Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Rebel councillor explains stance that led to sacking
8:26am Tuesday 6th February 2007
Comments (155) Have your say »
Controversial school catchment areas will be introduced in Brighton and Hove next year.
But the proposals were approved on Friday only after Labour sacked a rebel councillor from the schools committee for refusing to back reform.
The move enraged opponents of the scheme, with many questioning the local Labour Party's integrity.
Juliet McCaffery tells why she had to stick to her guns and incur the wrath of colleagues.
On Friday at 3pm Brighton and Hove City Council's revamped secondary school admissions plan was set to fall flat on its face.
With the final vote on whether to accept the catchment area scheme just two hours away, the ten members of the children, families and schools committee were split six to four - and they were against the proposals.
Since unanimously agreeing in principal to the plans at the previous meeting in November, the four Conservative committee members, Ken Norman, Ted Kemble, Vanessa Brown and Linda Hyde, along with independent Jayne Bennett and Labour rebel Juliet McCaffery, had all been swayed by a groundswell of protests against the scheme.
More than 3,500 people signed a petition against the proposals and had put pressure on councillors to do what was best for voters in their wards. But plans had been created in the first place following pressure from hundreds of parents in other areas who claimed the existing distance-from-school measure was unfair because of the uneven distribution of schools around the city.
Many faced having no choice about which school their children attended because they lived too far from any of them. They had raised a petition too with almost 1,000 signatures.
With council elections looming in May, committee members had a lot to think about.
At 3.15pm Councillor McCaffery, deputy chairwoman of the committee, was unceremoniously removed from her duties by council leader Simon Burgess.
Having got wind that the decision was going to go against the Labour Party because Coun McCaffery was refusing to vote in favour, he decided she had to be removed. As a result, the voting was split five-five and committee chairwoman Councillor Pat Hawkes used her casting vote to push the proposals through.
Mother-of-five Coun McCaffery said she was extremely disappointed by her party's actions.
She said: "It came as a real surprise.
I made my position very clear for at least two and a half months. It was upsetting because I had been on that committee for several years and had put in a lot of work."
Councillor Burgess said he sacked Coun McCaffery because she was acting in the interests of her ward rather than the city as a whole.
Coun McCaffery, who represents Preston Park, refuted the accusation.
She said: "I'm against the scheme because it severely disadvantages my ward and, in my opinion, severely disadvantages the city as a whole.
"I don't accept that I was not acting in the interests of the city. I'm very disappointed people in Whitehawk and Moulsecoomb will only have the choice of one school each."
She said despite knowing she would upset her party she could not have supported the proposals.
She lives in Prestonville, the area between Seven Dials and Preston Park, which has now been put into a joint catchment for Hove Park and Blatchington Mill school.
Parents in the area are devastated they will no longer be able to get their children into their nearest school, high-performing Dorothy Stringer, and because of a "lottery"
deciding factor they may also miss out on Blatchington Mill, the closer of the two in the catchment.
Hove Park's lower school is almost four miles from Prestonville.
Coun McCaffery, a governor at Stanford Junior school, in Stanford Road, said: "The bottom line is I would not want to put my 11-year-old on the bus to Hove Park. If I wouldn't, how can I expect the people who voted for me to do so? There was just no way I could vote in favour of this.
It would not have been fair."
While supporters of the catchment area scheme have been celebrating, its opponents have been investigating the possibility of a legal challenge to the decision.
Chris Bourne, unofficial spokesman for supporters of the scheme, said: "Friday night saw a victory for common sense and fairness over the forces of selfish self-interest.
Tracey-Ann Ross, spokeswoman for opposition campaign group Schools 4 Communities, said: "We are not going to leave it there. How can they get away with changing someone just because they are not happy with how they will vote. It's a mockery."
The group is looking into contacting the school adjudicator and council ombudsman, as well as the possibility of a legal challenge.
It will be holding emergency meetings tonight and at Coombe Road School tomorrow night.
Mrs Ross said: "We have to question this council's commitment to democracy. If they do it on this issue what's to stop them doing it about the King Alfred or anything else?"
As well as the parents' challenge, there is a possibility the catchment area scheme could be halted if enough councillors ask for it to be "called in" to be examined by a scrutiny committee.
A Brighton and Hove City Council spokesman said Coun McCaffery's sacking from the committee had been carried out in accordance with its constitution.
He said: "Under the constitutional arrangements operated by the council, once seats are allocated to political groups, the council is required to make individual appointments in accordance with the wishes of the group to whom the seat is allocated.
"The wishes of a group are deemed to be those expressed by the leader of the group. Where such wishes have been communicated by the leader of a group, the chief executive has to make or terminate appointments accordingly. This is exactly what happened here."
- To see a map of the new catchment areas, click here.
- A full explanation of the secondary schools admissions system is available at www.brighton-hove.gov.uk.
What do you think about Juliet McCaffery being sacked? Are you for or againt the school catchment area reforms?
Have your say, leave your comments below.
Your Say YourThe Argus
Sarah Rhys, Preston Park says...
2:44pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I think Councillor McCaffery was not only acting in the interests of her ward. She obviously has serious concerns about children from Prestonville who could walk to Stringer and Varndean and have no chance of going there. Some will have to get the bus 3 miles to Hove Park. But I believe she was also thinking of the city as a whole. As she points out in the article there are many disadvantaged areas who are left with the choice of only one school and now have no chance of accessing the better performing schools whereas before they had some chance. People opposing the proposals do not necessarily want to maintain the status quo (in fact many of us supported the proposals at first until we looked at them in more detail and saw the many flaws) but we believe the proposals are unfair. The pro SAR group seem to have brainwashed the press and the council that it is only relatively wealthy areas such as Preston Park and Withdean who oppose the proposals and that disadvantaged areas will benefit. Just one look at the banners at the various protests show this could not be further from the truth.
Luke Burstow, Hove says...
3:50pm Tue 6 Feb 07
This whole process has been driven by a relatively small group of articulate, motivated parents who chose to live in the centre of Brighton and then found that the secondary schools available to them did not meet their aspirations.
They have now arranged for the school boundaries to be changed to accomodate their wishes at the expense of those who did a bit of research before they bought a house.
They have now arranged for the school boundaries to be changed to accomodate their wishes at the expense of those who did a bit of research before they bought a house.
Anthony Brand, Exeter Street says...
3:52pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The sacking at the last minute of Juliet McCaffery proves that this issue was always going to be voted along party lines.If Pat Hawkes had any integrity she and the Labour Party would have got rid of Juliet months ago when she nmade her position clear.It was only when they realised they could actually lose the vote they made their move.They have now introduced a system where Stringer/Varndean is vastly oversubscribed and is oppossed by both heads.Whilst those supporters of the scheme may think they will be going to oon of those 2 schools they will get a surprise when they realise that not all their children will be able to get in and will still have to travel.There was a geographical anamoly in the schools admissions that needed to be addressed but mving the problem to another area doesn't haelp.This was not about social injustice.The parents who think they have benefitted are not socially disadvantaged whilst children who have 'real' social deprivation have not had their concerns addressed.
From Anthony Brand a working class father of 2 from the Prestonville area.
From Anthony Brand a working class father of 2 from the Prestonville area.
Luke Burstow, Hove says...
3:56pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Me again ;-)
Of course, if Cardinal Newman (80% state funded) didn't have special status with regard to its intake a lot of the problems for parents of children in central Brighton wouldn't exist as they would have a 'local' school.
It's almost more of a scandal that we pay for religiously segregated education out of our taxes that results in this whole thing being an issue in the first place.
Of course, if Cardinal Newman (80% state funded) didn't have special status with regard to its intake a lot of the problems for parents of children in central Brighton wouldn't exist as they would have a 'local' school.
It's almost more of a scandal that we pay for religiously segregated education out of our taxes that results in this whole thing being an issue in the first place.
Anita van der Colff, Prestonville says...
3:58pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Fridays events have made me wonder how I am to explain the democratic process to my child. We have just had the council make an important decision about our childrens future. But rather than allowing the process to proceed to its full democratic outcome - the ruling party see they may not win the vote so take action to replace the one councillor who was perhaps not going to vote as they would wish. How can this be democratic this is unseemly manipulation. Is this not the type of bullying we teach our children is wrong
I note Councillor Burgess comments that Juliet McCaffery was being swayed by her ward - can he honestly say that the same is not the case for him. I think this whole episode has been incredibly divisive for the city and will continue to be so as this vote has merely moved the problem around not resolved it.
I note Councillor Burgess comments that Juliet McCaffery was being swayed by her ward - can he honestly say that the same is not the case for him. I think this whole episode has been incredibly divisive for the city and will continue to be so as this vote has merely moved the problem around not resolved it.
Jason Harris, Patcham says...
4:19pm Tue 6 Feb 07
As a hard working father of 3, I am now in a position where I have had the right to choose my childrens secondary school taken from me. Coun. McCaffrey had her choice snatched away from her at the last minute. Labour Councillors fair and credible? Not in my eyes. The treatment of Coun. McCafrrey was disgusting. Please do not let any Labour Councillors knock my door when canvassing for votes in the forthcoming council elections. Coun. Burgess and his other Labour yes men/women - are you proud of yourselves??
keith turvey, Withdean says...
4:48pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Coun McCaffery has acted with integrity and engaged with the issues affecting the whole city, not just the concerns of her own ward. It's a disgrace and people will not easily forget the gamble some Labour and Green councillors are happy to take with the future educational opportunities of all children in this divided city.
Cate Miller, Coombe Road says...
4:55pm Tue 6 Feb 07
This last minute sacking of Juliet McCaffery, I believe, demonstrates the shameful lengths that the Labour Party will go to as they fight for seats against the Greens in marginal wards - the very same wards who will benefit from the proposals.
On the other hand, the interests of Moulsecoomb and Bevendean, regarded as Labour strongholds, have been ignored. We argued our case reasonably and honourably, but the Labour "group" had already decided the outcome.
Under the circumstances, the accusation levelled at Juliet McCaffery that she was only thinking of her ward smacks of hypocrisy. Instead, it seems that the "what is good for the whole of the city" should be sacrificed for Labour Party interests.
On the other hand, the interests of Moulsecoomb and Bevendean, regarded as Labour strongholds, have been ignored. We argued our case reasonably and honourably, but the Labour "group" had already decided the outcome.
Under the circumstances, the accusation levelled at Juliet McCaffery that she was only thinking of her ward smacks of hypocrisy. Instead, it seems that the "what is good for the whole of the city" should be sacrificed for Labour Party interests.
Andrew Saunders, Patcham says...
4:56pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Coun McCaffery, we are told was removed because she was not "acting in the best interests of the City as a whole ".... a phrase that has now become tired and tarnished . The whole point of the process was that it was up to the CFS Committee to decide whether the proposals were in the best interests of the City. Many people believe that they are, but many people believe that they are not.
It was up to the Working Group (which incidentally couldn't even agree amongst themselves) to persuade the CFS Committee that the proposals were in the City's best interests. This they couldn't do until one of the Committee members was 'substituted' so outrageously.
What a Hollow 'Victory'
It was up to the Working Group (which incidentally couldn't even agree amongst themselves) to persuade the CFS Committee that the proposals were in the City's best interests. This they couldn't do until one of the Committee members was 'substituted' so outrageously.
What a Hollow 'Victory'
Chris Bourne, Hove says...
5:01pm Tue 6 Feb 07
To Luke Burstow. I can only say that I personally agree that state education, funded by the taxpayer, should not allow schools to choose intake based on religious preferences. Cardinal Newman is by far my closest school but my children cannot go there. However - that is a debate for another day as it is not something the local council has any control over.
Also, Luke, it may interest you to know that when I and my family moved to our house, in 2000, we would have had every expectation that our children would move onto Blatchington Mill from Somerhill Junior, as that was where almost everyone in this area went. However, the reason they cannot now do so is that the system was changed for 2005 intake to make "safe walking distance" the main criterion - since when that maximum distance has shrunk every single year. That is why a system of catchment areas offers much more stability to our City's communities.
There is a lot of talk amongst those who support the maintenance of the "walking distance" criterion about "having their choice removed" under the new system. Two points here:
1) Many of those people, for example much of Patcham, will find that the "choice" they think they possess has already been removed by the shrinking golden halos around the popular schools.
2) More importantly, if you are staying within the state education system you don't actually have a "choice". You have a right to "express a preference". The council's job is to allocate the school places in a fair amd transparent way to ALL the City's children, not just to those who live near the best schools. Those schools belong to all of us.
Turning to McCaffery. It is HER behaviour which has been "disgusting" and undemocratic, not that of the local Labour leadership. I am surprised that she held onto her job for so long, as she has spoken openly of her opposition to these plans because they did not suit a small (but VERY vocal!) minority of her constituents. She was supposed to be acting, to trot out that old phrase yet again "in the interests of the City as a whole" but was patently not doing so. I suspect Simon Burgess was trying to give her as long as possible to change her stance on this issue and keep her job, but she refused to do so.
Of course, the Conservative party too were duty-bound "to act in the best interests of the whole City". Their actions are even more despicable as they saw McCaffery's intractable opposition and then decided to make political mileage out of it. They knew if they voted en bloc, with Jayne Bennett easily swayed to their side, they could leave no other option open to Labour - leave McCaffery in place and lose the vote, or remove her and suffer some embarassment and abuse as a result.
When I started campaigning on all this I naively hoped that it would be a non-party issue. Unfortunately it has not turned out that way.
It was quite amusing on Friday evening to hear so many Labour-leaning anti-SAR campaginers enthusiastically applauding the most half-baked and illogical speeches from the Conservatives as they sought to justify their sudden change of heart. All I can say is I hope they all reap their just rewards in the upcoming elections.
Also, Luke, it may interest you to know that when I and my family moved to our house, in 2000, we would have had every expectation that our children would move onto Blatchington Mill from Somerhill Junior, as that was where almost everyone in this area went. However, the reason they cannot now do so is that the system was changed for 2005 intake to make "safe walking distance" the main criterion - since when that maximum distance has shrunk every single year. That is why a system of catchment areas offers much more stability to our City's communities.
There is a lot of talk amongst those who support the maintenance of the "walking distance" criterion about "having their choice removed" under the new system. Two points here:
1) Many of those people, for example much of Patcham, will find that the "choice" they think they possess has already been removed by the shrinking golden halos around the popular schools.
2) More importantly, if you are staying within the state education system you don't actually have a "choice". You have a right to "express a preference". The council's job is to allocate the school places in a fair amd transparent way to ALL the City's children, not just to those who live near the best schools. Those schools belong to all of us.
Turning to McCaffery. It is HER behaviour which has been "disgusting" and undemocratic, not that of the local Labour leadership. I am surprised that she held onto her job for so long, as she has spoken openly of her opposition to these plans because they did not suit a small (but VERY vocal!) minority of her constituents. She was supposed to be acting, to trot out that old phrase yet again "in the interests of the City as a whole" but was patently not doing so. I suspect Simon Burgess was trying to give her as long as possible to change her stance on this issue and keep her job, but she refused to do so.
Of course, the Conservative party too were duty-bound "to act in the best interests of the whole City". Their actions are even more despicable as they saw McCaffery's intractable opposition and then decided to make political mileage out of it. They knew if they voted en bloc, with Jayne Bennett easily swayed to their side, they could leave no other option open to Labour - leave McCaffery in place and lose the vote, or remove her and suffer some embarassment and abuse as a result.
When I started campaigning on all this I naively hoped that it would be a non-party issue. Unfortunately it has not turned out that way.
It was quite amusing on Friday evening to hear so many Labour-leaning anti-SAR campaginers enthusiastically applauding the most half-baked and illogical speeches from the Conservatives as they sought to justify their sudden change of heart. All I can say is I hope they all reap their just rewards in the upcoming elections.
Paul Fellingham, Preston Park says...
5:03pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Six out of the ten CFS committee members were opposed to the SAR in its current form. Therefore it should have been rejected. Imagine the outcry if the situation were reversed and a member of the committee had been replaced to secure a rejection. A disgrace.
Karen Oliver, Hove says...
5:04pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The Labour group has acted disgracefully in sacking Juliet McCaffery immediately before the meeting of CFS. She listened to the arguements for and against and had sufficient concerns about the review that she was going to oppose the proposals. It seems that Labour were intent to see these proposals through at all costs! Whatever happened to democracy? It is Simon Burgess and Pat Hawkes that ought to be sacked not Juliet!
Mark Bannister, Withdean says...
5:14pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Chris Bourne talks a load of cobblers (and not for the first time). If he thinks those that voted against the proposals were self interested then what was Simon Burgess thinking of when he sacked Cllr MacCaffery - I'll tell you what "I need to save my sorry Labour seats from the Greens in Hanover and Queens Park" that's what - how else do you explain the hysterical response from Labour(& Greens) to pulling the Falmer catchment further south into BN23 which would have improved the social mix in the Falmer catchment???? Chris Bourne is either blind or disengenous not to see that.
Alan Rogers, Hove says...
5:17pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I believe that every school has the right to pick 10% of the intake but none in the Brighton and Hove area currently do, is this change imposed on us by the current Labour council going to change this?
Also will the conservitaves be able to revoke this in May when they are the largest group in the council
Also will the conservitaves be able to revoke this in May when they are the largest group in the council
Chris Bourne, Hove says...
5:32pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Thank you for your incisive comments, Mark Bannister. That is about the level we have come to expect from you guys over the course of this "debate".
If you were so concerned about "improving the social mix" in Falmer why did you not get Martin Powell to suggest bussing some kids from Withdean or Fiveways into the school?
It is disingenuous of you to suggest that improving the social mix was the reason for the BN2 3 suggestion - and you know it!
If you were so concerned about "improving the social mix" in Falmer why did you not get Martin Powell to suggest bussing some kids from Withdean or Fiveways into the school?
It is disingenuous of you to suggest that improving the social mix was the reason for the BN2 3 suggestion - and you know it!
LIZ WAKEFIELD, HOVE says...
5:35pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Well what do you expect from new labour? Go against the big boss and away you go.
Juliet has been a local champion for education and has been treated most unfairly.
Juliet has been a local champion for education and has been treated most unfairly.
Catherine, Brighton says...
5:55pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I went to poor performing secondary school with a less-than-good reputation, just like those that are trying to be avoided by middle class parents in Brighton & Hove. However I achieved 7As & 2Bs, plus 3 Bs at A level, went to a good univeristy university, got a 2:1, and did a Masters at Oxford. Going to a secondary school with worse results than others actually did me good, as all my primary school friends who paid to go to private school, miraculously "found god" to go to Christian Schools or appealed against local catchment areas, ended up snobby, over privileged, boring and are at exactly the same career point 10 years later as I am now.
Jane Kistnasamy, Coombe Road, Brighton says...
