We all know that government finances are tight, and with both defence and the NHS on the lookout for more cash to spend, the Labour government has a challenging time ahead if it doesn’t want to raise taxes. Welfare reform is a big issue, but the increase in the number of pensioners, and especially older pensioners, together with an increasing number of young NEETs provides a real challenge for any government when allocating priorities for the taxes it can raise.

Before looking at three possible areas for savings in the school system, here is a suggestion for attacking the NEET problem. Every school should offer one apprenticeship for every 25 pupils. Smaller schools should be encouraged, but not required to take on at last one apprentice.

This scheme might create perhaps 20,000 new jobs that offered real work to those currently unemployed. I would have paid for the scheme both by unused Apprenticeship Ley cash returned to the Treasury, and by using the dormant assets funds for this much more defined scheme than for the recently announced ‘Every Child Can’ programme that seems a good intention but won’t necessarily reduce the number of NEETs.

Now for my ideas about efficiency savings. There are three areas where I think a national strategy could reap dividends:

Small Sixth Forms

Small Schools

MATs numbers and costs

Earlier this year, I wrote a post on this blog about small sixth forms, and their results. This was based upon an analysis of ‘A’ Level results for one year in one local authority area, where all secondary schools are academies. Are small sixth forms a good idea? | John Howson

Wit the prospect of a period of falling rolls, a national strategy for post-16 education might be unpopular with schools and teachers, but might pay dividends in reducing expenditure in this sector.

Falling school rolls also offers the opportunity to take another look at small schools.  I know that overheads have been brought down by creating executive heads for several schools, and allowing primary schools to open nursery classes, but could a strategic look at the school estate provide significant savings? Of course, such an approach would bring the government into direct conflict with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.

The third saving would be achieved by doing away with the dual system of local authority and academy schools, and returning to a single system of governance for schooling. I would prefer a school system with local democracy at its heart, but even an NHS style MAT managed system ought to capable of saving lots of cash compared with the present shambles.

I looked up a series of MAT accounts for 2024-25 in one authority area and estimated spending of nearly £28 million on a range of services.

000s of £s	Spend
2158	LEGAL
446	ACCOUNTANCY
64	PROF FEES
1569	INSURANCE
1021	GOVERNANCE
2211	RAISING FUNDS
5196	OTHER SUPPORT COSTS
14241	OTHER COSTS
932	EDUCATION CONSULTANCY

As the DfE already has the data, they will know how much could be saved just on governance if there were no more than five MATs in each local authority, and legal and accountancy services were purchased from the public sector. Completely rationalising the governance of the school sector should save a nit insignificant amount of cash.

Sadly, I think there is little chance of any significant savings under the present government.