In his defence of the unfair school admissions policy (Letters, February 20), Tim Linnell made a number of misleading statements.

Our campaign has been careful to avoid denigrating specific schools. We want a fairer system which would permit parents to send their children to their nearest schools and not just those he perceives as "the best".

As a campaign group, we span a large area of west Hove and central and east Brighton. Those of us in east Brighton didn't close our most local school and simultaneously introduce a system premised on having a local school to apply to. That was the work of Brighton and Hove City Council.

Nor did we propose Dorothy Stringer and Blatchington Mill be the schools with nodes to enable access by excluded children. That was the suggestion of the council's working group, a cross-party body chaired by a respected and independent authority on admissions systems.

We don't want a situation wherein we get "the best" and force others to "accept one of the schools in east Brighton". And there are no under-subscribed secondary schools in east Brighton.

The working group's report to the children, families and schools committee found the nodal proposals would lead to a "considerable improvement" to the current unfair system and was confident it would result in an overall increase in the number of parents obtaining a preference.

It also felt unable to recommend this improvement because the public consultation revealed most people didn't want the system to change. Not surprising, as 90 per cent of parents currently get the school of their choice.

Mr Linnell seems to forget this unfair system has already been in place for two years and will now be imposed for another.

In a year's time, those same parents who rejected the positive improvement will not have changed their minds.

-Paul Grivell, Cause4BH (campaign against unfair secondary education for Brighton and Hove), Brighton