6:03pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The dismissal of Councillor McCaffery at the 11th hour is scandalous, however with the whole secondary review being far from transparent I am hardly surprised. Our own school & surrounding community only found out about the SAR in November06 & as quoted at Friday's meeting there are other school's across the city that still didn't know about it as late as last week! It was interesting to read in Saturday's Argus how the same leader of the council responsible for Juliet's dismissal, Simon Burgess, is to reported to be bidding to represent the Brighton Kemptown constituency as MP in the looming elections! What with the report on the Argus website yesterday with election guru David Boothroyd predicting a political shift & Mr Burgess himself saying "It is a very real possibility that the Conservatives could take control in May. We are working very hard trying to stop this happening...."
Yes!! Very hard Mr Burgess - we witnessed just how hard at Friday night's meeting! I look forward to you and your representatives knocking on my door plying for my vote in May!
Yes!! Very hard Mr Burgess - we witnessed just how hard at Friday night's meeting! I look forward to you and your representatives knocking on my door plying for my vote in May!
Martin Powell, Preston Park says...
6:14pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I favour catchments - but only if they catch the kids in them, and give all schools as balanced an intake as possible. The current proposal does neither - Falmer will be "cut off at the knees" as its Governors put it, and many children from the Stringer/Varndean area will be directed out of catchment. Yet a solution to help was on the table - extend the Falmer catchment south to include parts of Elm Grove and Hanover. It is no coincidence that Labour/Greens rejected an option that would have upset what is a key marginal for them.
keith turvey, Withdean says...
6:19pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Chris Bourne, I do find the way you seem to be able to laugh at others' misfortune alarming. I don't think it does your cause any good. I was also there Friday night and I didn't find anything "amusing". Had it have gone the other way I still wouldn't find it in any way amusing. This does seem to suggest that this has become some sort of sport for you.
You also use language extremely loosely as you have done throughout this campaign. You suggest that Labour will suffer "abuse." This is a very strong word and I would suggest that you reserve it for it's correct contexts. Expressing opinions that do not happen to agree with your view and letting politicians know that you don't agree with them is not abusive.
However, I would suggest that refering to Counc. McCaffery as simply "McCaffery" and "HER" is a form of verbal abuse and bullying. I do not see any commentatators here refering to "Hawkes."
You also use language extremely loosely as you have done throughout this campaign. You suggest that Labour will suffer "abuse." This is a very strong word and I would suggest that you reserve it for it's correct contexts. Expressing opinions that do not happen to agree with your view and letting politicians know that you don't agree with them is not abusive.
However, I would suggest that refering to Counc. McCaffery as simply "McCaffery" and "HER" is a form of verbal abuse and bullying. I do not see any commentatators here refering to "Hawkes."
Molly, says...
6:20pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Re: McCaffery & CFS vote. I think you will find that all the political parties meet at what are known as Group meetings. That is, the tories, greens, lib dems and labour councillors all have regular meetings of their own councillors to decide what 'line' to take on issues arising at committee meetings due to take place. The Labour Group (ie the labour councillors) decided to support the SAR. McCaffery as a labour councillor should have supported that line. If she felt that she couldn't do so then she should have resigned her place on CF&S. She chose not to. Any Cllr (or MP for that matter) knows that to break the party whip (ie the agreed stance) brings a punishment. As she made it very clear she would vote against the Labour whip - she got punished by being removed from CF&S. She was given every opportunity to change her mind. She didn't.
Had she aided and abetted the downfall of the SAR she would have been party to disenfranchising an even greater number of children as the First Preference First admissions system is soon to be made illegal and will have to be replaced by the Equal Preference System. The Equal Preference System plus home to school distance would have advantaged even more those living near(er) to the secondary schools and given even greater disadvantage to those living further away.
Had she aided and abetted the downfall of the SAR she would have been party to disenfranchising an even greater number of children as the First Preference First admissions system is soon to be made illegal and will have to be replaced by the Equal Preference System. The Equal Preference System plus home to school distance would have advantaged even more those living near(er) to the secondary schools and given even greater disadvantage to those living further away.
C. Sweeney, says...
6:33pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Molly, are you kidding? If this was the case, why should there have been a meeting at all? They could have just counted the councillors from each party and decide the whole thing that way. This is not what I call democracy!!!!! If this was the case any decision made in parliament by the ruling party would just go through, no room for debate!!! Think about what you are saying!!
keith turvey, Withdean says...
6:37pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Molly this is not the case. National cross party select committees like local cross-party committees are a recognition that there are some imporatnt issues that go beyond or do indeed cross official party lines. The fair distribution of children's future educational opportunities is one such issue that politicians acting with integrity should be able to agree on.
Saying that counc. McCaffery should have followed party lines is ludicrous. What you mean is that you wanted her to follow the party line. Thank heavens we have got politicians with the intellect to recognise when it is not in the interests to follow the party line. More politicians willing to do this in the last few years could have saved this government from many flawed foreign policies; but that's another issue. Ability to recognise when party policies are wrong and then taking a stand is a sign of political courage and integrity and I welcome it.
Saying that counc. McCaffery should have followed party lines is ludicrous. What you mean is that you wanted her to follow the party line. Thank heavens we have got politicians with the intellect to recognise when it is not in the interests to follow the party line. More politicians willing to do this in the last few years could have saved this government from many flawed foreign policies; but that's another issue. Ability to recognise when party policies are wrong and then taking a stand is a sign of political courage and integrity and I welcome it.
J Harris, Patcham says...
6:44pm Tue 6 Feb 07
In response to Molly's comments - what ever happened to democracy? Molly, think about what you are going to say before going to print. Punished ?? That's a little agressive Molly!! I agree with C Sweeneys comments. Coun Burgess is going to have a work very very hard to regain any credibility. Roll on May!!
stephen plaice, brighton says...
7:19pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The gerrymandering of the CFS committee is positively Orwellian. How could this city claim to be modern and democratic when a consultative process is abused in this way ? The removal of Ms McCaffrey should be the signal to voters to remove those who instigated and supported this disgraceful episode in Council history. Using the future of children for political advantage is about as craven as it gets in public life. Resignations of the Leader of The Council and the Chair of the CFS Committee are the least that we should demand, before this political shambles earns Brighton a reputation as a Hogarthian stew of corruption.
Lance Bellers, Brighton says...
7:19pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I was really taken aback by Labour's sacking of Coun McCaffery. Personally I opposed the proposals but I can understand why feelings were running high on both sides of the issue, it seems to me what Brighton really deserves is a council with much more vision and ambition that will tackle the problem at its core - ie, get Comart back on its feet and also seriously consider opening a brand new secondary school - start with just one or two years and expand from there. Surely it's clear that Brighton is a hotspot for attracting new residents - we're a city now and we can't just keep bumping along with an obvious lack of schools, both in geographical spread and quality.
My view is that the proposals have simply shifted the problem around and therefore I opposed it. Our personal choice of school has not been affected by it.
I applaud Coun McCaffery's integrity in standing up for what she believed was correct and I condemn the decision by Labour to sack her in this manner. In a way, that has angered me much more than the proposals themselves - at least I could see aguments on both sides. But now I would find it impossible to trust the Labour council on any future issues. What happens if one of their elected members campaigns for local people on issues such as the King Alfred development, possibly even a new ground for the Seagulls. How do we know if that will also be quashed at the last minute as well?
I have voted Labour at every local election but would certainly not do so again.
My view is that the proposals have simply shifted the problem around and therefore I opposed it. Our personal choice of school has not been affected by it.
I applaud Coun McCaffery's integrity in standing up for what she believed was correct and I condemn the decision by Labour to sack her in this manner. In a way, that has angered me much more than the proposals themselves - at least I could see aguments on both sides. But now I would find it impossible to trust the Labour council on any future issues. What happens if one of their elected members campaigns for local people on issues such as the King Alfred development, possibly even a new ground for the Seagulls. How do we know if that will also be quashed at the last minute as well?
I have voted Labour at every local election but would certainly not do so again.
David Ide, Brighton says...
7:27pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Once again Labour has demonstrated that unless you toe the party line you will be outed, all credit to Juliet Mc Caffrey for not giving in to party Labour dictatorship. Messrs Burgess, Hawkes etc should feel ashamed but obviously will not.
Siobhan Mc Alinden, Preston Park says...
7:37pm Tue 6 Feb 07
This whole process is appalling. Parents are turning on other parents- viciously in some cases- when we all want the same thing for our children. The latest proposals however serve the interests of few. Even those congratulating themselves on getting into the prized Stringer/Varndean catchment cannot rest until they get that letter through the door. They stand a high chance of being directed to one of the undersubscribed schools. What is tragic, and this is what Juliet Mc Caffrey has said all along, is that the families from Falmer, Coldean, Bevendean, Moulscomb, Hollingdean etc all are left with no choice of school whatsoever. The rest of us will wait for the letters! What price democracy?
Rick, Patcham says...
7:48pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The problem with tunnel vision is the world moves on and you dont notice. Chris Bourne needs to update his understanding of the legislation on school admissions policies. Local authorities will soon have a duty to increase opportunities for parental choice. These changes do precisely the opposite for the vast majority of parents in the whole of the City. He could also do with exercising some restraint with his language. Whether or not he agrees with Councillor McCaffrey, to level personal accusations at her is beyond contempt. Do we now live in a system where it is acceptable to question someones integrity because they listened to parents who didnt buy the pro-proposal propaganda and could see for themselves the damage these changes will do to the education of the majority of children in the city? Unless of course we are to believe that the 8% of children who will be better off as a result of these changes represent the whole of the City. I applaud Juliet McCafferys integrity and courage to stand up to the bully-boy tactics of the Labour Party. Prospective Parliamentary candidates take note, voters in Queens Park and Hanover may save Labour council seats in Queens Park and Hanover, but when it comes to the general elections you really will have the whole of the City to answer to. Have you looked at the size of the Labour majority recently?
Sara, Withdean says...
8:27pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The removal of Coun McCaffery on Friday is a disgrace and needs to be investigated. For such a 'cool' and up and coming city we seem to have lost all common sense.
craig, coombe road says...
8:36pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I applaud Counsillor McCaffery obviously a woman of integrity. Shame on youCounsillors Hawkes, Burgess et al
Mick, Freshfield Road says...
8:44pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Pro proposal propaganda, Rick? Nice bit of alliteration but somewhat paranoid I fear. And as for your figures. I assume you arrive at the figure of 8% of children being better off by assuming that currently 92% are satisfied. Not true I'm afraid Rick. You see there was a change in admissions policy to the present one from the 2005 intake. Before that change took place there was indeed a 92% satisfaction rate. But since then it has been a different story with the satisfaction rate diminishing significantly in successive years ever since. We are still awaiting the figures for this year (should be known in March) but last year the satisfaction rate had gone down to 85.4% and this year it is fully expected will decrease yet again. So you see applying your calculations this means that the 8% you refer to is actually at least 14.6%..and counting.
Furthermore, Rick, last years figures also reveal that in some areas the percentages achieving 1st preference based on the distance criterion was actually 100%, whilst in others it was as low as 6.7%. Are you starting to see just why change was needed Rick? You think about it, Rick, but I would suggest that if you do want to be involved in this debate you spend time getting hold of some facts, not just latching on to any old figures that happen to support your argument.
Furthermore, Rick, last years figures also reveal that in some areas the percentages achieving 1st preference based on the distance criterion was actually 100%, whilst in others it was as low as 6.7%. Are you starting to see just why change was needed Rick? You think about it, Rick, but I would suggest that if you do want to be involved in this debate you spend time getting hold of some facts, not just latching on to any old figures that happen to support your argument.
Dawn, says...
8:54pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I think the treatment of councillor McCaffrey and her dissmissal at the eleventh hour absolutely discraceful,what has become of democracy? It makes you wonder what our boys fought for in ww1 and 2,to now have a government who no longer listens to its people,and plays dirty to get its own way.
I completely support Tracey Ann Ross(spokeswoman for schools for communities) that this matter should be taken to the school adjudicator and council ombudsman.It is a discrace and Labour shall NOT be getting my vote from now on.
I completely support Tracey Ann Ross(spokeswoman for schools for communities) that this matter should be taken to the school adjudicator and council ombudsman.It is a discrace and Labour shall NOT be getting my vote from now on.
Paul, paulandmanjit@ntlworld.com says...
9:24pm Tue 6 Feb 07
A fundamentally flawed policy and a disgusting farce of a process. The council have opened Pandora's Box, which will haunt them for years to come.
If they think the incessant lobbying of those in Queens Park was bad, just wait for this policy to come into action. Fluid demographics will create more work for the council and heartache / anger for parents as boundaries are constantly redrawn to "catch". The many vast residential developments will exacerbate the problem - where will the kids living in City Point, Marina, King Alfred & Preston Barracks go to school?
Moving the issue from an area where Labour covet votes to those areas where votes are either safe or unattainable is blatant short termism and not in the interest of the city as a whole.
As Lance stated and the Heads of Varndean & Stringer implied in today's article, something more fundamental is required to resolve the root causes of the issues - some areas not having local secondary schools and an imbalance of performance.
I suggest that Comart be re-opened and the local community encouraged to do the right thing this time by supporting it rather than watch on the sidelines as vast amounts of effort & expense were pumped into it before they let it sink.
As a Brightonian &, up to Friday, a Labour supporter I am truly disgusted by the councils' behaviour and the fact that such a blatantly biased policy has been steamrollered through.
If they think the incessant lobbying of those in Queens Park was bad, just wait for this policy to come into action. Fluid demographics will create more work for the council and heartache / anger for parents as boundaries are constantly redrawn to "catch". The many vast residential developments will exacerbate the problem - where will the kids living in City Point, Marina, King Alfred & Preston Barracks go to school?
Moving the issue from an area where Labour covet votes to those areas where votes are either safe or unattainable is blatant short termism and not in the interest of the city as a whole.
As Lance stated and the Heads of Varndean & Stringer implied in today's article, something more fundamental is required to resolve the root causes of the issues - some areas not having local secondary schools and an imbalance of performance.
I suggest that Comart be re-opened and the local community encouraged to do the right thing this time by supporting it rather than watch on the sidelines as vast amounts of effort & expense were pumped into it before they let it sink.
As a Brightonian &, up to Friday, a Labour supporter I am truly disgusted by the councils' behaviour and the fact that such a blatantly biased policy has been steamrollered through.
Mick, Freshfield Road says...
9:50pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Molly is of course quite right about the various political parties holding their meetings and deciding on their position ahead of the CFS meeting. C. Sweeneys reaction to this is extraordianry. Did you really believe that at the meeting the CFS councillors were listening to all the pre prepared deliberations and thinking things like 'that's an interesting point', or 'I hadn't thought of that, must take it into consideration when I finally decide which way I'm going to vote'. I have to say the word 'green' comes to mind, and not in any political sense. The Labour Group had a whip to support the proposals and Counc. McCaffrey chose to break the whip and make it known in advance that she was going to do so. That is up to her but having taken this action she has to accept the consequences. She was also not just a CFS member but was deputy chair of the CFS. Being a member of the CFS is a responsible job and one of those responsibilities is to clearly put the wide interests of the city above parochial ward interests. Without paying heed to this a committe such as the CFS cannot operate for the city. Councillor McCaffrey, as well as breaking the whip was also intending to put her parochial ward interests above those of the city as a whole. She has effectively admitted such in the Argus today. In these circumstances it would have been a considerable abrogation of duty not to have sacked her.
It is not as though Counc. McCaffrey just sat there and did nothing and on some sort of whim Simon Burgess decided to sack her. She made her intentions clear and left no option but to be sacked. It was precisely in defence of democracy that that action was taken. It does, though, need simple rational thinking to understand that rather than the rather frenzied rhetoric that we are getting from some just at the moment.
It is not as though Counc. McCaffrey just sat there and did nothing and on some sort of whim Simon Burgess decided to sack her. She made her intentions clear and left no option but to be sacked. It was precisely in defence of democracy that that action was taken. It does, though, need simple rational thinking to understand that rather than the rather frenzied rhetoric that we are getting from some just at the moment.
Bruce, fiveways says...
9:54pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Amongst all the comments I have read, no one has made the point that these proposals for school reform are based upon a "least worst" option for as many people as possible. Whilst this does mean a hopefully samll disadvantage for some it brings within the system a significant number of people who where completely excluded under the current system.
There can never be a best system for all in the city. look at how the LEA closed COMART (how much did that cost?). And look at how they avoid talking about the actual number of school places that there are in the city... The LEA actually has a statutory duty to porvide a school place for all the children in the area.... I wonder whether they are meeting this legal obligation. Note that this would include those that go to private schools and also those that travel to schools outside of the LEA area.
Regarding the comments about democracy... "Three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". Just because you have a majority doesn't mean that you have right to ignore the wishes of the minority... we are meant to be living in a society.
Personally I favour a city wide random allocation of school places as being the only system that would be clear, unambigous and not open to what some people may regard as "abuse". I also favour the removal of the sibling link that allows many parents to get the first child into a prefered school and then move to where they really want to live.
However in the real world this is not a vote winner for anyone and decisions on school allocation as decided by politicians; how I wish they weren't.
I am certain that the newly passed proposals will be changed in another couple of years to "move the problem", as many have previously noted is being done in this case. I am equally certain that, in a couple of years, the core issue of school location and capacity will remain as it is because of the lack of political will to face up to this real issue.
Any councillor of any party who is prepared to go on the record and take on the LEA (note that this is NOT the same as the coucil) on these issues will get my vote.... I don't expect to be promising my vote to anyone.
Best to all, whatever you think about the issue.
There can never be a best system for all in the city. look at how the LEA closed COMART (how much did that cost?). And look at how they avoid talking about the actual number of school places that there are in the city... The LEA actually has a statutory duty to porvide a school place for all the children in the area.... I wonder whether they are meeting this legal obligation. Note that this would include those that go to private schools and also those that travel to schools outside of the LEA area.
Regarding the comments about democracy... "Three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". Just because you have a majority doesn't mean that you have right to ignore the wishes of the minority... we are meant to be living in a society.
Personally I favour a city wide random allocation of school places as being the only system that would be clear, unambigous and not open to what some people may regard as "abuse". I also favour the removal of the sibling link that allows many parents to get the first child into a prefered school and then move to where they really want to live.
However in the real world this is not a vote winner for anyone and decisions on school allocation as decided by politicians; how I wish they weren't.
I am certain that the newly passed proposals will be changed in another couple of years to "move the problem", as many have previously noted is being done in this case. I am equally certain that, in a couple of years, the core issue of school location and capacity will remain as it is because of the lack of political will to face up to this real issue.
Any councillor of any party who is prepared to go on the record and take on the LEA (note that this is NOT the same as the coucil) on these issues will get my vote.... I don't expect to be promising my vote to anyone.
