News: Outraged Parents at Balfour School Meeting

The turnout for the Balfour School Meeting was high: at least 200 parents were there concerned for their childrens future from a variety of schools. I heard questions for Patcham, Westdene, Downs, Balfour, and Coombe Road. Others of you there may have heard a few more.

They were addressed by three speakers, Gil Sweetenham, the Assistant Director for Schools, Martin Powell, who is the representative for Preston Park Ward on the Parent Stakeholder Group and is also on the Working Group, and Robert Eastwood, a parent of a child at Balfour School. Tony Jones, the Headmaster of Balfour School, chaired the meeting.

The meeting was incredibly valuable, and I left feeling hopeful that an alternative solution might be reached as it seems we are not the only ones dismayed by the proposals. Parents were in fighting mood, and the general opinion was that fixed catchments were a bad idea. Only one parent openly supported them, asking Gil to be allowed to say something positive. Every other point raised seemed to try to undermine the proposed fixed catchments. Among the concerns raised were:

• the distances pupils will still have to travel,
  
• the possibility that their children might end up at Falmer - one woman was prepared to break the bank and send her child to private school instead,
  
• a sense that the fixed catchment idea was designed to placate a few parents from Queen's Park and the Hanovers,
• the feeling that parents had not been consulted properly throughout the process: that they knew little of it until the proposals were already put forward,
• and a strong sense that a duty to social justice - good schools for all, not just the richer families - was not possible under these proposals.

One parent summed it up at the end when they said that no system would be fair until every school in Brighton was a good school.

Robert Eastwood argued that a fairer means to allocate places would include sharing the deprived children across the city's schools by means of a system called "FSM banding", or "Free School Meals Banding". This had never been examined in depth by the Working Group as an option. It would be a way of ensuring all schools have a comprehensive, or socially broad, intake.

It was especially pleasing at the end of the meeting to hear Martin Powell say that he would request that this system be modelled properly by the Working Group. Gil Sweetenham looked surprised at this turnaround. For me, this was a hopeful end to a tempestuous and sometimes bitter meeting.

The results of the Secondary Admissions Review will only benefit the whole city if the whole city is included. Under the current proposals for fixed catchments, it seems that the children from areas less likely to complain, from areas already disenfranchised (left out), have their needs for a good education sacrificed. Thankfully, this issue is not just ours; we are not alone in our outrage at these proposals; there are others fighting for a fairer system.

More Detail

Gil spoke at length in support of the fixed catchments, adding a few extra reasons to the selection he presented Coombe Road parents with on Monday. It appeared that he was responding to queries he'd received from Balfour parents by email and trying to close down some of the objections in advance. These included:

• Why not build another school in East Brighton? Because funding would not be given as pupil numbers are staying the same;
• Why not add an extra class to over-subscribed schools? Perhaps they would, if there was a call for it, but that would have to be widespread.

He also tried to placate us with some snippets of information:

• The news that Learning Skills Council (LSC) is planning a new system, whereby pupils would be registered at a school, but able to take classes anywhere across the city. (However, this isn't due for 5 years, and looking at the LSC website, they deal with education for over 16s);
• He added that the review sought to redress the imbalance for families in the Wards along the seafront from Whitehawk and Queen's Park who, under the current system, were highly unlikely to get their first choice of schools. These parents have complained hard about their situation to the Council over the past few years;
• And of course the proposed Academy at Falmer.
  

Martin Powell stood up and tried to placate parents concerned about the choice between Dorothy Stringer and Varndean, as Varndean is seen as the "poor kids' school". He added that if it came to a ballot in the dual catchment, then all people would be treated equally.

There seemed to be a lot of fire-fighting going on, with Martin and Gil both attempting to douse the blaze before it got out of control. It became evident why when Robert Eastwood spoke. He went through some figures, and exposed the fact that it is unlikely that "the catchment will catch". In other words, there will be too many children in the catchment for Dorothy Stringer and Varndean, and those children will have to go out of the catchment to other schools. This would be decided by the ballot, and parents and children would be living in a great deal of uncertainty until the results were known. Ultimately, some of those children might well be sent to Falmer.

Mr Eastwood argued that "FSM banding" might be a better model, FSM meaning "Free School Meals". This was an option that the Working Group never examined, and may result in a more comprehensive, or socially broad, intake of children in the schools across Brighton. Under this system, all schools will have a spread of children from poor to rich backgrounds. No schools would just take the poorer children, or just take the richer children.

You can read more about "FSM banding" this on his website:

http://www.schools4communities.co.uk/

Let us know what you think of the FSM banding idea and of all schools having to take some of the children from economically deprived backgrounds.