IT HAS been controversial, divisive and extremely high profile but has Brighton and Hove's school lottery actually helped?

First things first, it is vital for people not to be swept away by the images conveyed in the national media yet again. Places at Brighton and Hove’s secondary schools are not decided completely at random by a lottery. There are certainly no balls being drawn from a hat or anything as crass as that.

The reality is that this year there have been 2,364 children finding out what lies in wait for them when they move from primary to secondary school in the city this September. Only about 1,200 live in areas where the lottery comes into play with any significance. And of those, according to Brighton and Hove City Council, just 757 children had their school places decided by the lottery, or random ballot as it is officially known.

This, of course, is no small number. Around a third of all of the pupils in the school year are involved, but, importantly, not every child in the city is affected. The reality is that most of the upset around the school allocations stems not from the lottery but from the catchment areas brought in with it last year. It is these which have reduced choice for most families to either one or two schools.

In most cases the nerveshredding ballot used to sort places in the dual catchments for Hove Park/ Blatchington Mill and Dorothy Stringer/ Varndean schools is insult added to this initial injury.

What this means then is that even if the review called by Schools Secretary Ed Balls this week does result in the scrapping of lotteries across the country, it is extremely unlikely it will result in happiness for all those who have been upset in Brighton and Hove. More likely a new method of dividing children would be introduced (because the old walking distance schemes have been banned) which would inevitably either leave the same parents with a lack of choice or simply shift their woe to others.

For each of the city catchments particular advantages and disadvantages have emerged. For some it has protected access to their local school if it is high performing but for others it has trapped them in a situation where they can only gain places at a poorly performing school.

This is most acute where Falmer High is concerned. Traditionally the city’s lowest ranked school in league tables, it has been given a catchment involving the Moulsecoomb and Bevendean estates, one of the most deprived areas in the South East.

Portslade Community College has a similar, but less extreme, situation. On the other hand, Patcham High appears to be starting to reap the benefits of its new catchment, which involves a much more affluent area but one which had been shunning it for higher performing schools.

Of the four singleschool catchments, only the one for Longhill High, in Rottingdean, seems to be fitting the council s target of creating a balanced mix of pupils from different backgrounds taking pupils from the estates of Whitehawk and Woodingdean as well as others from Rottingdean village.

The main reason to consider the system a success, however, is because of what it has replaced. The key result of the catchment areas has been to end a farcical and clearly unfair situation where hundreds of families around the seafront areas, central and east Brighton, were seeing their children sent to the schools furthest from their homes which were, coincidentally, the poorest performing. They have already created more sensible school journeys the majority of children are sent to their nearest school and can get there reasonably easily.

If the system does run for five years (meaning the whole of each secondary school will have been allocated by this method) this change should be notable.

The success of the lottery itself is mixed particularly if we consider it from a dispassionate position, putting aside the emotional stresses and strains it clearly exerts on families.

In the joint catchment in Brighton for Dorothy Stringer and Varndean schools it is hard to see it as anything but a success. It has taken a wide area of the city, including areas which struggled for places at their nearest schools in the past, and ensured that children can go to a nearby school and that pupils come from an equal mix of backgrounds.

Not having the opportunity to live in the immediate surrounding area does not rule anyone out. But it works not only because the schools are next to one another, they have similar exam results and Ofsted reports too.

For most in the area the worst case scenario is a good one so the lottery holds fewer worries.

The joint Hove Park/ Blatchington Mill catchment is completely different and it is no surprise the families involved have been the most outspoken. While it is perhaps harsh on Hove Park School, it has been seen as the losing option for the majority of families in the area.

Only 182 made it their first choice, compared with 505 picking Blatchington Mill. Its results, while not terrible, are significantly lower and, crucially, it is at the far west of the catchment meaning parents at the eastern edge in particular consider it a bad option.

Many of those already had a simmering unhappiness that they had their access to Dorothy Stringer cut. This Hove Park/ Blatchington Mill catchment is where further change would be welcome.

While the Dorothy Stringer and Varndean link makes sense and works, this pairing does not.

Time may bring more parity between the schools in terms of results but it will not move Hove Park closer to its more begrudging pupils. The better aspects of the lottery will continue to be overshadowed while that distance continues to make that allocation a crushing disappointment for parents.