Best to all, whatever you think about the issue.
Jane, Patcham says...
10:04pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I hope that other readers will find the comments of Mick as patronising as I do. He treats all opposition to his view as imbecilic and his attitude to Juliet Mc Caffrey (who has dedicated years of service to her local community in general and education in particular) is contemptible. The proof of this pudding will be in the eating and my daughter will be one of many children whose education is put in jeopardy by this change. Where will Mick be then? Will any of the engineers of this policy be accountable for it?
Mick, Freshfield Road says...
10:09pm Tue 6 Feb 07
I can see you're in the Queens Park taking over the world camp, Paul. Thought I'd just point out that if your extaaordinary suggestion that somehow this is about shifting the problem around for political reasons were in fact true then the whole of the Working Group and the whole of the Parent Stakeholder Group must have been in on it from the beginning. This is where the proposals come from. I wonder what the other members of these groups will think of that.
And another thought. Say one were to substitute for the words 'Queens Park' the words 'one of the most deprived wards in the city' and then everytime the conspiracy theorists such as yourself referred to such conspiracy, instead of saying how of course 'all this has been for the benefit of Queens Park' this became 'all this for the benefit of one of the most deprived wards in the city'. Sort of puts a different nuance on things, don't you think.
And another thought. Say one were to substitute for the words 'Queens Park' the words 'one of the most deprived wards in the city' and then everytime the conspiracy theorists such as yourself referred to such conspiracy, instead of saying how of course 'all this has been for the benefit of Queens Park' this became 'all this for the benefit of one of the most deprived wards in the city'. Sort of puts a different nuance on things, don't you think.
Mick, Freshfield Road says...
10:13pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Jane, where were you when my daughters education was put in jeopardy last year because of this awful system eh!
Siobhan Mc Alinden, Preston Park says...
10:14pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Can Mick, without condescension, deviation from the truth or obfuscation tell me in simple terms how this change is better for any of the following areas? Patcham, Portslade, Falmer, Moulscomb, Bevendean, Hollingdean, Preston Park, Withdean, Westdene? How is it better for the city as a whole?
Terry, Brighton says...
10:16pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Interesting the attack on Chris Bourne for being abusive from the schools4communities lot. Aren't they the same people who have incited far more extreme attacks with inflamed misinformation? (see http://www.theargus.co.uk/search/display.var.1160696.0.school_places_row_turns_ugly.php )
Oh and I suppose the Tories 'listened to the people, considered the proposals and deemed them not suitable' did they? I thought they were a political party as well and decided their whip would, perhaps, gain them advantage in May. Perhaps that is why Ken Norman felt (especially as Chief Whip) he had to go against all the work he did as part of the Working Group and vote against fixing the problem. I hope the abuse he and his wife, Ann, were subject to never happens again.
Respect to Richard Mallender for showing great courage and principles when under attack.
Oh and I suppose the Tories 'listened to the people, considered the proposals and deemed them not suitable' did they? I thought they were a political party as well and decided their whip would, perhaps, gain them advantage in May. Perhaps that is why Ken Norman felt (especially as Chief Whip) he had to go against all the work he did as part of the Working Group and vote against fixing the problem. I hope the abuse he and his wife, Ann, were subject to never happens again.
Respect to Richard Mallender for showing great courage and principles when under attack.
Paul, Withdean says...
10:33pm Tue 6 Feb 07
Mick, I refer to Siobhan's request?
Of course this is politically motivated, how else would such a transparently blatant shift to favour certain areas over others be anything else?
Having lived in Brighton all my life & witnessed truly historical links between areas and secondary schools, the false claims of East Brighton over other areas is a blatant lie. You can't tell me otherwise.
I did not witness such determined lobbying to keep your area's local school, Comart, open as I have seen for the "prize" of securing the best performing schools in Brighton. Strange eh?
The bottom line is that many more children & parents will be dissatisfied & disadvantaged with the new, flawed, policy.
Oh, and I note that there was no challenge to my assertions regarding the long term issues I mentioned.
Of course this is politically motivated, how else would such a transparently blatant shift to favour certain areas over others be anything else?
Having lived in Brighton all my life & witnessed truly historical links between areas and secondary schools, the false claims of East Brighton over other areas is a blatant lie. You can't tell me otherwise.
I did not witness such determined lobbying to keep your area's local school, Comart, open as I have seen for the "prize" of securing the best performing schools in Brighton. Strange eh?
The bottom line is that many more children & parents will be dissatisfied & disadvantaged with the new, flawed, policy.
Oh, and I note that there was no challenge to my assertions regarding the long term issues I mentioned.
Mick, Freshfield Road says...
10:58pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The thrust of the review was to make an unfair system fairer,Siobhan, more equitable across the city. This means that the inequity of some areas having a guarantee of entry into whichever of two or three schools they decide they would like whilst other areas have no chance whatever of getting into any of their most local schools had to be addressed. This does mean that those areas who currently have guarantees of two or three schools will find that choice diminished under the proposals in order to allow some choice for those who currently have none. I consider this to be perfectly fair and proper.As Pat Hawkes said in the Argus on Monday 'Those that live around schools can't assume they own them. They are there for the whole city' It has also always been understood that there is no perfect solution to this but a vast amount of work has gone into seeking a solution that does address current inequities and seeks to provide the fairest solution to be had. There are differing views of course about different aspects and details of the proposals but to just condemn the whole pacakage as a result is out of order. This is what has been happening, and it is wrong.
carrie, withdean says...
11:25pm Tue 6 Feb 07
What a mess we're left with now. How dare the council reap such havoc by sacking someone. They seem to think it's ok to take away the right of children who have been able to attend a local school and scatter them across the city. It's laughable to say everyone has access to a local school. It's over 4 miles or 2 hours by bus from Withdean to Hove Park lower school.
Sue, says...
11:43pm Tue 6 Feb 07
The Argus 'Vote' invites us to choose in a pretty biased way between 'No (I won't change my vote)' and 3 types of 'Yes I'm unhappy'. What about 'Yes I'm happy with/admire the parties who had the good sense to approve the independent working group's proposals, and I will give one of them my vote'. As for the various arguments, trying to hold out for the chimera of everyone having an absolute 'choice' of community schools is a dead end - a fair and comprehensive system really cannot work like that. We ALL need a fairly local school that can reflect its whole catchment area. The reality we have had in recent years has itself been a lottery in which those further away from any schools have had NO TICKET. At least now we'll be sharing any risk of not having our preference met with the others in the ballots, and all our children should go to a reasonably local school with some of their peers. I think some people would be happy as long as all the schools changed their names to 'Dorothy Stringer' so you could all feel you had got your way. An emotional issue like this raises a lot of fear, but this is a far more rational system than we have ever had. Please give it a chance - it is likely to work. (And yes, I think it would help if one school was not able to keep most of us out on religious grounds.)
Teresa, Brighton says...
12:00am Wed 7 Feb 07
If all the energy that has been used by councillors and parents regarding this change of encatchment area had been put into improving the local schools we would not have any problems as we would all have schools we could be proud of in Brighton.
Pat Hawkes said in the Argus on Monday 'Those that live around schools can't assume they own them.
This is part of the problem, parents should feel they own their local school and be part of it, this is how schools grow in strength, from support from their local community.
Comart school might of survived with extra support from its community.
The Brighton Council did not manage this school effectively. Brighton Council was also over ruled by an independent body regarding the merger of Balfour schools saying it was not in the interest of improving education.
Therefore Brighton Council has not got a good track record of getting it right in the past.
Parents are pleased to get into a favourable encatchment areas, but this does nothing to improve the failing schools, just a sigh of relief from some that "thank goodness we are safe"
But none of us are, because nothing has been done to improve the schools.
Quite the opposite, the clammer to get into the two top schools means that the heads are being asked to take on extra pupils at their schools which are already over subscribed.
This creates larger classes and cannot improve the running of the schools, indeed a slippery slopes becons for all of us with this proposal.
Pat Hawkes said in the Argus on Monday 'Those that live around schools can't assume they own them.
This is part of the problem, parents should feel they own their local school and be part of it, this is how schools grow in strength, from support from their local community.
Comart school might of survived with extra support from its community.
The Brighton Council did not manage this school effectively. Brighton Council was also over ruled by an independent body regarding the merger of Balfour schools saying it was not in the interest of improving education.
Therefore Brighton Council has not got a good track record of getting it right in the past.
Parents are pleased to get into a favourable encatchment areas, but this does nothing to improve the failing schools, just a sigh of relief from some that "thank goodness we are safe"
But none of us are, because nothing has been done to improve the schools.
Quite the opposite, the clammer to get into the two top schools means that the heads are being asked to take on extra pupils at their schools which are already over subscribed.
This creates larger classes and cannot improve the running of the schools, indeed a slippery slopes becons for all of us with this proposal.
E. Robinson, BN2 4GD says...
12:18am Wed 7 Feb 07
The previous catchment system offered choice, it may not have been perfect but it gave us free rein to visit the schools and choose the most appropriate and realistically obtainable school for our children. Now living in Moulsecoomb my children have no choice, we have been allocated a school and barred from all others regardless of the individual needs and interests of our children. How do these changes benefit my children?
Now only one catchment area in Brighton has a choice of schools, how can this system be an improvement for the city as a whole?
Labour has acted disgracefully on this issue and has sold us out for self-interest. What a mess!
Now only one catchment area in Brighton has a choice of schools, how can this system be an improvement for the city as a whole?
Labour has acted disgracefully on this issue and has sold us out for self-interest. What a mess!
C. Sweeney, says...
7:18am Wed 7 Feb 07
Mick, I cant believe Im hearing this! You quote: 'Those that live around schools can't assume they own them. My question is: Who do you think owns those schools now? And who has absolutely no chance whatsoever of ever getting into them now? At least beforehand your children had a chance of getting into one of them. Remember? Varndean was undersubscribed!!!
nicky,, withdean says...
7:55am Wed 7 Feb 07
To quote you Mick, "The thrust of the review was to make an unfair system fairer",yes, the old system wasn't perfect, but to quote Simon Burgess , "Councillor McCaffrey was placed in an akward position because her ward would have been badly affected by her changes". So hang on, why on earth was the council putting forward proposals which would "badly affect" an area when the "thrust was make an unfairer sytem fairer and why on earth would Juliet support these proposals. She was courageous enough to stand up for something which just didn't make sense.
C. Sweeney, says...
8:22am Wed 7 Feb 07
I hope Gil Sweetenham, Simon Burgess and all the councillors who supported this flawed system are reading these comments and realise what they have done to this city. They have bitterly devided the partents! How awful!
The satisfaction rate will go down dramatically come 2008. Although it might not show as a lot of people will have to put down one of their allocated schools as first choice to ensure a chance of getting into their preferred one. I suggest every parent who has a child starting secondary school in 2008 should be sent a form to comment on what choice they would have gone for before this system was introduced. Then you can compare it to the school they actually got and will see that this system does not work!!!!
A job well done? I think not!
The satisfaction rate will go down dramatically come 2008. Although it might not show as a lot of people will have to put down one of their allocated schools as first choice to ensure a chance of getting into their preferred one. I suggest every parent who has a child starting secondary school in 2008 should be sent a form to comment on what choice they would have gone for before this system was introduced. Then you can compare it to the school they actually got and will see that this system does not work!!!!
A job well done? I think not!
Anthony Radmall, Brighton 30 years says...
8:29am Wed 7 Feb 07
I think E.Robinson's comment sums it up really. What Queens Park, Hanover, Simon Burgess etc. have done is to snatch the prize of the two best schools in Brighton over the most deprived areas. Simon Burgess MP for Kemp Town, are you having a laugh !
Still its very New Labour to turn your back on your roots so you never know.
Still its very New Labour to turn your back on your roots so you never know.
Luke Burstow, Hove says...
9:02am Wed 7 Feb 07
This all does rather make a farce of the concept of schools specialising in certain subject areas.
I'm now left with a choice of having to move into a certain postcode if one of my children exhibits aptitude in a subject area a certain school specialises in and out of it if they don't.
Goodness knows what I'll do if my second child likes art and my first one science - buy two properties?
I'm now left with a choice of having to move into a certain postcode if one of my children exhibits aptitude in a subject area a certain school specialises in and out of it if they don't.
Goodness knows what I'll do if my second child likes art and my first one science - buy two properties?
Rick, Patcham says...
9:24am Wed 7 Feb 07
Whats with all the 'Ricks', Mick? Your assumption about the basis for the 8% is wrong, I am using the same figures as you but instead of focusing on 1st preferences only, looking at the % achieving either their 1st or their 2nd preference, as this seems a more reasonable test. But if you want to work with your cut of the figures thats fine too. So let me get this straight
a system that works for 85.4% of children should be changed to work for 14.6% of them? Thanks as well for the advice on getting hold of facts. I followed it and look what I found out
. according to the school admissions booklet published by the Council only three of Brighton and Hoves schools were oversubscribed last year. Of these, one, Longhill admitted someone on the distance criteria who lived over 5km away from the school. That means that anyone who lived anywhere in Brighton and Hove could have a choice from most of the schools. Here is another fact, under the new system the only children that will have any kind of choice are those who live in a catchment area with more than one school in it most do not. Even those with a choice of more than one school may not get either of their choices if they live in the Stringer/Varndean catchment area, as there will be more children than places available in both the schools. Now, what was that about latching onto any old figures that happen to support your argument
.?
Sam, says...
9:35am Wed 7 Feb 07
The way that the SAR vote went on Friday was a shame. Not just because of the dispicable, underhand tactics of the Labour Councillors, but also because the opportunity to make an unworkable proposal into one that might be a success was dismissed out of hand. Changing the catchment for Falmer to include some of Hanover, so that the school would have a trully diverse intake, could have been the next best option after extending the SAR consultation period to give ALL the parents and schools in the area a chance to have some input.
To me the shame was in the reaction of the Green Councillors and the Pro-SAR parents who attended the meeting. It became clear that the issue for them was not just about getting a community school for their children, but about avoiding them going to Falmer at all costs.
Imagine the possibilities for Falmer and its students had all those enthusiastic, aspirational, vociferous and well-educated parents from Hanover worked as hard on improving that school for theirs and others' children as they did on campaigning for the SAR! What a wonderful school it could become.
As for Labour getting back in come May - Do they really think that the 3500 people who signed the petition are going to forget about being ignored and cheated by then?
To me the shame was in the reaction of the Green Councillors and the Pro-SAR parents who attended the meeting. It became clear that the issue for them was not just about getting a community school for their children, but about avoiding them going to Falmer at all costs.
Imagine the possibilities for Falmer and its students had all those enthusiastic, aspirational, vociferous and well-educated parents from Hanover worked as hard on improving that school for theirs and others' children as they did on campaigning for the SAR! What a wonderful school it could become.
As for Labour getting back in come May - Do they really think that the 3500 people who signed the petition are going to forget about being ignored and cheated by then?
Sarah, Withdean says...
9:48am Wed 7 Feb 07
I agree Rick. Four large areas of Brighton now have the 'choice' of one school. All those living in the dual catchments ( because of equal preference )will be placed in a lottery and those living in the Stringer/Varndean area ( because this catchment certainly does not 'catch' )could literally be sent anywhere. What is the point of filling in a 'preference' form? The council might as well save us the bother and tell us now where our children will be going to school in 2008. I fully support Juliet McCaffery. She obviously understands the anomalies in the new system.
Jo Taylor, Patcham says...
11:28am Wed 7 Feb 07
I am outraged that Juliet McCaffery was sacked in this way. There is no point at all in having the right to vote if you must vote according to instructions. I find it insulting and patronising that Pat Hawkes justifies the sacking of Juliet McCaffery by accusing her of acting in the interest of her ward and not the city. No she wasn't. Ms McCaffery is an intelligent woman. She is perfectly capable of understanding the implications of the proposals on the city as a whole and is not nursing her own ward. The plain truth is she was sacked because she wouldn't bow to labours demands. The school admissions proposals had to be agreed because of the vast political momentum it was creating and the imminent need to justify the time, planning and expenses wasted over the past months. It was a forgone conclusion, and an excuse would have been found to fire anyone who stood in the way. That's Labour council democracy for you. They've lost my vote forever.
Personally I think Richard Mallender should be sacked for supporting proposals that are going to create so much more traffic. Strangely, I can't seem to find 'encouraging more traffic' in the Green Party propaganda.
However, on the plus side, there are winners. Anyone looking for employment should find plenty of new jobs going at the councils 'school admissions appeal office' in 2008. And, Shell and BP should rub their hands together and order a couple more tankard loads of petrol to cover the increase in school runs.
The only losers are of course the kids, and any parent with more than one child needing to be dropped off at umpteen different parts of the city before the school bell. Good luck and God help us all!
Personally I think Richard Mallender should be sacked for supporting proposals that are going to create so much more traffic. Strangely, I can't seem to find 'encouraging more traffic' in the Green Party propaganda.
However, on the plus side, there are winners. Anyone looking for employment should find plenty of new jobs going at the councils 'school admissions appeal office' in 2008. And, Shell and BP should rub their hands together and order a couple more tankard loads of petrol to cover the increase in school runs.
The only losers are of course the kids, and any parent with more than one child needing to be dropped off at umpteen different parts of the city before the school bell. Good luck and God help us all!
Trevor, BN2 says...
12:07pm Wed 7 Feb 07
No, there are other winners here too. The private schools and the estate agents will be rubbing theirs with glee too. Anyone who can buy their way out of trouble will do so. And the losers? The kids on the estates, the kids of nurses. policemen, low paid workers etc. Remember it was the Labour Party who did this to us.
Sheila, BN2 4 says...
1:06pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Trevor, I agree the estate agents will be jumping up and down at the prospect of parents who can afford to move, moving to the Varndean & DS catchment area. However, the chances of the children actually getting into these schools will be vastly reduced for all families in the area and their worst nightmare might actually come true! Personally at least I know where my children will go and will work hard with the rest of the community to make sure it works. It would be interesting to hold this debate next year and the following year to see just how happy everyone really is with this shambles.
Martin, Fiveways says...
2:15pm Wed 7 Feb 07
This point has been made already - but it is complete tosh to suggest that only Juliet McCaffrey was acting in the narrow interests of her Ward. The action in sacking her was typical of the way New Labour see party advantage as the key determinant of policy. Councillor Burgess clearly has his own agenda with his parliamentary aspiriations, and others wanted to support the proposals because they feel they will benefit their ward. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about it. The stench of hypocracy runs deep, not only with the Council, but also with those who hide behind the claims of 'social justice' when what they really want is to get their own children into better schools, and cut other areas adrift, particularly Falmer.
The people around the proposed Wate Tranfer Station at Hollingdean have seen action like this before from the Council. Then they ensured that the only Labour members on the planning committee were those who were not affected directly, but of course had a strong vested interest in making sure the WTS was placed away from their wards! Those who object were then labelled nimby's.
