I read with interest the various letters for and against changing the system of allocating secondary school places to the city's children.

I note individuals are clearly campaigning on the basis of personal and community interest.

From official documents provided by Brighton and Hove City Council, the director of education, the admissions working party and the various Argus letters and reports it is clear it is widely accepted the current system is unfair.

In fact, these reports show the current rules disenfranchise and exclude the whole inner city area with regard to access to their nearest school, an area in which five out of six of the most deprived wards in the city are located (according to the Government's measure of Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 and the council's Citystats website).

This has been borne out by this month's admissions allocation letters.

The effect is these areas have been further deprived by council policy.

Clearly, change is needed as soon as possible to comply with the duty of the education authority and council to provide a fair system and address this deprivation.

If we accept there are currently enough secondary school places for our city's children, there can only be one conclusion - that a system must be devisable to offer preference to all children for their nearest school, as far as places permit.

Some may say there are not enough places to achieve this at all schools. However, given the assumptions above, this is achievable if there were no overlap of priority choice based on, for example, priority areas (a system used to good effect by East Sussex LEA).

So I would be interested in people's constructive thoughts on these possible solutions which I offer ahead of the working party reconvening:

1. Priority areas for each school. This would share the available places in a clear way, with full support for the council and Government's policy of supporting community schools. You would know your community's school wherever you lived, which is not true for inner-city areas at present where, for example, children at Sommerhill School have been "allocated" seven secondary schools this year.

2. Nodes - provided these were placed to provide full coverage of the city with no overlaps and no gaps.

3. Linked schools - again full coverage is paramount The contentious issue here, of course, will not go away. In order to provide any local school choice for the disenfranchised inner-city areas, choice for some areas must be reduced. Therefore the council needs to decide what is the right and fair improvement on the current rules and go for it. Clearly, not changing them is unacceptable.

-Steve Crockett, Brighton