The government must decide whether to cut teacher numbers and close schools – or increase per-pupil funding as the number of children entering the system declines, a thinktank has said.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the number of children under 16 in England is due to decline by 6 per cent over the next decade.
The thinktank said that in the face of these changes, the government “has so far chosen to protect total schools spending in real terms up to 2029”.
“This will increase per-pupil funding in real terms. In the future, policymakers will need to decide whether this remains the right judgment as pupil numbers continue to fall.
“Choosing instead to maintain per-pupil funding and allowing total funding to fall would generate savings, but require a reduction in the number of teachers and schools.”
The IFS’s report found that during previous historic reductions in pupil numbers, policymakers made “different choices”.
When pupil numbers fell in the 1970s and 1980s, there were cuts to teacher numbers.
But in the 2000s, when numbers declined, “there were actually increases in teacher numbers”.
Falling numbers ‘could be even larger’
The report found that falling pupil numbers mainly reflected reduced fertility levels.
The Office for National Statistics “currently expects fertility to stabilise” in the future.
But the IFS said previous forecasts over the past 10 years “have also predicted stabilisation in fertility and it has instead continued to decline.
“It is therefore possible that falls in pupil numbers could be even larger than current forecasts,” it added.
Luke Sibieta, a research fellow at the IFS and author of the report, said: “Falls in the number of children will dramatically reshape the make-up of the UK population.
“That will have big implications for the education sector. Policymakers will have to decide how to respond – will they look to make financial savings through employing fewer teachers or closing schools?
“Or will they protect education spending and deliver smaller class sizes? In practice, previous governments have gone for a mix of policies, which were often shaped by the economic and fiscal situation of the time.”
He added that while closing a school can be “problematic for local communities”, maintaining school numbers as they are “might not be the best thing for pupils either”.
“With a dramatic fall in pupil numbers, some schools might struggle to offer a full breadth of curriculum options,” he said.
Protecting teaching jobs against falling pupil numbers is good for economic prosperity. Pupils will receive better educational outcomes which could lead them to better jobs and greater productivity
Since children don’t pay taxes, a reduction in the number of children surely doesn’t need to affect the total education expenditure? So why not take it as an opportunity to improve education through better resources and smaller class sizes? Working with smaller classes of key worker/vulnerable pupils during the pandemic opened teachers’ eyes to the incredible possibilities of classrooms with both increased learning space and teacher attention. And this is when SEND pupils who were in school often thrived in a way they never could normally. Why not look beyond the status quo?
Remember that it not within central government responsibilities to close schools. Local government is responsible for school place planning (organisation) therefore powers exist there to appropriately plan reductions. At the moment there is no incentive nor financial support to close or reduce school rolls. Demolition of school buildings comes at considerable cost which LAs cannot meet. Years ago the SCAP used to be focussed on Surplus Plus removal for which there was funding. DfE need to bring back a Surplus Place removal fund to assist LAs to reduce provision.