Counc McCaffrey deserves the support of everybody in the upcoming elections. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the party she represents.
The people around the proposed Wate Tranfer Station at Hollingdean have seen action like this before from the Council. Then they ensured that the only Labour members on the planning committee were those who were not affected directly, but of course had a strong vested interest in making sure the WTS was placed away from their wards! Those who object were then labelled nimby's.
Counc McCaffrey deserves the support of everybody in the upcoming elections. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the party she represents.
Angela, Hollingdean says...
2:16pm Wed 7 Feb 07
What an extraordinarily unedifying discussion this is. I am a mother of three who wishes to bring up children who have an understanding of the environment in which they live and a desire to make a positive contribution as they grow up. I find the hysteria on both sides of this 'debate' frankly embarassing and have tried to shield my children from its prejudices as far as possible. Should we not be setting our children a positive example and striving to make all our schools better rather than maligning particular schools? I would like to make the following points.
1. The present system for allocating secondary places may well be flawed and is certainly unpredictable, but it is a fact that if parents of last year's Year 6 children living in Queens Park, Hanover and Elm Grove had elected to put their nearest school (Varndean) as their first choice, they would have got places. Indeed, many children got into Varndean as their second choice.
2. Being presented with a 'choice' of secondary school is a disorientating experience - it forces parents into the position of consumer - those with the most consumer clout expect the 'best' for their children. Unfortunately, this seems to translate into an expectation of unfettered access to DS as a fundamental human right.
3. The new system will not solve the problem, merely shift the perceived 'advantage'from one area to another.
It seems that most of those voicing opinions on this subject are unconcerned that 'undesirable' schools exist in our city as long as their own children don't have to go to them - this might 'jeopardise' their education.
1. The present system for allocating secondary places may well be flawed and is certainly unpredictable, but it is a fact that if parents of last year's Year 6 children living in Queens Park, Hanover and Elm Grove had elected to put their nearest school (Varndean) as their first choice, they would have got places. Indeed, many children got into Varndean as their second choice.
2. Being presented with a 'choice' of secondary school is a disorientating experience - it forces parents into the position of consumer - those with the most consumer clout expect the 'best' for their children. Unfortunately, this seems to translate into an expectation of unfettered access to DS as a fundamental human right.
3. The new system will not solve the problem, merely shift the perceived 'advantage'from one area to another.
It seems that most of those voicing opinions on this subject are unconcerned that 'undesirable' schools exist in our city as long as their own children don't have to go to them - this might 'jeopardise' their education.
Kathleen McMullen, says...
2:36pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Miles isn't very far to go to school! I used to walk 6 miles through fields to get to school. What a lot of fuss.
Kathleen McMullen, says...
2:47pm Wed 7 Feb 07
FOUR miles isn't very far, at all.
Paul, Withdean says...
2:49pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Angela - I agree with the points you have made & would like to refer you back to my comments made last night.
The root causes of parental dissatisfaction need to be resolved - improved school performances across the board and improved geographical distribution of schools.
Personally, the current system would have seen my children have DS as one of their choices, but that is not to say that they or I would have stated this school as 1st preference.
The SAR now means that they face a 50/50 chance of attending either BM or HP. In terms of the schools themselves, I am not that concerned. In terms of having the option of a 15 minute walk to school (DS or V) replaced by a 2 hour bus journey (HP Lower) then I do mind as this will increase risk to child safety, increase the length of their school day and reduce the opportunity to undertake extra-curricular activity. Hardly local!
I count my situation as being "fortunate" compared to those others who have seen choice and locality taken away from them for the benefit of others.
It is a scandal that the council refused to pursue a more fundamental, long term solution.
However, it is an outrage that the wishes of the minority (based on the 1st / 2nd preference figures quoted above) have been granted at the expense of the majority & by the way it was handled.
The root causes of parental dissatisfaction need to be resolved - improved school performances across the board and improved geographical distribution of schools.
Personally, the current system would have seen my children have DS as one of their choices, but that is not to say that they or I would have stated this school as 1st preference.
The SAR now means that they face a 50/50 chance of attending either BM or HP. In terms of the schools themselves, I am not that concerned. In terms of having the option of a 15 minute walk to school (DS or V) replaced by a 2 hour bus journey (HP Lower) then I do mind as this will increase risk to child safety, increase the length of their school day and reduce the opportunity to undertake extra-curricular activity. Hardly local!
I count my situation as being "fortunate" compared to those others who have seen choice and locality taken away from them for the benefit of others.
It is a scandal that the council refused to pursue a more fundamental, long term solution.
However, it is an outrage that the wishes of the minority (based on the 1st / 2nd preference figures quoted above) have been granted at the expense of the majority & by the way it was handled.
Jo Taylor, Patcham says...
2:50pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Good for you Kathleen. No doubt that was in an era when it was safe to do so, and leave your back door open etc etc. Unfortunately, children these days don't have that luxury.
Mary, withdean says...
2:54pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Kathleen may have walked 6 miles to school through fields but I will not let my 11 year old walk the four miles through the huge traffic on Dyke Road and having to cross several major junctions. Nor will he leave at 7am to take two bus journeys to arrive at 8.30am. I will drive him, as will most parents ( see you in the traffic jam). I thought he would have walked less than a mile through a park and along a lit road to his local school!Richard Mallendar- you voted for this.
Luke Burstow, Hove says...
2:55pm Wed 7 Feb 07
"I used to walk 6 miles through fields to get to school."
"FOUR miles isn't very far, at all."
this is beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch, Kathleen!
4 miles across a city in the rush our is a significantly more challenging activity than strolling through sun dappled fields with nothing to impede your progress bar the odd lazy wasp.
"FOUR miles isn't very far, at all."
this is beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch, Kathleen!
4 miles across a city in the rush our is a significantly more challenging activity than strolling through sun dappled fields with nothing to impede your progress bar the odd lazy wasp.
keith Turvey, Withdean says...
3:22pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Kathleen,
that's all very well but when there are three schools (4 if you count Newman another state school) considerably closer most right-minded people would have to ask why send them miles away with three schools on the doorstep.
that's all very well but when there are three schools (4 if you count Newman another state school) considerably closer most right-minded people would have to ask why send them miles away with three schools on the doorstep.
Sarah, BN1 5, Juliet McCaffreys's ward says...
4:21pm Wed 7 Feb 07
I want to remind everybody writing to this list that the schools that we are all fighting for (DS and BM) are only rated 'average' nationally. Our council should be hauled over the coals for the frankly disgraceful standard of state secondary eduction in Brighton and Hove. We have a very small proportion of students with English as a foreign language and huge numbers of educationally-aspirational families (as the passion of this debate proves). The arguments about choice are a poorly-concealed middle-class fear that our children will go to Falmer/Patcham/Hove Park. These arguments shame us all - where is the campaign group to improve Falmer?
Jason Harris, Patcham says...
4:36pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Perhaps Kathleen could tell us where and when this was. I will not allow my children to walk four miles to school. They will have to 'dodge' heavy traffic, main roads and parents rushing to get their kids to diferent schools.
Lucy Evans, brighton says...
4:47pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Luke Burstow wrote:In fact, when we bought our house in Hanover 11 years ago, we were in the catchment area for Dorothy Stringer, and our oldest daughter attended the school and did very well. Because of changing school preferences amongst parents who are abvle to pay the inflated house prices in the Fiveways area, children from central and East Brighton have been left with no choice of secondary school. The council's decision to create dual catchment areas, which do not discriminate on the grounds of how far you live from the school appear to me to be the best way of allocating first or second choices to the widest number of children, rather than the present system which favours the wealthiest families and perpetuates discrimination on the basis of income and house price.
This whole process has been driven by a relatively small group of articulate, motivated parents who chose to live in the centre of Brighton and then found that the secondary schools available to them did not meet their aspirations.
They have now arranged for the school boundaries to be changed to accomodate their wishes at the expense of those who did a bit of research before they bought a house.
Cate, Coombe Road says...
5:00pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Sarah from BN1 5, I have campaigned throughout the last few months for a more comprehensive intake for Falmer, as have many others in the Coombe Road Action Group and Schools4Communities, with the very aim of enabling the school to continue to improve. I have also visited the school, which is more than most parents will have done.
Falmer is improving under the current system, but they are concerned that a Falmer catchment ending at Bear Road would destroy this. Of course, that catchment is exactly what the Committee voted for.
Juliet was made aware of our concerns and I believe this contributed to her stance. What a shame that our own ward councillor, Jack Hazelgrove, decided to vote for the proposals including a single Falmer catchment ending at Bear Road. He has let us all down.
Falmer is improving under the current system, but they are concerned that a Falmer catchment ending at Bear Road would destroy this. Of course, that catchment is exactly what the Committee voted for.
Juliet was made aware of our concerns and I believe this contributed to her stance. What a shame that our own ward councillor, Jack Hazelgrove, decided to vote for the proposals including a single Falmer catchment ending at Bear Road. He has let us all down.
Sarah, bn1 6 says...
5:19pm Wed 7 Feb 07
What makes a good school is good teachers and good management. What gives a school good GCSE results is both of these combined with the ability and motivation of the children (and their parents) who go to the school. I don't know the secondary schools in Brighton well enough to comment but in other areas of the country I know the 'best performing' schools according to the league tables are not necessarily where I would want to send my child as they are complacent with a good catchment. Someone earllier correctly pointed out that this seems to be a mass hysteria to get into Dorothy Stringer (recent good Ofsted) and avoid Falmer (recently recognised as improving by Ofsted). If people all really believed in community schools and supported them we wouldn't have this hysteria and nobody (and I can't believe the Green party supported this) would be thinking about sending kids from Prestonville and Withdean across town to Hove Park.
Siobhan, Preston Park says...
5:21pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Lucy Evans if only it were that simple. There are many houses around Stringer where ordinary families like mine live. If it makes you feel better to class us all as rich fools then so be it but we are what we are teachers, nurses, all sorts. But please,listen to this tale of two families both of whom I know. One family live in a house at Seven Dials worth in the region of £650,000. They are celebrating the changes- they have saved themselves school fees or a house move. Then there is another family- the lovely woman who looked after my child when she was a baby. She and her partner have just bought a house in Coldean and she knew that this meant that her two lovely, clever boys would goto Falmer but she was happy that Falmer was "on the up" and they would be okay. Will they still be okay? Not now that the future social intake of that school has been severely limited. Is this Fair?
Jane, Brighton says...
9:05pm Wed 7 Feb 07
It should be remembered that the original proposals were to pair Falmer with Patcham. This was specifically designed to offer choice for those within the dual catchment whilst providing a more balanced intake for Falmer. In November Councillor McCaffery voted to support the proposals 'in principle' but also voted in support of an amendment to split Falmer from Patcham. This was quite evidently a 'political deal' to gain Tory support for the proposals. In reality that support wasn't needed as the vote followed party lines of right and left, and the split need never have happened. Not sure how that squares with Councillor McCaffery's 'principled stance'.
colin, B&H says...
9:57pm Wed 7 Feb 07
The whole situation frankly saddens me.
The manipulation of the voting for political reasons was undemocratic and a breach of natural justice / human rights, but then the whole CFS should have risen above party politics to do what is best for the children and the future of the city. Sadly, it didn't.
As representatives sitting in a position of responsibility the Councillor's owed all of us a duty to carry out the review without this disgraceful display of self interest. The decent thing would be for the proposals to be set aside and the committee to resign. The reality is that there is vast room for improvement in our local schools and all this energy been put into infighting detracts from the real issue that our council is failing to provide that standard and more importantly, no matter how anyone dresses up the current drama, the fact remains that we have a growing population and insufficient school places. I applaud the Head of DS for speaking out and I hope more Heads follow suit. More importantly, the CFS has failed to provide clear, unambiguous and unequivacable facts which we can all understand. We have been deprived of proper modelling of intake and distance / transport requirements. Sadly, when certain members of the Working Party discovered this, the matter was not addressed and the proposals pushed forward regardless. It makes the process a sham. It is high time the CFS now published coherent facts and I would hope that all Governors demand that the real data is made public. Moreover, that the CFS publishes in detail the results from the consultation with the Governors as I do not believe that the Report published on B&H website represented or reflected the opinions expressed within the consultations that went on.
I wish there was something positive I could say about the results, but there is very little I can find which warrants even a glimmer of optimism.
In a perfect world we would all be able to walk our children a short distance to a well performing school along well lit, safe routes. That would give all parties a feel good factor. As it is, some areas do not have a local school and therefore the children will always have to travel. This in itself is no justification for throwing the whole of the city into chaos. A better solution would be to re-open existing school facilities in the vicinity (I of course refer to Stanley Deason and proximity to Kemptown/QP/H not to mention Whitehawk). I would hope that more Heads / Governors speak up to express genuine concerns representative of their school and not simply to promote self interest.
I cannot see that a lottery system (unless of course that is rigged as well) can benefit anyone and certainly anyone with more than one child runs the risk of having to be in two or more places at once.
In respect of deprived areas, I do not accept that QP / H are deprived areas. It certainly wasn't when I lived there and average house prices are pretty high. Likewise, this area does not have a monopoly on labour voters; teachers; social workers or council employees. The real risk now is that Falmer will be left with a deprived catchment, above average FSM and special needs. Will the council throw additional resources to support this situation or will it sit back (as it did with COMART) and watch its demise? I apologise to the staff of Falmer for citing the school as an example, I realise that this is not the attention you seek, but I have genuine concerns that this council will not support struggling school in the hour of need, created by the self interest of a few councillors.
Let us have a debate by all means, but let us focus on the real issues. The long term sustainable improvement and quality of our schools. Above all, lets try to keep it level headed; factual and adult.
The manipulation of the voting for political reasons was undemocratic and a breach of natural justice / human rights, but then the whole CFS should have risen above party politics to do what is best for the children and the future of the city. Sadly, it didn't.
As representatives sitting in a position of responsibility the Councillor's owed all of us a duty to carry out the review without this disgraceful display of self interest. The decent thing would be for the proposals to be set aside and the committee to resign. The reality is that there is vast room for improvement in our local schools and all this energy been put into infighting detracts from the real issue that our council is failing to provide that standard and more importantly, no matter how anyone dresses up the current drama, the fact remains that we have a growing population and insufficient school places. I applaud the Head of DS for speaking out and I hope more Heads follow suit. More importantly, the CFS has failed to provide clear, unambiguous and unequivacable facts which we can all understand. We have been deprived of proper modelling of intake and distance / transport requirements. Sadly, when certain members of the Working Party discovered this, the matter was not addressed and the proposals pushed forward regardless. It makes the process a sham. It is high time the CFS now published coherent facts and I would hope that all Governors demand that the real data is made public. Moreover, that the CFS publishes in detail the results from the consultation with the Governors as I do not believe that the Report published on B&H website represented or reflected the opinions expressed within the consultations that went on.
I wish there was something positive I could say about the results, but there is very little I can find which warrants even a glimmer of optimism.
In a perfect world we would all be able to walk our children a short distance to a well performing school along well lit, safe routes. That would give all parties a feel good factor. As it is, some areas do not have a local school and therefore the children will always have to travel. This in itself is no justification for throwing the whole of the city into chaos. A better solution would be to re-open existing school facilities in the vicinity (I of course refer to Stanley Deason and proximity to Kemptown/QP/H not to mention Whitehawk). I would hope that more Heads / Governors speak up to express genuine concerns representative of their school and not simply to promote self interest.
I cannot see that a lottery system (unless of course that is rigged as well) can benefit anyone and certainly anyone with more than one child runs the risk of having to be in two or more places at once.
In respect of deprived areas, I do not accept that QP / H are deprived areas. It certainly wasn't when I lived there and average house prices are pretty high. Likewise, this area does not have a monopoly on labour voters; teachers; social workers or council employees. The real risk now is that Falmer will be left with a deprived catchment, above average FSM and special needs. Will the council throw additional resources to support this situation or will it sit back (as it did with COMART) and watch its demise? I apologise to the staff of Falmer for citing the school as an example, I realise that this is not the attention you seek, but I have genuine concerns that this council will not support struggling school in the hour of need, created by the self interest of a few councillors.
Let us have a debate by all means, but let us focus on the real issues. The long term sustainable improvement and quality of our schools. Above all, lets try to keep it level headed; factual and adult.
Paul, Withdean says...
10:30pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Colin - totally agree.
The council has an obligation to resolve the root cause issues for the benefit of the population it represents.
One look at the map on The Argus website shows the yawning gap between Longhill & Falmer / Varndean.
We have seen 2 secondary schools close over recent years - Patcham Fawcett & Comart, with no action to replace the school places / minimise travel impacts.
With an ever increasing population, which is also becoming younger on average, the situation will only worsen.
If only someone would champion a campaign to improve school performances & provide more schools. Sadly, I feel it is but a pipe-dream.
The council has an obligation to resolve the root cause issues for the benefit of the population it represents.
One look at the map on The Argus website shows the yawning gap between Longhill & Falmer / Varndean.
We have seen 2 secondary schools close over recent years - Patcham Fawcett & Comart, with no action to replace the school places / minimise travel impacts.
With an ever increasing population, which is also becoming younger on average, the situation will only worsen.
If only someone would champion a campaign to improve school performances & provide more schools. Sadly, I feel it is but a pipe-dream.
Jane, Brighton says...
10:38pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Colin - yes, let's keep it factual. Do you suppose that because you didn't know any poor people in Queen's Park they don't exist? Of course it may be that the 'vociferous, articulate middle classes' of Queen's Park have managed to infiltrate the government statisticians, but that withstanding, the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation positions the ward second only to East Brighton in a rating of deprived wards in the city. This is much like people repeatedly claiming that Hove Park Lower is more than four miles away from Prestonville. It isn't. Or that Councillor McCaffery didn't vote for the proposals in principle and to split Falmer from Patcham. She did. But the facts don't agree with you. Of course what people choose to believe is another matter entirely.
Jane Kistnasamy, Coombe Road, Brighton says...
10:38pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Sarah wrote:Sarah from BN1 5.
I want to remind everybody writing to this list that the schools that we are all fighting for (DS and BM) are only rated 'average' nationally. Our council should be hauled over the coals for the frankly disgraceful standard of state secondary eduction in Brighton and Hove. We have a very small proportion of students with English as a foreign language and huge numbers of educationally-aspirational families (as the passion of this debate proves). The arguments about choice are a poorly-concealed middle-class fear that our children will go to Falmer/Patcham/Hove Park. These arguments shame us all - where is the campaign group to improve Falmer?
