Brighton's educational reputation and to "look at changing catchment areas to protect schools facing closure." The proposals aim to fulfill these promises by creating a more sustainable and equitable school system. While electoral concerns are understandable, a councillor's primary duty is to make decisions that benefit the whole city, even when those decisions are challenging. The Labour Party has a proud history of introducing transformative policies - from creating the NHS to founding Sure Start centres - that initially faced resistance but ultimately strengthened communities. Making difficult but necessary changes to protect our schools' future embodies both Labour values and the fundamental role of local government in serving all residents, not just the most vocal.

When looking at feedback about the proposals, especially about predicted outcomes, councillors should ask:

  • When was the feedback sent - before or after the January 2025 data came out?

  • Which set of numbers is the feedback using?

  • Is the feedback based on PSG campaign materials that use old projections?

  • How do the concerns match up with current figures versus earlier predictions?

The timing and source of data are particularly important because:

  • Many parent emails reference predictions based on November/December 2024 data

  • The PSG continues to use old data in their campaigns

  • Social media discussions often share outdated projections

  • Widespread leafleting has used incorrect figures

  • Email campaigns are driven by outdated assumptions

Whilst the council's January data release timing was not ideal and should have been included in December's initial papers, this does not justify continued use of outdated modelling in campaigns against the proposals.

Brighton & Hove's commitment to fair education means decisions need to be based on the most up-to-date and accurate information available. Whilst all feedback from residents deserves careful consideration, understanding when and where the numbers come from is crucial for making informed decisions about these proposals.