So, the CF&S Committee decided to vote in favour of a new and socially divisive admissions system. Families in Coombe Road, Bevendean and Moulsecoomb are in a single catchment for Falmer School.
All the talk in the news today is about lotteries for popular schools in the city: Dorothy Stringer, Varndean, Blatchington Mill and Hove Park. Well, we will not even get the opportunity to enter those lotteries. We have lost the lottery already. We are second in the queue for the "good schools".
On the BBC news story Schools to give places by lottery we are told, "Brighton and Hove says the new system will give more children a better chance of getting into popular schools." I nearly spat out my breakfast when I read this. More middle-class children perhaps, but children from Moulsecoomb and Bevendean while have no chance of accessing any of the most popular schools. Not even a glimmer.
So you'll understand that when Pat Hawkes comes out with another platitude, "Brighton and Hove is a city of haves and have-nots and the have-nots have been left out", I gave up trying to eat my breakfast altogether and my partner had to head for the shower as he was covered in orange juice.
So what do we have now under the new admissions system. Do we all get an equal opportunity to access the "best schools" in the city? Or do some children only get a chance to access the least popular ones? Ding, dong! Yes, we have another group of "have nots" who are less likely to complain because they are used to being in this situation.
Some people may want to send their child to Falmer. It might be the best school for them. Others may not. The choice is no longer there for those of us in this single catchment.
The criteria for naming a school a "good school" or a "worse school" are set by the government. The league tables and Ofsted reports that offer parents, as consumers, guides when making their choices are supposed to help us make a choice in favour of good schools. Falmer School has been improving partly because they have taken children from an extended catchment incorporating more parents who are enthusiastic about education, but this new admissions system will ensure that the school is cut-off at the knees as the catchment from which they take shrinks. Pat Hawkes, don't try to sell me the idea that all schools in Brighton & Hove are "good schools". They are not equally good, and it does not take much to ruin a school completely. Falmer's future is uncertain.
This is now a two-tier education system, except the boundaries between those that will receive a good education, and those that will receive an education of a lower standard, are very clearly drawn.
All the children will receive an education which is less comprehensive, whether middle-class or working class. The catchments are drawn roughly along class divides. They will meet fewer peers from different backgrounds to themselves. They should learn from experience how other people live, and learn to be tolerant of other people's values, but also to test their own values against others. Let's actively counter prejudice and ignorance, rather than teach it in citizenship classes.
I would love Pat Hawkes and Brighton & Hove Council to eat their own words - then perhaps I would be able to eat my breakfast. I'm disgusted at the result of this review. It is disgraceful that politics have been allowed to influence such an important decision. The May council elections are far more significant than the future of our children. Politicians with a stake in the outcome should not be allowed to make a decision on schools admissions if this is what happens. The Greens and Labour groups both dismissed members of Children, Families & Schools Committee because they were having doubts about the decision. I'm sure they will gain votes in the marginal seats, which incidentally gain access to the popular schools now. They may be surprised how many votes they lose in previous Labour strongholds.
I can say with confidence that the Council have failed to make a fairer admissions system. So much for choice and opportunity. So much for diversity in a comprehensive system. The combination of elements that Brighton & Hove have employed results in "haves and have nots", a two-tier system of education that will deny many children in poorer areas the fantastic education they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
So what do we hard working parents do now? Do we up sticks and move closer to a 'popular' school, getting ouselves an even higher mortgage along the way in the hope of having a chance of getting our children into it? Obviously there are going to be a number of families that make this choice meaning that even more children will be affected by the 'lovely lottery'!
I would love to see the faces of some of these parents who supported this new system when they receive their letters informing them that unfortunately the school that they are in the catchment area for is oversubscribed and that their child will have to attend a less favourable school.
Many who supported this change used to get no chance of attending their nearest schools, now they get an equal chance along with everyone else in the catchment. I imagine the looks on their faces will be just the same as anyone else who doesn't get in. The fact that they've now got a higher chance than they used to have and are treated the same as everyone else in the catchment won't change that.
If equal opportunity is to be top of the list of competing and often conflicting demands made on an admissions system then the only truly equitable way of allocating places would be by city wide ballot. Everyone would have the same equal chance of attending any school in the city. People are usually horrified when you propose this, but it would unquestionably be the most equitable way of allocating scarce resources. In reality I suspect it wouldn't cause as many problems as many imagine, but it certainly comes at a price. However, there was never any possibility that it would have been approved for this city given demographics and the nature of local representative democracy.
One of the problems I have with the big 'no' campaign is that it is often extremely contradictory. For instance saynotothesar! has made common cause with schools4communities, who always wanted to split Patcham from Falmer, yet now complain that Falmer is left with a higher than average FSM giving no 'choice' for all in BN2 4. The often conflicting demands made of an admissions system see people wanting choice, alongside local school access, alongside peer group transition, alongside certainty, alongside inclusive, comprehensive intakes. This package doesn't add up.
Now the national media have picked up the story the underlying political dimension has become both simplified and clarified. Random allocation/lottery (depending on whether you read The Guardian or The Mail) is opposed by the tories and supported by the left. Grubby local politics (on both sides of the fence) get left behind in this process. I know where I stand though.
I totally agree with Say no to the SAR. I live in Preston Park so am one of the lucky ones. My childs certainty of a place at Stringer or Varndean has gone but it is not that that makes me angry as we still have a very good chance. What makes me angry is (a) the pro-SAR campaign has painted the opposition as selfish middle-class nimbys when much of the opposition came from deprived all over the city and those that are in better off areas actually thought what was intended was to make all schools more socially mixed (there's me naively believing the labour party had some socialist principles) and agreed totally with this principle (b) the council weren't brave enough to adjust the Falmer catchment by including areas such as Hanover and Queens Park (which would have solved some of the oversubscription in DS/V and maybe even allowed Prestonville to be included). This might have given Falmer a better chance. The losers are not just kids who have to go to Falmer but wouldn't before but all kids who go to Falmer as it will make their school more difficult to manage.