Please do not generalise - we are not all fighting to get our children into DS & BM. I live in Coombe Rd, and I along with the governors at Coombe Rd Primary & the majority of the local community are fighting for equality & social justice. The fight is not against Falmer or any other school. A 36% FSM figure for Falmer, with the next highest school on 22% makes a complete mockery of social equality & the catchment area to be revised again if the Academy goes ahead. For this reason we will continue to fight for that now laughable 'Fair system for the whole city!'
Falmer works closely with our primary as do other secondary schools. I have friends whose children have excelled at Falmer and whom along with the talented management & teaching staff have made it the improving school it is. Because of the age of my daughter I have not as yet had reason to visit ANY secondary school so do not have any idea which school would be most suited to my daughter. When the time comes we will visit every school and make our own judgements,not pre-concieved ideas generated by rumour and chinese whispers. It does appear that other areas of the city take fright at just the mention of that F word. They'll be the one's that'll be throwing their dummies out the pram again when they realise 'there are not enough balls in the lottery machine to deal with the number in the oversubscription box' at DS/V!! (Thanks to Colin for the balls quote!)
Amanda Booth, Withdean says...
10:41pm Wed 7 Feb 07
Juliet showed intrgrity and courage by defying the Labour party and voting against the SAR. She was thinking of the majority of our City's children instead of toing the party line in attempting to retain marginal Labour seats.
Jane, Brighton says...
10:56pm Wed 7 Feb 07
As I said earlier, we believe what we want to - but can you explain how councillor McCaffery showed 'integrity and courage' by voting for an amendment to split Falmer from Patcham in November, and then in February argued that she couldn't support the proposals because they gave the people of Moulsecoomb no choice?
B Warren, Exeter street says...
12:01am Thu 8 Feb 07
As a father of three and an ex Stanford/Dorothy Stringer pupil i am dismayed that the councils decision to let these proposals be voted through in such a shambolic way.
To be able to 'replace'Juliet at the last minute because she was not towing the party line smacks of being a dictatorship rather than a democracy.
The council, by allowing these propsals through have divided the cities parants and children,have not listened to school heads or school governors and have shown a blatant disregard to everyone against these proposals. All they have been thinking about is the elections in May, not the welfare of the children of this city.
All they have done is moved the problems around, why was Comart shut? Apparantly a failing school, but in the last two years it was open was an improving school.
How can they justify shutting a school when the city is crying out for more, they are quick to let new housing and supermarkets be built but are failing everyone in this city to supply adequte educational facilities.I just hope the windfall of the inevitable sale of Comart will be well spent.
To Chris Bourne, you say you want a fair system for the whole city, yet when you moved to your house in 2000 you had every expectation your children would attend Blatch mill from Sommerhill as almost everyone from the area did.
So, originally, you were one of the lucky ones to be able to afford a nice house in a nice area where your children could attend a good school, i was just wondering if it was pre 2005 intake, would you still be on your soap box arguing for change.
Finally, i applaud Juliet Macaffery for standing up for what she knows to be right and her integrity, the council should hang ther heads in shame.
To be able to 'replace'Juliet at the last minute because she was not towing the party line smacks of being a dictatorship rather than a democracy.
The council, by allowing these propsals through have divided the cities parants and children,have not listened to school heads or school governors and have shown a blatant disregard to everyone against these proposals. All they have been thinking about is the elections in May, not the welfare of the children of this city.
All they have done is moved the problems around, why was Comart shut? Apparantly a failing school, but in the last two years it was open was an improving school.
How can they justify shutting a school when the city is crying out for more, they are quick to let new housing and supermarkets be built but are failing everyone in this city to supply adequte educational facilities.I just hope the windfall of the inevitable sale of Comart will be well spent.
To Chris Bourne, you say you want a fair system for the whole city, yet when you moved to your house in 2000 you had every expectation your children would attend Blatch mill from Sommerhill as almost everyone from the area did.
So, originally, you were one of the lucky ones to be able to afford a nice house in a nice area where your children could attend a good school, i was just wondering if it was pre 2005 intake, would you still be on your soap box arguing for change.
Finally, i applaud Juliet Macaffery for standing up for what she knows to be right and her integrity, the council should hang ther heads in shame.
A. Bullock, 7 Dials says...
9:34am Thu 8 Feb 07
Luke Burstow wrote:Oh the ignorance of people making this kind of comment astounds me. When we bought our house near Seven Dials, all the children who had previously lived there - going back 10 years or more - had always gone to Dorothy Stringer. Then Comart closed places got squeezed a knee jerk council reaction decided to aply distance criteria only and suddenly and I mean suddenly, a whole swathe of our City from King Alfred to Seven Dial to the Marina couldn't get into any school. That's wht it needed to be changed.
This whole process has been driven by a relatively small group of articulate, motivated parents who chose to live in the centre of Brighton and then found that the secondary schools available to them did not meet their aspirations.
They have now arranged for the school boundaries to be changed to accomodate their wishes at the expense of those who did a bit of research before they bought a house.
Luke Burstow, Hove says...
10:31am Thu 8 Feb 07
"suddenly, a whole swathe of our City from King Alfred to Seven Dial to the Marina couldn't get into any school"
Name a single child who has been refused a place at every school in Brighton and Hove because they live at 7 dials - or is your statement just ignorant?
The conclusion of my last sentence was intended to be slightly tongue in cheek whilst also provoking a response- which it seems to have achieved :-)
Having said that there does appear to have been a concerted effort by Seven Dials parents to get the 'right' school for their children regardless of the cost to others.
Waving around human rights legislation 'cos your child was only offered a place at Falmer when they had their little heart set on Patcham seems a bit of an overeaction but court action of this type was being threatened.
If the parents who now complain there's no central Brighton school had put as much effort into saving Comart when it existed the situation would be different now.
Name a single child who has been refused a place at every school in Brighton and Hove because they live at 7 dials - or is your statement just ignorant?
The conclusion of my last sentence was intended to be slightly tongue in cheek whilst also provoking a response- which it seems to have achieved :-)
Having said that there does appear to have been a concerted effort by Seven Dials parents to get the 'right' school for their children regardless of the cost to others.
Waving around human rights legislation 'cos your child was only offered a place at Falmer when they had their little heart set on Patcham seems a bit of an overeaction but court action of this type was being threatened.
If the parents who now complain there's no central Brighton school had put as much effort into saving Comart when it existed the situation would be different now.
Lucy, Brighton says...
10:48am Thu 8 Feb 07
Siobhan
I completely agree with you about Falmer but, I guess, and I apologise if I'm wrong, that you aren't intending to send your children there.
A friend suggested that a solution to this problem would be for the Council to randomly allocate school places on a postcode basis, changing the postcodes that were admitted to each school every year - it would certainly add even more of a frisson to the already fraught process.
There are two main problems with secondary schools admissions in the City. The first is the geographical siting of schools which, I hope most people here would recognise, with the two most sought after schools next to one another, has seriously disadvantaged whole areas of the city. The Council attempted to moderate this with their oprginal proposal for a nodal system, but that was rejected after vigorous campaigning by people who live close to Stringer and Varndean. The second is the presence in the city centre of a large secondary school which consistently performs well but to which most of our children can't apply (but which we still fund out of our taxes). If Cardinal Newman were a non selective comprehensive then a lot of these problems would be solved.
I completely agree with you about Falmer but, I guess, and I apologise if I'm wrong, that you aren't intending to send your children there.
A friend suggested that a solution to this problem would be for the Council to randomly allocate school places on a postcode basis, changing the postcodes that were admitted to each school every year - it would certainly add even more of a frisson to the already fraught process.
There are two main problems with secondary schools admissions in the City. The first is the geographical siting of schools which, I hope most people here would recognise, with the two most sought after schools next to one another, has seriously disadvantaged whole areas of the city. The Council attempted to moderate this with their oprginal proposal for a nodal system, but that was rejected after vigorous campaigning by people who live close to Stringer and Varndean. The second is the presence in the city centre of a large secondary school which consistently performs well but to which most of our children can't apply (but which we still fund out of our taxes). If Cardinal Newman were a non selective comprehensive then a lot of these problems would be solved.
Siobhan Mcalinden, Preston Park says...
11:14am Thu 8 Feb 07
Hi Lucy,
Without wanting to get into specifics it is very important that people know that many of us supported a change that allowed those on free school meals to be given access priority at admissions. This was blocked as a possibility because it did not resolve the QueensPark/Hanover/Seven Dials issue. The changes have left huge areas of social deprivation with no access whatsover to the schools that the more affluent areas above have successfully secured for their kids (or not if the Varndean/Stringer numbers don't get resolved).
How can anyone, anywhere say it is okay for the poorest areas to be confined to the least successful schools? The whole city will pay dearly for this in years to come. Change the system by all means but change it for the good of the most people not so that everyone is now worse off.
Without wanting to get into specifics it is very important that people know that many of us supported a change that allowed those on free school meals to be given access priority at admissions. This was blocked as a possibility because it did not resolve the QueensPark/Hanover/Seven Dials issue. The changes have left huge areas of social deprivation with no access whatsover to the schools that the more affluent areas above have successfully secured for their kids (or not if the Varndean/Stringer numbers don't get resolved).
How can anyone, anywhere say it is okay for the poorest areas to be confined to the least successful schools? The whole city will pay dearly for this in years to come. Change the system by all means but change it for the good of the most people not so that everyone is now worse off.
Stuart Brown, Brighton says...
12:49pm Thu 8 Feb 07
I an shocked and appalled by the undemocratic way in which these plans have been forced through. As a previous labour voter I now sincerely question the integrity of this local government. If the bodies concerned are indeed interested in 'acting in the interests of the city as a whole' perhaps they should take a look at the comments here. The electorate are speaking.
Shameful.
Shameful.
Lucy, Brighton says...
1:46pm Thu 8 Feb 07
Hi again Siobhan
Hanover/Queen's Park does have a high level of free school dinners, generally used as a benchark of social need, so, in those terms, the new system does do something to give an area of social deprivation access to 'good' education.
However, I agree that it doesn't do any favours to deprived areas on the edge of the city, especially Moulsecoomb. I'm not sure how this could be resolved now that social engineering is apparently a dirty word.. (or two words). Although we have a comprehensive system in the city, and long may it continue, we still have a system where large numbers of children from areas of social deprivation have no choice of school. I can't see any council, led by whichever party, tackling that without risking losing votes from east, central and northern Brighton.
Hanover/Queen's Park does have a high level of free school dinners, generally used as a benchark of social need, so, in those terms, the new system does do something to give an area of social deprivation access to 'good' education.
However, I agree that it doesn't do any favours to deprived areas on the edge of the city, especially Moulsecoomb. I'm not sure how this could be resolved now that social engineering is apparently a dirty word.. (or two words). Although we have a comprehensive system in the city, and long may it continue, we still have a system where large numbers of children from areas of social deprivation have no choice of school. I can't see any council, led by whichever party, tackling that without risking losing votes from east, central and northern Brighton.
Sophie, Brighton says...
2:18pm Thu 8 Feb 07
There is alot of talk about the need to address social justice, as if these proposals don't address it. As has been said by others, Queen's Park is actually the second most deprived ward in the city after East Brighton. The Varndean/Stringer catchment will have t the second highest % of FSM (23% for 2008) as the Patcham/Falmer catchment ,had it remained joint(28%). Longhill, with Whitehawk included, stil has relatively low FSM(20%, this would be 10% without Whitehawk) as does Hove (18%).This is certainly a far greater spread of FSM than we have at present. Stringer has one of the lowest FSM in the city.
Councillor McCaffery, along with all members of the CFS voted in favour of these proposals on 6th November. Neither she, nor the Tories expressed concerns then. In fact they ALL voted to have separate catchments for Patcham and Falmer, leaving Falmer with a far higher proportion of FSM than any where else.
This is clearly not an issue about concerns for deprived areas of our city. This is about certain areas wanting to hang on to their current privaleges.
And of course the fast approaching elections.
Councillor McCaffery, along with all members of the CFS voted in favour of these proposals on 6th November. Neither she, nor the Tories expressed concerns then. In fact they ALL voted to have separate catchments for Patcham and Falmer, leaving Falmer with a far higher proportion of FSM than any where else.
This is clearly not an issue about concerns for deprived areas of our city. This is about certain areas wanting to hang on to their current privaleges.
And of course the fast approaching elections.
Sarah, Brighton says...
4:28pm Thu 8 Feb 07
I agree with Sophie that the proposals do attempt to address social justice and as she points out when the catchments for Patcham and Falmer were together this looked like it would be achieved. When the decision to separate them (whether you believe this was right or wrong) was taken the working group should then have gone back to the drawing board to devise a new, more socially mixed catchment for Falmer that also made some sense in terms of travelling. What is more, when it was revealed how wrong the figures were for the Varndean/Stringer catchment there should have been a radical rethink, taking an area out so kids would be guaranteed one of the two schools. If this had been effectively done the opposition to the plans would have been significantly reduced. The last minute attempt to extend Falmers catchment down to Elm Grove, thrown out just as quickly and a suggestion that DS and V just take the extras without consulting the heads was laughable. It was a shame that the decision had to be accept the proposals as they are or stay with the old system. The idea is good but the details need some work.
keith Turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
5:39pm Thu 8 Feb 07
Sophie,
I feel that portraying QP as the second most deprived ward after East Brighton is using semantics somewhat to justify your case. As I'm sure you would agree East Brighton covers alot of wards and QP comes after all of these, quite firmly in the upper half of the index of multiple deprivation. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to claim that QP is the "second most deprived ward" after East Brighton I feel.
I feel that portraying QP as the second most deprived ward after East Brighton is using semantics somewhat to justify your case. As I'm sure you would agree East Brighton covers alot of wards and QP comes after all of these, quite firmly in the upper half of the index of multiple deprivation. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to claim that QP is the "second most deprived ward" after East Brighton I feel.
keith turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
5:46pm Thu 8 Feb 07
I also meant to point out the FSM is a crude way of defining deprivation which is why authorities now use the IMD measure to distribute funding in a socially just way and much educational research also rejects the use of FSM% as a measure of deprivation. It's a pity they didn't consider this more socially equitable way of distributing educational resources but then I suspect that certain groups within the PSG and WG realised the implications of this for certain areas of the city whose issues they wanted to resolve.
Molly, says...
7:37pm Thu 8 Feb 07
Keith,
Re Sophie's use of the term 'East Brighton'.
I think you'll find that east Brighton is a geographic area whereas East Brighton is a ward. Confusing I know but the difference is important. East Brighton (the ward) includes Whitehawk. Whereas east Brighton would easily include the wards of East Brighton and Queen's Park. I understand they are the two most deprived wards in Brighton. Yes? And yes, I know I'm being a pedant but I think it is important to point out the difference between one (east Brighton) being a loose, generic, geographic term and the other being an actual ward (East Brighton).
Re Sophie's use of the term 'East Brighton'.
I think you'll find that east Brighton is a geographic area whereas East Brighton is a ward. Confusing I know but the difference is important. East Brighton (the ward) includes Whitehawk. Whereas east Brighton would easily include the wards of East Brighton and Queen's Park. I understand they are the two most deprived wards in Brighton. Yes? And yes, I know I'm being a pedant but I think it is important to point out the difference between one (east Brighton) being a loose, generic, geographic term and the other being an actual ward (East Brighton).
Jane, Brighton says...
7:38pm Thu 8 Feb 07
Keith, that Queen's Park is the second most deprived ward in the city (using the overall IMD rating) isn't a matter of sematics, it's a matter of fact, like it or not. Your understanding of the political geography of the city seems rather vague. East Brighton IS a ward, as is Queen's Park. The IMD rating puts the most deprived wards at the top, hence Queen's Park is second from the top after East Brighton (which covers the area of Whitehawk). Hence it would be strange if both weren't in the 'upper half' with Queen's Park just one down from the most deprived ward of East Brighton. Talk about trying to use statistics to suit your argument!
donna, brighton says...
11:50pm Thu 8 Feb 07
Keith,
So now you argue that FSM is an ineffective way of determining social injustice. A few days ago you were advocating FSM banding and wrote 'I suggest you do some reading of the research on alternatives such as free school meal banding, equal preference etc., before spout off as if you knolw what you're talking about which is a great problem with discussion forums'. Isn't it though?
So now you argue that FSM is an ineffective way of determining social injustice. A few days ago you were advocating FSM banding and wrote 'I suggest you do some reading of the research on alternatives such as free school meal banding, equal preference etc., before spout off as if you knolw what you're talking about which is a great problem with discussion forums'. Isn't it though?
Keith Turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
12:44am Fri 9 Feb 07
Donna, research done by the LSE on free school meal banding 2005 did suggest that this could be a way of evening out educational opportunities and enabling schools opportunities to increase their performance. However, the current proposals fall far short of this with significant discrepancies between the schools particiularly for Falmer.
I apologise for not noticing the difference between Sophie's use of East Brighton the ward.
On the other hand you can use the data in many ways as someone as many people point out. If you look at the educational domain of the IMD you get a very different ranking to the one above thus:
Moulscoomb and Bevendean
East Brighton
South Portslade
North Portslade
Woodingdean
Hollingbury and Stanmer
Hangleton
Queens Park
Hanover and Elm Grove
Patcham
Central Hove
Brunswick and Adelaide
St.Peters/N.Lane
Wish
Westbourne
Goldsmid
Regency
Rottingdean
Stanford
Preston Park
Withdean
This indicates most educationally deprived areas which it could be argued very strongly would be a good basis from which to distribute the city's educational resources.
I apologise for not noticing the difference between Sophie's use of East Brighton the ward.
On the other hand you can use the data in many ways as someone as many people point out. If you look at the educational domain of the IMD you get a very different ranking to the one above thus:
Moulscoomb and Bevendean
East Brighton
South Portslade
North Portslade
Woodingdean
Hollingbury and Stanmer
Hangleton
Queens Park
Hanover and Elm Grove
Patcham
Central Hove
Brunswick and Adelaide
St.Peters/N.Lane
Wish
Westbourne
Goldsmid
Regency
Rottingdean
Stanford
Preston Park
Withdean
This indicates most educationally deprived areas which it could be argued very strongly would be a good basis from which to distribute the city's educational resources.
Mark, Withdean says...
8:20am Fri 9 Feb 07
Sophie, You seem to have been listening to Pat Hawkes for far too long. Living within walking distance of a Secondary School is not a privilege or a crime as you insinuate. Most people think going to school is a right not a privilege. This is just more language attempting to make this issue a class strugle which it is not. I think you will find that most of the eloquent parents from Queens Park et al arent from the Tower Blocks but are more like a QP parent we caught renting a property near Stringer i.e doing quite nicely tahnk you. The lengths to which some will go....
Molly, says...
