I read that Amanda Booth (Letters, March 14) disagrees with my view that the School Admissions Review (SAR) has given us a "shining example of social justice".

Can I remind her that the working party spent a year examining every conceivable admission model and proposed a system that was the fairest for all the residents in the city.

Under every performance indicator examined (fairness, hardship, choice, stability and social justice) the new system is simply fairer for the majority than the current system.

Regarding the specific "social justice" issue, the SAR will deliver more socially balanced intakes across all schools, particularly high-performing ones such as the two central Brighton schools, which will have almost twice as many children from deprived areas than they take at the moment.

For instance, Whitehawk will be substantially better off, as it will now have priority access to a school. Under existing criteria it has no priority.

The only "winners" at present are those in the "anti-SAR"

lobby who live in the everdecreasing "golden halo"

catchment areas. Most of them seem obsessed with Dorothy Stringer School, and have spread misinformation about the whole process, causing utter confusion about the system.

That may be why Ms Booth is unclear about the "real"

situation regarding the SAR.

And to clear up her final accusation, I have not the slightest personal interest in either Dorothy Stringer or Varndean, as I don't live within the relevant catchment area.

Sean Pillot de Chenecey,
Clifton Street,
Brighton