Children from deprived areas are not instrinsically bad or stupid but many have had less opportunities and educational support at home so need more support at school. Schools can cope with a certain number of children with difficulties (either educational or social) but too many and they cease to function effectively. If the proposals really meant that more children from poorer areas were getting access to the more popular schools (I say more popular - not necessarily better) then I would support it. What has happened is some middle class kids (prestonville) are being forced to travel long distances so others (queens park and hanover) can take their place at the schools they want and stuff everyone else.
I don't blame parents in Queens Park and Hanover - they just want whats best for their kids. I blame the council for believing their kids are more important than anyone else because their seats are marginal and deserting true labour strongholds because votes are assured.
Can we dispel some tiresome myths?
Queen's Park is not an affluent area. It is ranked second only to East Brighton in the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation. The fact that there are a few dozen big houses round the park (where the politicos live!) does not mean it is a rich ward. IT IS NOT. And neither is Hanover. Just look at the FSM percentages for the area's primary schools they are at or significantly above average.
Because of this, putting QP, Hanover and/or Elm Grove into Falmer would not have significantly improved the FSM of that school. It would have also massively over-subscribed that school from within catchment, precisely the issue much of Fiveways has been both exaggerating and complaining about for the DS/V catchment. To then add in Prestonville (a relatively affluent area - look at the FSMs for the primaries again) to DS/V would have actually lowered the more balanced FSMs of that catchment.
The new system DOES better distribute FSM (as an indicative measure of social disadvantage) across schools in the city. It fails to do this in the instance of Falmer, where the FSM is maintained at an almost identical level to present. Had schools4communities and the tories not pressed for the split from Patcham this would not be the case.
And I'm so glad to hear that 'children from deprived areas are not intrinsically bad or stupid'!
On the issue of the alleged marginal seats - Preston Park is a far more marginal seat than either Queen's Park or Hanover & Elm Grove. How does that square with the claim that this was all about satisfying votes in marginals?
Hence Councillor McCaffery's assertion that to vote for the proposals would be 'political suicide' in her ward. That she was supposed to vote for the city wide good clearly wasn't an issue for her when faced with such hard political decisions.
I feel that Coombe road area and Moulscombe/Bevendean have been 'used' by the schools4communities leaders.
They single mindedly went for anything that would reject the SAR and took anyone along with them without explaining the possible consequences.
This is why Patcham and Falmer were split - s4c convinced the Tories to demand this split.
s4c gambled with Falmer catchment that this split would be unacceptable and would get the whole SAR thrown out.
s4c felt it was worth the gamble - but who are they to whip up such a gamble with Coombe Rd (and M/Bev) communities!
I suppose as there will be spare places at Patcham then Falmer catchment will be able to apply their as well and some kids will get in. Also can use the sibling link for others.
National papers are saying that Academy is a good thing - so maybe Falmer will get all popular when it gets loads of money and a new sports stadium?
So, can someone please explain, if the FSM are going to be at an "amost identical level" for Falmer under the new system as they are now, why the current FSM for Falmer are 22% and the predicted FSM under the new system will be 36%? Hardly identical. And can someone also explain why no one living in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean can afford to live around Queen's Park, Hanover, or Elm Grove? We can't afford it. A 2 bedroom house starts at £250,000 according to Fish4Homes.
As for the leaders of S4C, I don't think they misled, I think that the pro-SAR campaign have misled the national press. I think they have very deliberately focused on twisting the S4C membership to include only those around DS/V when this is not the case. I think they have deliberately ensured the focus is narrowed so that people in our area have been ignored by making sensational allegations. That has suited them very well.
Why weren't the pro-SAR group ever concerned about the intake for Falmer? Because the reason they fought this battle in the first place was to avoid sending their children there. It's a shame they didn't fight for a more comprehensive system for the whole city, rather than a better deal for themselves.
The lottery is about deciding who will be the unlucky middle class children who will have to go to Falmer. It seems the government are going to publish figures alongside league tables that will indicate the social mix of schools. Lets hope that these tell the truth, and in two years, when the first intake under the new admissions is sent to the secondary schools, we will see just how successful the new system is in regard to creating comprehensive intakes.
And by the way, if you had heard Martin Powell on Sky News, you will have heard him say that he has proof that this was about obtaining votes in the marginal wards of Queen's Park and Hanover.
First the comments about the kids not being bad or stupid was to counter some of the demonising of these kids that has taken place from both sides of the argument.
Secondly it is hard to generalise about people who oppose the system. There are those who want to hang on to distance measurement at all costs - mainly Balfour parents as they all live in the golden halo. However, many of us can see the unfairness and want a new system. When I first saw the SAR proposals I was inspired by the social justice and equalisation of FSM. But the proposals as they stand do not deliver. There are arguments for and against the separation of Patcham and Falmer - distance travelled and FSM % are in conflict here. But to get bogged down with this is to ignore other solutions. Why were the two unpopular schools put together in the first place - why not put DS with P and V with F? (like the BM/HP catchment) What about one big catchment for all 4?
I admit to being selfish and wanting what is best for my kids but that is a city without sink schools. On a more purely selfish level, if we do 'lose' in the lottery I want the option we are left with to be a good one.
Schools 4 communities opposes the SAR but the campaign leading up to the vote was individual contact to councillors about changing their minds on aspects of the system not just about voting against it.
Post a Comment