9:28am Fri 9 Feb 07
Mark,
That a QP parent is renting a property near to the DS/V campus is surely an indication of the lengths some parents feel that they need to go to when the system is based on home to school distance. That parents who are not as financially secure cannot 'play the system' this way is unfair. Thus, get rid of home to school distance criteria surely because as long as it is there those who can will continue to buy/rent property as near to schools as they can. As not all parents can do that, to my way of thinking, that makes it an unfair system.
That a QP parent is renting a property near to the DS/V campus is surely an indication of the lengths some parents feel that they need to go to when the system is based on home to school distance. That parents who are not as financially secure cannot 'play the system' this way is unfair. Thus, get rid of home to school distance criteria surely because as long as it is there those who can will continue to buy/rent property as near to schools as they can. As not all parents can do that, to my way of thinking, that makes it an unfair system.
Reg, Brighton says...
10:23am Fri 9 Feb 07
Has anyone else noticed the incredible discrepancy in the voting pattern on this site? The great majority of comments are clearly angry about the new proposals and the way in which they were forced through. The Argus voting pattern in relation to the matter not only shows a different view, but a wildly different view. Now, I'm not usually a conspiracy therory person, but it looks highly suspicious to me. Is there some organisation sitting there which wants the voting to look positive about the proposals and has access to a lot of computers?
Mark, Withdean says...
10:44am Fri 9 Feb 07
Reg
Yes there is but dont worry because the Argus know about it and they can identify all the duplications ! They have said they will be adjusting the results accordingly !
Yes there is but dont worry because the Argus know about it and they can identify all the duplications ! They have said they will be adjusting the results accordingly !
Reg, Brighton says...
11:43am Fri 9 Feb 07
Mark,
thanks - but if the Argus know that someone is trying to manipulate the vote and therefore, acting in a totally undemocratic manner. Shouldn't The Argus reveal who it is?
thanks - but if the Argus know that someone is trying to manipulate the vote and therefore, acting in a totally undemocratic manner. Shouldn't The Argus reveal who it is?
Lucy, Brighton says...
11:46am Fri 9 Feb 07
IF it is the case that there is a voting discrepancy on the site, could it possibly be a case of the people that support the changes, flawed though they may be, learning from the campaign against the original proposal for a new nodal system, which saw multiple copies of forms opposing the changes being submitted from certain areas of the city?
Mark, as you say 'going to school is a right not a privilege'. Should this right just be extended to the families who are lucky enough to live within walking distance of our city's problematically sited secondary schools? What about the rights of those who don't live near any secondary school. Although the council's plans do not address the problem of social deptrivation regarding Falmer, they DO go some way to correcting the social and economic mix at DS and Varndean (see Reg Turvey's list above, which indicates that the 2nd, 8th and 9th most deprived wards now have an equal chance of access to the most desired schools alongside the wealthiest wards). I can't see how opposition to this is anything other than self protection on the part of those who live in these wards.
Mark, as you say 'going to school is a right not a privilege'. Should this right just be extended to the families who are lucky enough to live within walking distance of our city's problematically sited secondary schools? What about the rights of those who don't live near any secondary school. Although the council's plans do not address the problem of social deptrivation regarding Falmer, they DO go some way to correcting the social and economic mix at DS and Varndean (see Reg Turvey's list above, which indicates that the 2nd, 8th and 9th most deprived wards now have an equal chance of access to the most desired schools alongside the wealthiest wards). I can't see how opposition to this is anything other than self protection on the part of those who live in these wards.
Sarah, Brighton says...
12:37pm Fri 9 Feb 07
Lucy - at least you admit that the proposals are flawed. I believe that the model is good but needs work to remove the flaws.
(especially the oversubscription for DS/V and Falmers catchment).
Do we have to put up with second best? We are going to leave behind the unfair distance measurement but we have to replace it with something that makes sense in terms of equalising intake between schools and interms of reducing travel for children.
I know nothing will please everybody but it would be better to make changes and get the proposals through that way than:
(a) forcing them through undemocratically and face huge parental dissatisfaction or
(b) 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' by having them thrown out altogether
(especially the oversubscription for DS/V and Falmers catchment).
Do we have to put up with second best? We are going to leave behind the unfair distance measurement but we have to replace it with something that makes sense in terms of equalising intake between schools and interms of reducing travel for children.
I know nothing will please everybody but it would be better to make changes and get the proposals through that way than:
(a) forcing them through undemocratically and face huge parental dissatisfaction or
(b) 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' by having them thrown out altogether
Anthony Radmall, Brighton says...
1:10pm Fri 9 Feb 07
The solution was easy, pair up Varndean and Falmer, pair up DS and Patcham and move the Varndean and Falmer boundary to include Hanover, QP etc..
Ah but the pressure groups and Simon Burgess would not have gained access to DS!
Ah but the pressure groups and Simon Burgess would not have gained access to DS!
R Lower, Patcham says...
1:36pm Fri 9 Feb 07
Juliet McCafferey should not have been sacked. She was only tryng to do her job with integrity. The council clearly decided to supsend democracy on February 2nd.
I am against the SAR.
I am against the SAR.
Luke Burstow, Hove says...
2:04pm Fri 9 Feb 07
"They have said they will be adjusting the results accordingly !"
Who have they said this to?
I must confess I wondered why an initial overwhelmingly negative reaction on the vote bit had swung the other way.
Surely, if they have the IP addresses of the multi-voters they coudl simply block them?
If they don't and they're just going to take a guess at the number of multiple votes submitted it makes it rather meaningless?
Who have they said this to?
I must confess I wondered why an initial overwhelmingly negative reaction on the vote bit had swung the other way.
Surely, if they have the IP addresses of the multi-voters they coudl simply block them?
If they don't and they're just going to take a guess at the number of multiple votes submitted it makes it rather meaningless?
colin, B&H says...
2:08pm Fri 9 Feb 07
Well done to the Councillor's who have moved to call in the CFS decision.
Amongst the bickering and infighting on this site there are a few sound suggestions emerging, which might well be used by a future review committee, providing the facts and figures are properly laid out. Needless to say thsi information should have been available previously but clearly wasn't. Once the council gets its act together and is in a position to publish a credible set of models and statistics then we might be on the road to reaching a short term equitable and socially just solution. However, I must re-emphasis that the long term still looks bleak as the problem of under capacity of available places; geograhical distribution of schools and increasing population, not to mention standards within our schools still need to be addressed. This will be the true test of the mettle of the LA. Are they up to the job?
Amongst the bickering and infighting on this site there are a few sound suggestions emerging, which might well be used by a future review committee, providing the facts and figures are properly laid out. Needless to say thsi information should have been available previously but clearly wasn't. Once the council gets its act together and is in a position to publish a credible set of models and statistics then we might be on the road to reaching a short term equitable and socially just solution. However, I must re-emphasis that the long term still looks bleak as the problem of under capacity of available places; geograhical distribution of schools and increasing population, not to mention standards within our schools still need to be addressed. This will be the true test of the mettle of the LA. Are they up to the job?
Molly, says...
3:43pm Fri 9 Feb 07
Re the Argus poll.
If this has been 'abused' then I am sorry but I think the Argus only has itself to blame. To my knowledge there are no checks to make sure that multiple voting doesn't take place or that the persons responding actually live in B&H (because if they don't then of course they won't have a vote anyway in B&H this May).
If this has been 'abused' then I am sorry but I think the Argus only has itself to blame. To my knowledge there are no checks to make sure that multiple voting doesn't take place or that the persons responding actually live in B&H (because if they don't then of course they won't have a vote anyway in B&H this May).
Siobhan, Preston Park says...
3:48pm Fri 9 Feb 07
Now now Lucy. Let's not go into who organised what during the consultation paper last year. I was at a house in Queens Park when someone came to the door with a pile of papers; offered to show them which boxes to tick and then offered to take the paper away too. Who knows what comments could have been added later!
Andrew, Patcham says...
4:06pm Fri 9 Feb 07
I think Richard Mallendar from the Greens has got off lightly in all this. He effectively held the 'balance of power' in all this. Without his support the Labour Party would not have got these shameful proposals through.
Despite being in this privileged position did Coun Mallendar insist that a full transport analysis was carried out? No. Did he seek to obtain a commitment to build a new school to re-dress the geographical imbalance within the City? (a stance which the Green's apparently support) No.
He voted for the proposals in order to retain the chance of the Greens winning Queens Park and Hanover in the forthcoming council elections.
What a disgrace.
Despite being in this privileged position did Coun Mallendar insist that a full transport analysis was carried out? No. Did he seek to obtain a commitment to build a new school to re-dress the geographical imbalance within the City? (a stance which the Green's apparently support) No.
He voted for the proposals in order to retain the chance of the Greens winning Queens Park and Hanover in the forthcoming council elections.
What a disgrace.
Graham Heasman, says...
4:33pm Fri 9 Feb 07
It is time that people stood up for whatever they believe in and the principals they hold, others might not always agree with them, but that is democracy in action. Good for this lady and her convictions. Governments Local and national, along with LEAs and NHS Trusts boards of PLCs all need some opposition to keep them in touch with reality.
Paul K., Brighton says...
9:49pm Fri 9 Feb 07
What a disgrace, being removed for wanting to vote with your conscience, rather than a political line.
Really shows how shameful some people are.
I and the rest of my family (thats 6 of us) will not be voting for Labour or the wishy washy greens ever again now.
Really shows how shameful some people are.
I and the rest of my family (thats 6 of us) will not be voting for Labour or the wishy washy greens ever again now.
Mark, Withdean says...
10:02pm Fri 9 Feb 07
If the reports are to be believed then there have been 2 separate requests to call this matter before the scrutiny Committee. The requests have been made by 10 councillors inlcuding 2 labour councilors. Councillor McCaffery is not alone in opposing this new system. Will the other Labour councillors also realise that the proposals dont add up?
carrie, Withdean says...
11:04pm Fri 9 Feb 07
This is all so sad as the new arrangements seem set to destroy the primary /secondary links that work because the kids involved are deemed too privileged. It takes a lot of time, dedication and hard work to build a strong, school community, well supported by parents. But, I know from experience, this same community and good reputation can be destroyed in months. Right now, too much responsibility is placed on the schools to transform the pupils. Parents need to be held much more accountable for their children's behaviour and progress. Blaming someone else for something going wrong/ being unfair / even being boring seems to be a national pastime, and from my experience, the more badly behaved or motivated a pupil is, the more they blame someone else. Schools are easy targets because they're free and compulsory. If there was a charge for each child for each day, (which included a school lunch), which parents could claim back if their child made good use of the day - or doubled if their child was badly behaved, I bet there would be more support from parents, and more interest in building a good local school community.
Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched, but something needs doing.
Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched, but something needs doing.
keith turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
12:05am Sat 10 Feb 07
Molly wrote:It is semantic Molly because you can use language and statistics to prove any number of contradictory points. If you use the city stats website to work out areas of educational deprivation you get a very different ranking to the one that Sophie is suggesting. Many Local Authorities I think (you may know differently) use this measure to calculate school funding as it makes sense to put the funds where there is most educational need. This does make sense. Unfortunately these proposals do not do that. Those wards higher up the educational IMD get access to the perceived more successful schools, whilst those at the bottom end are shut into one school. Economic deprivation does not equate to educational deprivation as the IMD seems to show. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong.
Keith, Re Sophie\'s use of the term \'East Brighton\'. I think you\'ll find that east Brighton is a geographic area whereas East Brighton is a ward. Confusing I know but the difference is important. East Brighton (the ward) includes Whitehawk. Whereas east Brighton would easily include the wards of East Brighton and Queen\'s Park. I understand they are the two most deprived wards in Brighton. Yes? And yes, I know I\'m being a pedant but I think it is important to point out the difference between one (east Brighton) being a loose, generic, geographic term and the other being an actual ward (East Brighton).
Lucy, Brighton says...
11:03am Sat 10 Feb 07
Keith,
'economic deprivation does not equate to educational deprivation'? Why then, are the parents posting on this site not queueing up to get places for their children at Falmer, the school in the most economically deprived area of Brighton? Are you seriously suggesting there is no correlation between economic and social deprivation in that school's catchment area, and its current GCSE results?
'economic deprivation does not equate to educational deprivation'? Why then, are the parents posting on this site not queueing up to get places for their children at Falmer, the school in the most economically deprived area of Brighton? Are you seriously suggesting there is no correlation between economic and social deprivation in that school's catchment area, and its current GCSE results?
Susan Johnson, Fiveways says...
12:36pm Sat 10 Feb 07
I can't believe that the people posting here against the new admissions system are so selfish. Why do they think that the right of their children to go to a school of their choice should only belong to those who on the whole are wealthy enough to live close to the schools, while such choice should be denied to those who don't? And why do they think it is OK for other people's children to travel to schools that are not their closest school, but such a thing is unthinkable for their children?
carrie, withdean says...
1:08pm Sat 10 Feb 07
It's not selfishness (on my part anyway - my child is at Stringer, but would could have faced a 4 mile hike to Hove Park under these new arrangements). It's unfair, undemocratic and simply makes the problem of raising school standards worse. Address bad behaviour and bad attitude and standards will rocket.
C. Sweeney, says...
1:19pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Susan, you say: 'Why do they think that the right of their children to go to a school of their choice should only belong to those who on the whole are wealthy enough to live close to the schools, while such choice should be denied to those who don't?'
Let me tell you that to a lot of children in Hollingbury Varndean and Dorothy Stringer are their closest schools. Hollingbury is not an area that is condidered 'wealthy'. Anyone who can afford a house in Hanover or Queens Park could afford a house in Hollingbury. There are always houses for sale up here. Therefore, I am sorry to say, your argument does not work!
Let me tell you that to a lot of children in Hollingbury Varndean and Dorothy Stringer are their closest schools. Hollingbury is not an area that is condidered 'wealthy'. Anyone who can afford a house in Hanover or Queens Park could afford a house in Hollingbury. There are always houses for sale up here. Therefore, I am sorry to say, your argument does not work!
Jane, Brighton says...
1:28pm Sat 10 Feb 07
As Bruce pointed out way back the only truly fair way to allocate places (ie that treats all equally) is to have a city wide lottery. I'm sure if this were proposed we would see an even bigger outcry from those who currently have certainty of access to schools of preference. But it would be undeniably fair to all.
Bruce is also right to point out that the new system is a 'least worst option'. Despite what others claim it does better distribute FSM (which is an acceptable general measure of social disadvantage) and enables many more children to gain access to their nearest schools than at present.
If the anti-campaign succeed in scuppering these proposals an even more unfair system will follow, with equal preference and walking distance ensuring that those currently excluded by both social and geographical injustice will be even worse off.
As before when the nodal proposals were thrown out we won't see many of those anti-campaigners then fighting to bring in a better system.
Bruce is also right to point out that the new system is a 'least worst option'. Despite what others claim it does better distribute FSM (which is an acceptable general measure of social disadvantage) and enables many more children to gain access to their nearest schools than at present.
If the anti-campaign succeed in scuppering these proposals an even more unfair system will follow, with equal preference and walking distance ensuring that those currently excluded by both social and geographical injustice will be even worse off.
As before when the nodal proposals were thrown out we won't see many of those anti-campaigners then fighting to bring in a better system.
Phil Taylor, Patcham says...
2:05pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Coun Burgess - you have no integrity at all . How many other issues will you defeat by changing the goal posts? I think this issue has opened a 'can of worms' with local politics that may take many years to resolve. Quite simply Labour have scored such a huge own goal. Perhaps if the LEA and the Local Council had supported COMART/Stanley Deason correctly in the first place - we wouldn't be in this mess.
Alison, BN3 7 says...
3:28pm Sat 10 Feb 07
It was a disgraceful act to remove Coun. McCaffery from the CFS for following her conscience. It is good that the decision is likely to be reviewed but it concerns me that it might go back to the CFS committee, which was so ably "nobbled" before. If it is to go back Coun. McCaffery should be re-instated as her removal makes a mockery of democracy. How many other council decisions are engineered in this way?
Susan Johnson, Fiveways says...
3:33pm Sat 10 Feb 07
C.Sweeney wrote:
What a revelaing reply which just confirms what I said - what is OK for people elsewhere in Brighton is not OK for people close to DS and Varndean. According to C.Sweeney people close to DS and Varndean have an absolute right to go to their closest schools while people from other parts of Brighton do not.
While it is true that some residents of the Hanover/Queens Park area could afford to move and buy houses nearer the schools it is equally true that many people who live near DS and Varndean could also afford to move should the catchments change. However, while it is apparently completely unacceptable for these latter people to have to do this it is clearly OK (according to C.Sweeney) for those elsewhere to do so.
In any case why should people have to move? DS and Varndean are payed for by everyone in Brighton and Hove, not just the people who live near by. Surely they have an equal chance of getting in? Certainly there is no reason why one set of residents who either by geographical accident, or because they have bought their way in by paying a higher premium on their house should get preferred treatment over others who have also payed for these schools.
I live in Fiveways. I have friends in this area, and I have friends in east Brighton. I see absoultely no resaon why I and my friends over here should should be entitled to better treatment than my friends over on the other side of town. when a system is changed there will be winners and losers. If the system is fairer than what went before for a greater number of people then it is clear that some currently over-privileged people will lose out. It could be me. It could be you. But in the interests of the greater fairness for a greater number we should be prepared to put up with it.
PS Of course the only truly fair system is that advocated by Bruce earlier - completely random allocation to schools irrespective of where one lives.
Let me tell you that to a lot of children in Hollingbury Varndean and Dorothy Stringer are their closest schools. Hollingbury is not an area that is condidered 'wealthy'. Anyone who can afford a house in Hanover or Queens Park could afford a house in Hollingbury. There are always houses for sale up here.
What a revelaing reply which just confirms what I said - what is OK for people elsewhere in Brighton is not OK for people close to DS and Varndean. According to C.Sweeney people close to DS and Varndean have an absolute right to go to their closest schools while people from other parts of Brighton do not.
While it is true that some residents of the Hanover/Queens Park area could afford to move and buy houses nearer the schools it is equally true that many people who live near DS and Varndean could also afford to move should the catchments change. However, while it is apparently completely unacceptable for these latter people to have to do this it is clearly OK (according to C.Sweeney) for those elsewhere to do so.
In any case why should people have to move? DS and Varndean are payed for by everyone in Brighton and Hove, not just the people who live near by. Surely they have an equal chance of getting in? Certainly there is no reason why one set of residents who either by geographical accident, or because they have bought their way in by paying a higher premium on their house should get preferred treatment over others who have also payed for these schools.
I live in Fiveways. I have friends in this area, and I have friends in east Brighton. I see absoultely no resaon why I and my friends over here should should be entitled to better treatment than my friends over on the other side of town. when a system is changed there will be winners and losers. If the system is fairer than what went before for a greater number of people then it is clear that some currently over-privileged people will lose out. It could be me. It could be you. But in the interests of the greater fairness for a greater number we should be prepared to put up with it.
