Two Brighton schools are set to merge in order to combat rising costs and shrinking numbers.
Stanford Infant and Junior Schools are currently independently operated, with a separate staff, headteacher and site.
But Brighton and Hove City Council has just launched a consultation on merging them into one school – meaning children would no longer have to apply for a place when moving from year two to year three.
The council says that if the merger goes ahead, starting next September, the schools would continue to be run from both sites.
Councillor Jacob Taylor, deputy leader of Brighton and Hove City Council and cabinet member for finance, said: “We’re encouraging parents and carers, pupils, school staff and governors and the wider community to have their say on the proposal to merge Stanford Infant and Junior Schools.
“You can share your views by completing our online consultation, or by joining us at one of our public engagement events.
“Your feedback will help us to understand the potential impacts of the proposed changes and inform our final decision.”
An online consultation is now open which can be accessed at this link, and three meetings have also been organised:
- 15 October 7pm to 8.30pm at Stanford Infant School, Highcroft Villas, BN1 5PS
- 4 November 9.30am to 11am at Stanford Junior School, Stanford Road, BN1 5PR
- 4 November 4pm – 5.30pm (online)
The merged school would have one headteacher, senior leadership team and governing body .
In common with schools across the city, both schools have struggled with their budgets as numbers fall, because funding is based on pupil numbers.
The need to apply to join the junior school also leads to one in ten children deciding to go to a different school when transitioning from infants..
This could be converted into affordable housing
Read the article…
They have to apply to transition from year two to three currently? That seems a bit absurd, doesn’t it? Consolidation seems like a very reasonable move here.
Didn’t it used to be one school?
yes it was, and before that it was only on the Stanford Road site..
This town does not need more housing people need to go to other cities instead.
Objectively incorrect.
It’s a city, not a town, so I guess you mean they should go to city of Brighton. In which case it needs more housing.
Stanford Infants is a thriving, successful school with an outstanding ethos. Councils see infant schools as inefficient and low-hanging fruit for cost-savings, but the reality and impact of losing them is significant and far costlier to families overall. Across the country, there is ample evidence that these closures worsen outcomes for children and the actual financial gains are minor, neutral or negative. Early years are the foundation of a child’s education and widely recognised as having huge significance for children’s future learning and life chances. Stanford Infants is a school that does this brilliantly, so why risk weakening it? There are proven risks and significant negatives for school mergers, yet “budget constraints” and vague generic ‘benefits’ are trotted out by councils who are all too keen to show “efficiencies”. As with all spending decisions, this comes down to priorities. “Budget pressures” must not be a free-pass to approve a financially weak, poorly evidenced proposal.
The drop in applications to Stanford Juniors isn’t because the schools are separate, it’s because the junior school is weaker. Merging won’t solve that, it risks dragging the infant school down. Virtually all of the aims of the merger cited by the council could be achieved through closer alignment and collaboration between the two schools and with stronger leadership at the Junior school.
The risks to children, families and the long-term picture far outweigh the illusion of minor savings. Stanford Infants deserves to be protected, not dismantled.
I think you’re overstating the risks here. The reality across the country is that infant/junior mergers have improved continuity of learning and reduced disruption. Ofsted often highlights that break as a weakness. Both sites would stay open, so it isn’t “dismantling” Stanford Infants; it’s removing duplicated bureaucracy.
And while you’re right about budget pressures not being the only factor, they are very real. Infant schools can’t spread fixed costs across seven year groups, and pupil numbers are falling city-wide. Merging gives stability, a single leadership team, and stops pupils leaking away because they have to reapply in Year 3. That actually protects the infant provision rather than weakens it.
Benjamin, I take your point that councils often present mergers as reducing disruption — but the evidence is much more mixed than you suggest. Ofsted may flag transition between infant and junior as an area to manage, but it doesn’t follow that a merger is the only or best solution. Stanford Infants and Juniors already collaborate closely, and virtually all the “benefits” cited by the council (continuity, alignment, leadership consistency) could be achieved through federation or stronger leadership at the junior school, without dismantling what makes the infant school thrive.
On finances, yes, fixed costs are real — but let’s be honest about the trade-offs. A merger here doesn’t produce new money for children, it removes one of the two lump sums that currently support both sites. The supposed savings come almost entirely from reducing leadership and admin, while two sites and most overheads remain. That’s why nationally many mergers have ended up net neutral or worse financially, while also introducing risk to outcomes.
And protecting infant provision? The Brunswick example shows the danger — Davigdor was an outstanding infant school, but post-merger its excellence was lost and the combined school slipped to “Requires Improvement.” Early years are recognised as the most critical stage in education. Diluting a thriving specialist infant school in the name of “efficiency” is a false economy.
James, I appreciate your well-articulated reply. You’re absolutely right that we should treat early years quality as non-negotiable. Stanford Infants’ strength is a real asset, and no one wants to see that diluted.
Where I’d gently differ is on whether federation or collaboration alone can secure the long-term future. In practice, they don’t really resolve the structural issue of falling rolls and duplicated leadership. A single, all-through primary can give children seamless continuity, one leadership team fully accountable for outcomes, and a more stable budget base across seven year groups.
On finances, you’re right that this isn’t a magic pot of new money, but it’s also true that the demographic squeeze is only getting sharper. Without some consolidation, the risk isn’t just “business as usual” but the possibility of a school becoming unsustainable altogether and closures become a possibility; something we have seen in Brighton very recently. To me, that’s the bigger threat to provision.
Brunswick is an important cautionary tale, but nationally, many mergers have worked well, giving stronger, more resilient schools. There is always learning to be found in situations like Brunswick, and I think you’re right to state it is important that, whatever the outcome, it is taken into consideration.
Under roll schools are in danger, if this protects it that’s a good thing. Elm Grove detiorated under excellent staff because rolls fell, meaning it had to take a large number of excluded children, which led to a decline in the overall school and in turn reduced numbers wanting to go to what had been an outstanding school. I’m not blaming excluded children, it’s just a real problem if school rolls fall. There is an economic size and this seems a sensible move to cut costs and maintain rolls.
70 years ago I went from infants to juniors, so does Miss Ford or Mr Peckham lose their job.
Would they still be alive-if you attended 70 Yrs go.
They would have to be at least in their 90s at that point!
So we lose one Head , seems 👍