Lambeth (Parliament Politics Magazine) – School governors have formally opposed Lambeth Council’s decision to shut Fen Stanton and Holy Trinity Primary Schools, citing lack of consultation and impact on pupils.
Brixton Buzz was approached by the Chair of Governors at Holy Trinity CE Primary School Tulse Hill to inform us of their “viable alternatives” to closing Fenstanton Primary School and Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School the next year.
They claim that Councillor Ben Kind rejected their suggestions because they were not feasible, but they contest this ruling.
The decision to close Fenstanton Primary School and Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School in September 2026 has been confirmed by Councillor Ben Kind, Lambeth’s Cabinet Member for Children, Young People, and Families, despite fervent requests and a strong alternative plan from school governors.
A closer examination shows that this choice may be a grave mistake, ignoring significant financial savings and dismissing the majority opinion of the community. The Council blames dwindling student numbers and budgetary concerns.
Lambeth Council and Councillor Kind draw attention to the actual difficulties that London primary schools face, including a government financing mechanism that is dependent on student enrollment, the effects of Brexit and the cost of living crises, and a sharp decline in birth rates.
It is admirable that the Council is trying to influence the central government to make changes.
The Council’s evaluation of the available options and dedication to community involvement, however, are seriously called into doubt by the decision to move forward with the closure of Fenstanton and Holy Trinity.
The alternate plan that the governors of both schools proposed is at the center of the dispute. Their proposal for an amalgamation was more than just a token gesture; it offered significant financial advantages along with a clear way to deal with surplus spaces.
In stark contrast to the Council’s estimated closure costs of over £2.7 million, the Governors’ proposal claimed to realize a cost reduction of about £1.5 million. The taxpayer might potentially save more than £1 million as a result.
More investigation is necessary on Councillor Kind’s claim that the Governors’ plan was “unviable” because of its financial foundation and student body size.
The Governors’ financial model is criticized in the Council’s report for underestimating spending. However, it is extremely troubling that an option that offers such a large savings was rejected without a thorough, transparent, and cooperative reconciliation of financial models during a period of unheard-of financial strain on local governments.
There is not enough evidence in the decision report that this fiscally responsible option received the thorough, sincere evaluation it merited.
Councillor Kind highlights “working with our communities” and correctly says, “No one wants to see a school close.”
The evidence, however, points to a discrepancy between this opinion and the Council’s ultimate ruling. Significant public engagement was obtained during the Governors’ mandated consultation on their amalgamation proposal; an impressive 83% of 164 answers indicated support for the merging.
The overwhelming general support for an alternative to complete closure is a strong indication of community will, even though the Council’s report tries to qualify this support by mentioning the percentage of replies from families of the particular schools.
It is possible that “working with communities” did not actually mean appreciating and acting upon their advice when it deviated from the Council’s predetermined course, as closure was carried out in spite of such a strong popular mandate for amalgamation.
The choice has significant societal repercussions in addition to the economic and democratic justifications. With more than 55% of their students classified as disadvantaged, both Fenstanton and Holy Trinity serve extremely underprivileged communities, which is much higher than the national average.
These schools are more than simply structures; they are essential community centers that give some of Lambeth’s most disadvantaged families resources, stability, and a feeling of community.
Closing runs the risk of “deepening educational inequalities and exacerbating disadvantage and marginalization,” according to the Governors’ plan.
Long-term removal of these vital community assets seems to be a secondary concern to the bottom line, even though the Council recognizes the emotional impact of closures and seeks to support transitions. This is especially true for large numbers of Black Caribbean students who may prefer familiar and local settings.
In order to make sure that solutions do not disproportionately hurt those who are least able to handle change, a sound decision-making process must balance the financial strains with the significant social welfare of its most vulnerable citizens.
Legal advice that the Governors’ particular proposal was “illegal” since a community school (Fenstanton) is not legally allowed to propose its own closure is a major factor in the Council’s decision.
Although following the law is crucial, it seems dubious that this technicality was applied strictly without considering other legal options in order to accomplish the purported advantages of the merger.
Lambeth Council has a strategic duty to guarantee appropriate educational provision in its capacity as the local education authority. This involves aggressively looking for legal ways to support solutions that have substantial benefits for the community and the economy.
A squandered chance for proactive governance is implied when a good idea is simply rejected because of a procedural legal obstacle rather than being cooperatively reframed within a legal framework.
Although presented as a challenging requirement, Councillor Kind’s choice seems to violate three important tenets of good governance: careful financial management, sincere community involvement, and a comprehensive assessment of social impact.
There is a strong case that the Governors’ alternate proposal did not receive the thorough, impartial, and open evaluation it merited.
This decision has to be reexamined by Lambeth Council. In order to achieve an amalgamation that respects community aspirations, protects vulnerable students, and results in considerable savings for the public coffers, the Council must re-engage with the Governors, openly assess the financial models, and pursue all legal options.
What are the main concerns of the school governors opposing the closures?
Governors caution that closing the schools could worsen marginalization and disadvantage in the neighborhood, especially for students who are already marginalized and at danger.
Since Holy Trinity provides specialized assistance for children with autism, its shutdown would limit these students’ access to specialized instruction, raising questions about sufficient resources elsewhere.
Closing the schools will upset local families and erode community cohesion because they are seen as significant community centers.
Concerns have been raised about whether other schools can take in the displaced students without lowering academic standards or adding to the overcrowding.