PS Of course the only truly fair system is that advocated by Bruce earlier - completely random allocation to schools irrespective of where one lives.
Susan Johnson, Fiveways says...
3:42pm Sat 10 Feb 07
One more point: C.Sweeney seems to think that it is OK for those who can afford to move from East Brighton (which is much much bigger than just the Hanover/Queen's Park area) to do so. This would not only break up communities, but also leave behind the very many who cannot afford to move (e.g. the many many people in council housing, those entitled to FSM, amongst others).
Essentially what is being advocated is middle-class abandonment of that side of town, leaving children whose parents may (sometimes) be less interested in the choice of school behind. The LEA has a duty to try and provide a good education for those children as well. Why should they not also be as entitled to go to their nearest school as those who live near in and DS and Varndean?
Essentially what is being advocated is middle-class abandonment of that side of town, leaving children whose parents may (sometimes) be less interested in the choice of school behind. The LEA has a duty to try and provide a good education for those children as well. Why should they not also be as entitled to go to their nearest school as those who live near in and DS and Varndean?
carrie, says...
5:21pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Susan, are you really saying you wouldn't fight for the best for your child? You talk about how it might break up communities if people move, but this is just what is bound to happen to certain school communities if this admissions system goes ahead. Why should people who live in an area traditional links with Stringer - links which no doubt helped build the school up it's strong reputation - now be given no choice of school, no chance of Stringer and a distinct possibility of travelling 8 miles a day (as my child would have had to). The position of certain schools - traditionally seen as favoured - means that children could be sent to one of 6 schools. It almost seems vindictive.
keith turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
5:33pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Lucy wrote:Lucy yes perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to write economic deprivation does not always equate to educational deprivation as is the case with the ward you mention Queens Park. Sorry it was late. The various domains of the IMD highlight this very well for if you rank the wards economically yes QP comes out 2nd. However, if you rank wards according to educational deprivation QP comes out considerably higher. Thus, if you want to target educational need through the distribution of resources and funds this is a good measure to use. You can't simply look at one aspect that happens to suit your case. In the case of the ward in question there are significant anomalies in the data, suggesting that this is not an educationally deprived area, which ought to be considered. It is far more complex than this. As far as your question regarding parents not queueing up to get their children into Falmer I would say that's a very good question, as this school is an improving school which has just been recognised as such by OFSTED. I wonder if as well as the hard work that teachers and management have put into achieving this, that the fact that they have had a more balanced in take, taking in children from areas such as QP, Hanover, Elm Grove etc. has contributed to this. I think you've hit the nail on the head really - support this improving school and it will surely go from strength to strength.
Keith,
\'economic deprivation does not equate to educational deprivation\'? Why then, are the parents posting on this site not queueing up to get places for their children at Falmer, the school in the most economically deprived area of Brighton? Are you seriously suggesting there is no correlation between economic and social deprivation in that school\'s catchment area, and its current GCSE results?
keith turvey, says...
5:50pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Susan Johnson wrote:I'm sorry Susan but I expect to be able to send my children to a local state school if it is on my doorstep. Just like in any other state education system in Europe. This is a right not a luxury although I can see through the lack of secondary education provision it has come to be seen as a luxury. This is not acceptable and choosing children's future educational opportunities is not acceptable just as it is not acceptable that that some people throughout the city do not have access to a local secondary school. As for the suggestion of a city wide lottery , how utterly ridiculous! Environmental impact? Emotional impact on children and families? Impact on communities? Safety of children? Truency rates? Extended schools at the heart of local communities? As I said an utterly ridiculous and irresponsible idea!
C.Sweeney wrote:
Let me tell you that to a lot of children in Hollingbury Varndean and Dorothy Stringer are their closest schools. Hollingbury is not an area that is condidered \'wealthy\'. Anyone who can afford a house in Hanover or Queens Park could afford a house in Hollingbury. There are always houses for sale up here.
What a revelaing reply which just confirms what I said - what is OK for people elsewhere in Brighton is not OK for people close to DS and Varndean. According to C.Sweeney people close to DS and Varndean have an absolute right to go to their closest schools while people from other parts of Brighton do not.
While it is true that some residents of the Hanover/Queens Park area could afford to move and buy houses nearer the schools it is equally true that many people who live near DS and Varndean could also afford to move should the catchments change. However, while it is apparently completely unacceptable for these latter people to have to do this it is clearly OK (according to C.Sweeney) for those elsewhere to do so.
In any case why should people have to move? DS and Varndean are payed for by everyone in Brighton and Hove, not just the people who live near by. Surely they have an equal chance of getting in? Certainly there is no reason why one set of residents who either by geographical accident, or because they have bought their way in by paying a higher premium on their house should get preferred treatment over others who have also payed for these schools.
I live in Fiveways. I have friends in this area, and I have friends in east Brighton. I see absoultely no resaon why I and my friends over here should should be entitled to better treatment than my friends over on the other side of town. when a system is changed there will be winners and losers. If the system is fairer than what went before for a greater number of people then it is clear that some currently over-privileged people will lose out. It could be me. It could be you. But in the interests of the greater fairness for a greater number we should be prepared to put up with it.
PS Of course the only truly fair system is that advocated by Bruce earlier - completely random allocation to schools irrespective of where one lives.
Why should any of us accept a second or even third class system when this kind of for debacle for school places does not occur in any other European country with similar economic profile to ourselves. Education, Education Education! This government have been in power for a long time and they are only just now waking up to the fact that whilst they have spent money on education there are some basics that they have neglected - there are not enough schools! Lotteries do not address this issue and I can't think of a more abhorrent way of deciding where a child goes to school; I and many other people - it's common sense!
Paul, Withdean says...
6:00pm Sat 10 Feb 07
In reply to some of the comments made earlier today. Perhaps there is an arguement that "rights" were relinquished when the local school in East Brighton was forced to close (after huge effort & investment) due to lack of parental support?
The current situation is a legacy of that decision.
The arguement can continue over who should have access to the 1 SINGLE STATE SCHOOL IN B&H WITH AN ABOVE NATIONAL AVERAGE PERFORMANCE. Or, all parents can unite to demand that council / LEA address the poor performances in all our schools & the lack of a local school in East Brighton.
The council have tried to push through a "cheap" option to appease a section of the population rather than put in place an action plan to address the root-cause issues (which cost money).
If these 2 issues were resolved, wouldn't all parents be more reassured?
The current situation is a legacy of that decision.
The arguement can continue over who should have access to the 1 SINGLE STATE SCHOOL IN B&H WITH AN ABOVE NATIONAL AVERAGE PERFORMANCE. Or, all parents can unite to demand that council / LEA address the poor performances in all our schools & the lack of a local school in East Brighton.
The council have tried to push through a "cheap" option to appease a section of the population rather than put in place an action plan to address the root-cause issues (which cost money).
If these 2 issues were resolved, wouldn't all parents be more reassured?
Susan Johnson, Fiveways says...
6:09pm Sat 10 Feb 07
I said the random allocation system was the only absolutely fair system of allocating places. I agree there are many drawbacks! However i think everybody should be entitled to send their children to their nearest school (should they so desire) whether or not it is on their doorstep. if there are insufficient places then it is clear not everyone can do this, but the system should then try to get as many children as possible into their nearest (most local) school. If being on your doorstep becomes the criterion then this leads to rising house prices, people buyoing privilege, and exclusion on financial as well as geographic grounds.
donna, brighton says...
6:13pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Keith, in essence your argument seems to be that your children, living where they do, should be treated more favourably than others who live further away from their nearest school. Yes we should all have access to our local school. You may not have noticed but currently we don't all enjoy that right. Yes let's have a new school, but in the meantime I don't believe that some should be treated more favourably than others just because they happen to have the good fortune of living close to a school of preference.
C. Sweeney, says...
6:46pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Susan, thank you for putting all these words into my mouth that I have actually never said.
I merely pointed out that the argument that you and many other pro SAR campainers have used that you have to be wealthy to live near Varndean or Dorothy Stringer schools does not work. So I really would appreciate if people stopped using this particular point as an argument.
I merely pointed out that the argument that you and many other pro SAR campainers have used that you have to be wealthy to live near Varndean or Dorothy Stringer schools does not work. So I really would appreciate if people stopped using this particular point as an argument.
donna, brighton says...
7:18pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Well it certaintly helps. The 'admission by houseprice' phenomenon sees the 'golden halo' round Stringer shrink year on year, and prices go up in that tight little ring accordingly. This also helps explain why Stringer has such a low (and decreasing FSM %). Obviously there is some social housing close to the school, but compared to the rest of the city it is a relatively wealthy zone immediately around the school. Why else does the school have such a low FSM %?
Lucy, Brighton says...
7:24pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Actually Keith, my posting didn't mention any ward, but, as someone working in education as well as a parent, I stand by my argument that economic deprivation is closely linked to social deprivation, and I also suggest that it suits tyour argument to deny that there is more deprivation in the east Brighton wards than in those geographically closer to DS and Varndean.
As for supporting this 'improving school' - does this mean that you will be doing this? Or is it only good enough for other people's children?
As for supporting this 'improving school' - does this mean that you will be doing this? Or is it only good enough for other people's children?
keith turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
8:16pm Sat 10 Feb 07
Lucy wrote:If I didn't live within walking distance of three state schools yes I would support Falmer. When we moved here 12 years ago this was a much cheaper area than other areas and we chose it because of this and because there were local schools too. At that time the local infant and Junior schools did not have a very good reputation. We resolved to support these schools regardless like many other people from this area (Stringer was also no where near as popular as Varndean then). These schools have since improved greatly thanks to the hard work of head teachers, teachers and the support of the local community.
Actually Keith, my posting didn\'t mention any ward, but, as someone working in education as well as a parent, I stand by my argument that economic deprivation is closely linked to social deprivation, and I also suggest that it suits tyour argument to deny that there is more deprivation in the east Brighton wards than in those geographically closer to DS and Varndean.
As for supporting this \'improving school\' - does this mean that you will be doing this? Or is it only good enough for other people\'s children?
Many of the pro campaigners like yourself have relied on portraying people from this area as manipulating wealthy middle class families who have used their economic wealth to manipulate the school system by buying houses near to popular schools. This is simply not true and I and many others resent these accusations which obviously "suit your argument." I am happy to debate the admissions issue dealing with the advantages and disadvantages of different proposals and also how we might genuinely achieve a more just system for all, but the pro campaigners have not helped their argument by the use of such ill-informed assumptions about people living close to what are now perceived to be better schools.
With regards to your assertions about economic status and social or educational deprivation whilst there can be strong correlations between these they are not synonymous and to suggest that they are is extremely dangerous. I have taught many children from low income families who lead rich lives and value education highly. It is very dangerous to go around sticking labels on people just because of one particular factor. As I said if you look at the educational IMD ranking of wards this gives a different picture and I think this should be considered especially as what we are talking about here is the distribution or redistribution of educational resources.
keith turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
8:32pm Sat 10 Feb 07
donna wrote:In creating a catchment around DS/V with in excess of 90 extra children (74 OCS + 20 over capacity) would you not say that this was a super golden halo? Essentially whether you are excluding children from getting in on the distance to school measure or in a lottery you are still excluding children from getting into this school, and 94 children is a lot of children!
Well it certaintly helps. The \'admission by houseprice\' phenomenon sees the \'golden halo\' round Stringer shrink year on year, and prices go up in that tight little ring accordingly. This also helps explain why Stringer has such a low (and decreasing FSM %). Obviously there is some social housing close to the school, but compared to the rest of the city it is a relatively wealthy zone immediately around the school. Why else does the school have such a low FSM %?
And please stop assuming that all people living near these schools are wealthy manipulating individuals ("admission by house price"). There are people in rented accomodation, people who bought their houses some time ago, people who live in smaller terraced houses, people who live in larger terraced houses and people who live in larger houses. It is not a crime to move into an area and find accomodation within your means with essential amenities like a school.
keith turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
8:44pm Sat 10 Feb 07
donna wrote:Donna,
Keith, in essence your argument seems to be that your children, living where they do, should be treated more favourably than others who live further away from their nearest school. Yes we should all have access to our local school. You may not have noticed but currently we don\'t all enjoy that right. Yes let\'s have a new school, but in the meantime I don\'t believe that some should be treated more favourably than others just because they happen to have the good fortune of living close to a school of preference.
I don't believe I have ever said that my children should be treated more favourably - these are your words! Actually I have noticed that not all children enjoy the right of a local school. I would happily support a campaign on this basis and lobby for more schools. However once this right is eroded it would be very hard to turn the clock back I believe. The principal of local schools for l,ocal communities I believe is one that should be held onto whatever the economic, social, educational status of those communities.
Jane, Brighton says...
10:54pm Sat 10 Feb 07
To be clear, I wasnt suggesting that a city wide lottery was the solution. I was pointing out that if the issue of fairness is deemed paramount then it is undeniably the most equitable way of allocating places. As Keith points out it comes with a whole lot of problems attached that may outweigh its merit of fairness. I think it worth bearing in mind that the SAR proposals have sought to find a compromise amongst a host of competing (and at times conflicting) priorities. Balancing fairness, social justice, geographical equality, choice, proximity/ease of access and the enabling of peer transition requires quite a lot of compromise.
Personally Id put the issue of choice quite a long way down the agenda, and social justice high up. And although we can argue about the IMD ratings, there is quite a significant correlation between socially disadvantaged areas/postcodes/wards and geographically excluded ones. Falmer doesnt do well on this criterion and they should never have split it from Patcham. But a number of other disadvantaged areas are better off under the new proposals.
If you follow Keiths principle of local schools for local communities whatever the economic, social, educational status of those communities then Falmer is certainly going to have a very unbalanced, uncomprehensive intake precisely what hes been arguing against as an assumed outcome of the new system.
And Id like to question this idea of local schools for local children. So how near do you need to be to a school to claim you are local? For years before they introduced walking distance kids in Hanover considered Stringer their local secondary. Now they arent local enough it seems. With a yearly contracting golden halo I suspect many even nearer to their nearest school will wake up to this reality in March. Will they then so readily chant the mantra local schools for local children (with its unspoken follow up of and **** the rest of you)? People need to realise that parents in excluded zones are in the absurd position of always having to second guess which of their nearest schools is flavour of the year. For ages those in Hanover etc had no chance whatsoever of getting in to Varndean. On that basis they chose Stringer. Now they have no chance of getting into Stringer so they choose Varndean. The system forces them to always have to second guess what those nearer to their nearest schools dont want so that they can go there instead. I doubt that people closer in, but not close enough, are wise to this yet, and with first preference first still operating they will find themselves excluded from their first pref of Stringer, and then excluded from Varndean because it will fill up on first prefs from people further out who understand this perverse game. Hence those getting directed are likely to come disproportionately from areas local but not local enough to Stringer areas like Prestonville.
Id also seriously question any argument that relies on an appeal to common sense.
Personally Id put the issue of choice quite a long way down the agenda, and social justice high up. And although we can argue about the IMD ratings, there is quite a significant correlation between socially disadvantaged areas/postcodes/wards and geographically excluded ones. Falmer doesnt do well on this criterion and they should never have split it from Patcham. But a number of other disadvantaged areas are better off under the new proposals.
If you follow Keiths principle of local schools for local communities whatever the economic, social, educational status of those communities then Falmer is certainly going to have a very unbalanced, uncomprehensive intake precisely what hes been arguing against as an assumed outcome of the new system.
And Id like to question this idea of local schools for local children. So how near do you need to be to a school to claim you are local? For years before they introduced walking distance kids in Hanover considered Stringer their local secondary. Now they arent local enough it seems. With a yearly contracting golden halo I suspect many even nearer to their nearest school will wake up to this reality in March. Will they then so readily chant the mantra local schools for local children (with its unspoken follow up of and **** the rest of you)? People need to realise that parents in excluded zones are in the absurd position of always having to second guess which of their nearest schools is flavour of the year. For ages those in Hanover etc had no chance whatsoever of getting in to Varndean. On that basis they chose Stringer. Now they have no chance of getting into Stringer so they choose Varndean. The system forces them to always have to second guess what those nearer to their nearest schools dont want so that they can go there instead. I doubt that people closer in, but not close enough, are wise to this yet, and with first preference first still operating they will find themselves excluded from their first pref of Stringer, and then excluded from Varndean because it will fill up on first prefs from people further out who understand this perverse game. Hence those getting directed are likely to come disproportionately from areas local but not local enough to Stringer areas like Prestonville.
Id also seriously question any argument that relies on an appeal to common sense.
Ray Algar, Brighton says...
12:53pm Sun 11 Feb 07
What a ridiculous manipulation of the voting process. I think Labour may have cause to regret this desperate looking action. I have already received two phone calls this weekend from Labour officials asking for my vote in the forthcoming election.Looking at the current Argus voting poll, I am not surprised they are calling!
andrew smith, brighton says...
6:48pm Sun 11 Feb 07
How can the council vote for a proposal when 3 and a half times more people are opposed to it
Ross, Stanford Road, 7Dials says...
6:57pm Sun 11 Feb 07
Wow, this is fascianting! and important, but not, as everyone seems to believe, urgent. If it was easy it would have been resolved easily. It involves change which is a process and not an event. I applaud all your energy in this discussion and the complexity of some of the arguements, but wonder how we got here? If we ignore the history we are in danger of repeating past mistakes. I would suggest that dividing major and contentious issues like this from the larger picture is either a deliberate political ploy worthy of Machievelli, or the usual quick-fix "at no cost" that covers no one in any glory. Where are the strategic thinkers who have the education, knowledge and experience to work towards developing good communities that have good schools in walking distance for all the children. This won't happen quickly, if at all, unless current power struggles along party lines and "issue" management is rejected in favour of sustainable , cohereht and inclusive policies which are robust enough to resist central policy change , and sensitive enough to meet the needs of all the people who make up the community.It seems very simple to me that a growing population in the King Alfred-Marina- 7Dials triangle need a central secondary school, fed by the current excellent primay schools. This becomes a "no Cost option" if the selective school in the centre ( Newman) is offered the opportunity to relocate to the other school nearest it's current post-code verifed pupil base. People tend to move less when they have community based schools, and Brighton has one of the highest turnovers in the country, having also some of the most versatile accomodation meeting people's changing needs. I can't help thinking that there are many more ways of skinning this particular cat, and that we have been sold the cheapest version posssible, certainly with the least hope of succeeding. I don't have time to get into the deatil,but wonder what the Terms of Reference were for the original study group, and how their enquiries in developing the options were managed. I only ask this from the position as a long term resident of this fair city, who has seen the consultation exercises over many controversial schemes reduced to an option appraisal, with no refernce to a needs assessment and no further refernce to environmental, transport, social and even emotional impact assessments.These things cost money, surprisingly, but if you notice the historical context in which good decisions get made, they are often led by educated, articulate and resourceful small groups with credibility, contacts and standing in their local communities.Councillors used to hold these positions, but it appers that inadequate political accountability, and block position taking has deprived the town of an apportunity to contribute, fighting as we all are for the education of our own children.When we look back, probably in the second wek of May, we will have been able to made our voices heard on only one ot two of the large number of recent democratic decisions being made in our name. I suspect government, both locally and nationally will rest easy when they have privatised education and divested themselves of any and all responsibility to the electorate, and those who have yet to achieve majority, and therefore the most vulnerable to poor educational standards, the young! Machievelli? and still going strong after 400 years! I applaud councillor McCafreys, stand against institutional bullying, but fear the fix may be even worse! How many hours did the various political groups devote in their policy making to education, I wonder. Then ask them how long for housing, transport, health and social care, and they will probably tell you they were advised by council officers. Power without responsibility, it's time to turn the tide! Thanks for reading this, I'm glad I got it off my chest! Ross
Hazel Fernandez, says...
