The flaw in the proposals:

Equal Preference doesn't work with Dual Catchments and Random Allocation

The proposals use Equal Preference with Dual Catchments and Random Allocation.

1. Presume there are 400 kids and 400 places available in 2 schools – let's call them Varndean and Stringer (let's also say there are 200 places at each)
2. Suppose half the kids want Stringer and put Stringer 1st and Varndean as 2nd preference.
3. Suppose that half the kids want Varndean 1st and put Stringer as 2nd preference.
4. You would think that logically every child can be satisfied but that is not the case as ranking only comes into effect post lottery.
5. Because all the kids put both Stringer and Varndean (and because all preferences whether 1st or 2nd are treated equally) then both schools are oversubscribed and all 400 kids will be put into a lottery for both schools.
6. Only if you were successful in both lotteries (and could in theory be offered a place at both schools) would your first preference then be ranked above your second.

Worst case: the 200 who wanted Stringer all lose in the Stringer lottery and get Varndean and vice versa. i.e everybody gets their second preference and none of the 400 are satisfied.

Latest Comments from Steve Healy (Admissions at Brighton & Hove Council):

Steve Healy's latest comment on the problem with Equal Preference/Random Allocation and dual catchments on 12th December was:

"With regard to dual school areas we will be asking the DfES to give a view as to whether a final matching process within a dual area is possible."

As 58% of all places available per year are in dual catchments, which rises to 80% of all places if Falmer and Patcham are ultimately linked we would say that resolving the problem of kids being given places at schools they don't want (and when unnecessary) needs to be treated as a critical issue.