1:41pm Mon 12 Feb 07
This smacks of desperate measures by the Labour council. To sack a committee member just 2 hours before a critical vote when the council knew all along the views of Councillor McCafrey is outrageous. I do not have any views on the actual school catchment proposal but I am outraged at the actions taken by the council to get their policy through. Roll on May, perhaps then the Labour council will be replaced.
rob nye, brighton says...
3:46pm Mon 12 Feb 07
this years local election is going to produce some surprising results.............!
keith turvey, Tivoli Crescent says...
10:21pm Tue 13 Feb 07
It's plainly obvious from the weight of postings in this forum that the majority of families across B+H are against these proposals. Also the revelation that the Argus poll was rigged with 600 votes coming from one computer at Legal and General - that hot bed of social deprivation in Montifiore Road - illustrates the extreme lengths that some have gone to rig this whole process. The sad fact is that B+H will not get the education system they deserve until parents unite and demand what should be a right. That is, good secondary education provision at the heart of local communities. Of course we can quibble for centuries over what we mean by "local" and if when developing the housing needs within different communities, developers were expected to make provision for a certain level of social housing then we would begin to see diversity in our schools. There is no question that the proposals on the table are set to widen the educational divide across the city. Children from educationally deprived wards currently access schools across the city. Under the new proposals this will be reduced significantly without a doubt.
colin, B&H says...
11:47pm Tue 13 Feb 07
I agree whole heartedly with Ross & Keith. The British have a world wide historic reputation for Divide & Conqueor tactics, usually involving some casual cartograghy along the way (i.e. the drawing of arbitary boundaries). In both respects this "committee" almost pulled this off. We, as the parents and guardians in this city must unite in the call for improved secondary education and sufficient sustainable capacity. Without both factors being addressed, the future for the city's education is grim and we will continue to have repetition of this infighting infinitum.
Juliet McCaffery, Brighton says...
11:48pm Tue 13 Feb 07
I should like to thank all those people who have written, e mailed or commented in these columns, for their kind words and support. It has meant a great deal to me. Thank you so much.
I know the situation is difficult and I know some parts of the city are very pleased. However I think we need to find a better solution for admission to our secondary schools, one that is fair to the whole city.
I know the situation is difficult and I know some parts of the city are very pleased. However I think we need to find a better solution for admission to our secondary schools, one that is fair to the whole city.
Ross, Preston Park says...
12:03am Wed 14 Feb 07
After reading all the postings with interest I would like to contribute but before doing so; I would like to begin with putting my cards on the table. I was born in Upper Bedford Street. Kemp Town ( 1962 ). Lived in Kemp Town - Chesham Place, College Gardens, Bristol Gardens and College Place before moving to Chester Terrace. I have family - Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, Nieces and Nephews living on Craven Vale, Whitehawk, Bevenden and Queens Park Road respectively.
I have two children at one at Balfour Infants and one at the Juniors
I have followed the debate closely and attended the Public meeting at Hove Town Hall to listen to the suggestions.
On quizzing Gill Sweetman at the end of the meeting about the impact of the working groups ideas, I picked up very quickly that - in Brighton's case - the only issue was the lack of access to DP/V for the children of Hanover and East Brighton.
I pointed out that that this seemed to be at the expense children in the Coombe Road, Bevenden, Moulsecoombe and Coldean areas who will be effectively sectioned off.
At this point he asked me what ideas I had and I outlined them to him - in essence I argued that if we are to engineer any type of solution it has to be for the benifit for all Brightons children and not a few vocal groups.
I believe that in general all parents want the best education for their children but some parents are better placed to express their views
than others. While some children lack parental interest in their education or expectations.
I concluded that if we ignore the potential imbalance the effect that the new concentrated intake will have on Falmer wew will just have another Deason/Comart on our hands - the fall out of which the City has still not got over.
Gill gave me a polite smile and shrugged his shoulders and moved on to the next question.
So if you are still reading this ( I hope that you are ! )you might wonder what my solution would be. Therefore my ideas are as follows:-
Facts
a) We cannot turn the clock back or create a new school quickly
b) We have in effect two strong school brands Dorothy Stringer and Varndean
c) To exclude any Brighton child from these brands is not good for either the children or the City as a whole.
Solution
c) We need to extend each respective brand and create in effect Upper and Lower Schools by incorpoarting Patcham and Falmer.
e) Falmer to be matched with Dorothy Stringer - Falmer to be re-branded DP Lower School with ages from 11/12 to 14 with children moving up to the higher school at the start of their GCSE's. DP already works on this model within the buildings of the school.
f) Patcham to be matched with Varndean - Patcham to be re-branded Varndean Lower School with ages from 11/12 to 14 with children moving up to the higher school at the start of their GCSE's.
Conclusion
Patcham and Falmer are both poor peforming schools They could be re-engnergised with pupils and parents from around the City. Best Practice would be able to flow from the upper to the lower schools and the school system would be seen to be fair to all our children.
Instead of dividing our different districts we could unite them and the retention of child peer groups could be much easily preserved.
Well I know my ideas are not perfect and in our own case getting one child to Balfour and the other to Patcham or Falmer will probably increase congestion and not be easy but if its the same for everyone then we all know where we stand.
I have two children at one at Balfour Infants and one at the Juniors
I have followed the debate closely and attended the Public meeting at Hove Town Hall to listen to the suggestions.
On quizzing Gill Sweetman at the end of the meeting about the impact of the working groups ideas, I picked up very quickly that - in Brighton's case - the only issue was the lack of access to DP/V for the children of Hanover and East Brighton.
I pointed out that that this seemed to be at the expense children in the Coombe Road, Bevenden, Moulsecoombe and Coldean areas who will be effectively sectioned off.
At this point he asked me what ideas I had and I outlined them to him - in essence I argued that if we are to engineer any type of solution it has to be for the benifit for all Brightons children and not a few vocal groups.
I believe that in general all parents want the best education for their children but some parents are better placed to express their views
than others. While some children lack parental interest in their education or expectations.
I concluded that if we ignore the potential imbalance the effect that the new concentrated intake will have on Falmer wew will just have another Deason/Comart on our hands - the fall out of which the City has still not got over.
Gill gave me a polite smile and shrugged his shoulders and moved on to the next question.
So if you are still reading this ( I hope that you are ! )you might wonder what my solution would be. Therefore my ideas are as follows:-
Facts
a) We cannot turn the clock back or create a new school quickly
b) We have in effect two strong school brands Dorothy Stringer and Varndean
c) To exclude any Brighton child from these brands is not good for either the children or the City as a whole.
Solution
c) We need to extend each respective brand and create in effect Upper and Lower Schools by incorpoarting Patcham and Falmer.
e) Falmer to be matched with Dorothy Stringer - Falmer to be re-branded DP Lower School with ages from 11/12 to 14 with children moving up to the higher school at the start of their GCSE's. DP already works on this model within the buildings of the school.
f) Patcham to be matched with Varndean - Patcham to be re-branded Varndean Lower School with ages from 11/12 to 14 with children moving up to the higher school at the start of their GCSE's.
Conclusion
Patcham and Falmer are both poor peforming schools They could be re-engnergised with pupils and parents from around the City. Best Practice would be able to flow from the upper to the lower schools and the school system would be seen to be fair to all our children.
Instead of dividing our different districts we could unite them and the retention of child peer groups could be much easily preserved.
Well I know my ideas are not perfect and in our own case getting one child to Balfour and the other to Patcham or Falmer will probably increase congestion and not be easy but if its the same for everyone then we all know where we stand.
Spencer Hagard, Old Varndeanian, now living in Cambridge says...
10:32am Wed 14 Feb 07
For the way its adult population treats its children, Britain has achieved the distinction of bottom place in a report on 21 industrialised countries published today by UNICEF. Bullying is one of the issues on which Britain fails worst. The sight of Juliet McCaffery being bullied by the council leader to leave a committee making crucial decisions about our childrens' futures shows the whole world where the problem lies: it is deeply embedded in British society! Year after year, report after report has been demonstrating serious levels of bullying: in our schools, in our places of work (by trade unions and fellow employees, as well as by employers), and on our streets, and just about everywhere else, including - clearly - by council leaders too. However, despite their well-documented 100+ years track record of bullying, the huge extent and depth of this problem isn't all down to the behaviour of the Labour Party: all members of society have to accept responsibility for their own behaviour. Nevertheless, principled political leadership is critically important in naming, confronting and resolving this blot on Britain, and after many years of Labour in office, both locally and nationally, things have got worse, not better. This is a big issue in the future governance of our country, and all people running for the council in May, and in subsequent General and European elections, should be asked and judged on how they propose to address it.
Marc Woodhouse, Brunswick Square says...
11:37am Wed 14 Feb 07
Luke Burstow wrote:So no children should be allowed to live in central Brighton?
This whole process has been driven by a relatively small group of articulate, motivated parents who chose to live in the centre of Brighton and then found that the secondary schools available to them did not meet their aspirations.
They have now arranged for the school boundaries to be changed to accomodate their wishes at the expense of those who did a bit of research before they bought a house.
quote
Rose, Patcham says...
12:14pm Wed 14 Feb 07
Re: the Reg/Mark emails on Fri 9th Feb- I note the opportunity to vote has now been removed. What was the result? Was someone or some organisation trying to corrupt it? Come on Argus- tell us who these people are and let the city make up its own mind about their actions.
colin, B&H says...
1:49pm Wed 14 Feb 07
Ross
I think the Upper / Lower school concept would be an unprecendented failure, though I can see your logic. On this I speak from experience.
First of all, from a transportation point, the mass movement of children around the city would be a nightmare and as you have acknowledged yourself, the real problem is if parents have to be effectively in two places at once (i.e. two or more children attending in different locations). My second point is based on bitter practical experience. In my home town we had a secondary modern and Grammar opposite one another. The town was small enough that the majority of children attended one or the other. As part of the move away from Grammars in favour of Comprehensives, on mass we were shipped to the Secondary Modern and two years later on mass to the grammar. Result? Chaos and a lot of bitterness, followed by a general decline in standards. Reasons being that the Modern School apart from a select top stream, were geared to riot control and turning out apprentices and labourers, so academics struggled. At the other pole, the Grammar School staff were used to academics and not riot control or a lack of interest. Neither school has excelled since, though this cannot simply be put down to a continuation of the transition I describe above. The theory is good and overtime with the right management it could work, but in practice it is as prone to failure as the city wide lottery suggestion and moreover it does not resolve the fundamental problems of standards and over sub-scription.
I think the Upper / Lower school concept would be an unprecendented failure, though I can see your logic. On this I speak from experience.
First of all, from a transportation point, the mass movement of children around the city would be a nightmare and as you have acknowledged yourself, the real problem is if parents have to be effectively in two places at once (i.e. two or more children attending in different locations). My second point is based on bitter practical experience. In my home town we had a secondary modern and Grammar opposite one another. The town was small enough that the majority of children attended one or the other. As part of the move away from Grammars in favour of Comprehensives, on mass we were shipped to the Secondary Modern and two years later on mass to the grammar. Result? Chaos and a lot of bitterness, followed by a general decline in standards. Reasons being that the Modern School apart from a select top stream, were geared to riot control and turning out apprentices and labourers, so academics struggled. At the other pole, the Grammar School staff were used to academics and not riot control or a lack of interest. Neither school has excelled since, though this cannot simply be put down to a continuation of the transition I describe above. The theory is good and overtime with the right management it could work, but in practice it is as prone to failure as the city wide lottery suggestion and moreover it does not resolve the fundamental problems of standards and over sub-scription.
Luke Burstow, Hove says...
3:42pm Wed 14 Feb 07
"So no children should be allowed to live in central Brighton?"
It wouldn't cause any more controversy than the current issue :-)
People can live where they like, they just have to accept they'll be plus's and minus's to any location.
One minus for central Brighton is lack of a secondary school within a reasonable walking distance.
It wouldn't cause any more controversy than the current issue :-)
People can live where they like, they just have to accept they'll be plus's and minus's to any location.
One minus for central Brighton is lack of a secondary school within a reasonable walking distance.
David Hancock, Hastings says...
11:27am Thu 15 Feb 07
The removal of a Councillor in this was is an act of bullying. New Labour do not tolerate any discent and do not allow reasoned debate.
In Hastings, we have seen this lead to their defeat at the ballot box. This "New Blue" gang have been replaced by their "True Blue" cousins. There is a lesson here for their bullying leadership.
In Hastings, we have seen this lead to their defeat at the ballot box. This "New Blue" gang have been replaced by their "True Blue" cousins. There is a lesson here for their bullying leadership.
matt, brighton says...
5:06pm Wed 21 Feb 07
whinge whinge whinge
Ben, central brighton says...
11:47pm Thu 22 Feb 07
The basic problem is clear to anyone looking at a map of the city and the location of secondary schools: they're in a narrow band with none (except Cardinal Newman) near the centre, and (with Comart closed) a gap in the east.
Of course in a fantasy world, the council would build a new school, or there would be general access to Cardinal Newman that we all pay for.
But in the world we live in, neither will happen. There are just enough places for the school population, so there'll be no money for new schools; and in the current climate, there's no political will to take on church-controlled schools.
So we have to find some "least worst" compromise. Given that there are only slightly more places than kids, the idea that all parents can choose the school their kids will go to would always be an illusion.
The current system is grossly unfair: schools paid for all, can only be accessed by a few. In any very unfair system, some people will gain from the unfairness. In the current system, a minority living near several schools really do have a choice. But the majority don't; and there are substantial populations living in the areas with no local schools (or only Cardinal Newman) who are consistently the last in the queue under the current system, and whose kids end up travelling miles past all the other schools to finally arrive at the least favoured school where there were places left.
I read all the documents produced by the working group who spent a year considering many many options, and I was impressed by how many options they looked at, and how hard they tried to find reasonable solutions. The catchment areas solution is a good one. Every child has priority for at least one school relatively near them. The original catchment areas were also carefully designed to spread social deprivation (at least as measured by free school meals, not a perfect measure but not bad) equally across all schools. It's a fair system.
Of course under the unfair system there a minority who benefit from the unfairness. Some of them think they have the right to privileged access to a choice of the schools we're all paying for. They don't want to give up their unfair advantage. It's understandable, but it doesn't mean it's right. I don't think they're looking at the arguments, or the problem overall; they're just fighting to retain their present unfair privilege, and to **** with everyone else.
If parents know the school or schools they're likely to be sending their child to - a certainty that almost nobody in the city has at present - perhaps they'll also stop maneuvering to get into a preferred school, and commit more to the school in their catchment area. Then we might seem some improvement in all the schools, rather than so much energy being spent on getting into the one that was good a couple of years ago.
There's no rational ground for defending the existing system. The new proposals aren't perfect - even more so since being amended by the Tories who then voted against anyway - but they're a great deal fairer, and the best compromise that could be found after a lot of people spent a lot of time considering every option. There's no way councillors can prefer the current system - unless they are being swayed by the narrow sectional interests of some wards.
Of course in a fantasy world, the council would build a new school, or there would be general access to Cardinal Newman that we all pay for.
But in the world we live in, neither will happen. There are just enough places for the school population, so there'll be no money for new schools; and in the current climate, there's no political will to take on church-controlled schools.
So we have to find some "least worst" compromise. Given that there are only slightly more places than kids, the idea that all parents can choose the school their kids will go to would always be an illusion.
The current system is grossly unfair: schools paid for all, can only be accessed by a few. In any very unfair system, some people will gain from the unfairness. In the current system, a minority living near several schools really do have a choice. But the majority don't; and there are substantial populations living in the areas with no local schools (or only Cardinal Newman) who are consistently the last in the queue under the current system, and whose kids end up travelling miles past all the other schools to finally arrive at the least favoured school where there were places left.
I read all the documents produced by the working group who spent a year considering many many options, and I was impressed by how many options they looked at, and how hard they tried to find reasonable solutions. The catchment areas solution is a good one. Every child has priority for at least one school relatively near them. The original catchment areas were also carefully designed to spread social deprivation (at least as measured by free school meals, not a perfect measure but not bad) equally across all schools. It's a fair system.
Of course under the unfair system there a minority who benefit from the unfairness. Some of them think they have the right to privileged access to a choice of the schools we're all paying for. They don't want to give up their unfair advantage. It's understandable, but it doesn't mean it's right. I don't think they're looking at the arguments, or the problem overall; they're just fighting to retain their present unfair privilege, and to **** with everyone else.
If parents know the school or schools they're likely to be sending their child to - a certainty that almost nobody in the city has at present - perhaps they'll also stop maneuvering to get into a preferred school, and commit more to the school in their catchment area. Then we might seem some improvement in all the schools, rather than so much energy being spent on getting into the one that was good a couple of years ago.
There's no rational ground for defending the existing system. The new proposals aren't perfect - even more so since being amended by the Tories who then voted against anyway - but they're a great deal fairer, and the best compromise that could be found after a lot of people spent a lot of time considering every option. There's no way councillors can prefer the current system - unless they are being swayed by the narrow sectional interests of some wards.
George Shire, says...
12:11pm Sat 24 Feb 07
Good on you Jules! You have my support.
Juliet McCaffery refused to back the school catchment area reform
In this section
- Jury in Hastings stalker attacks trial told car salesman "terrorised lone women"
- Learn the Brighton Carnival dance
- Sussex councils spend millions on school transport
- Man quizzed over Brighton YMCA blaze
- Sussex swine flu cases mount up
- Portslade schoolboy knocked down at death crash site
- Debt scammers target Sussex
- Paralysed Worthing teenager spends 14th birthday in hospital
- Brighton cabbies 'treated with contempt'
- Sussex disabled boy helped by kind neighbours
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Stuart Dickson, BN2 4TQ says...
2:22pm Tue 6 Feb 07