The budget yesterday revealed that the DfE’s budget for education won’t be able to escape the government’s need for savings Budget 2026: everything schools need to know | Tes The current projections are for an average 2% fall from 2028-29 according to the tes article. As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog post, capital spending will also not be immune from cuts. This is despite the dire state of many school buildings.

What follows are my own views on future spending, not those of any political Party, and certainly not those of the Liberal Democrats, of which Party I remain a member. I offer then up for debate, at a time of crisis in the national finances.

Firstly, the school estate. One obvious way to improve the quality of the school estate is to use the reality of falling rolls to remove some of the worst schools from the estate. In the past, when there was a coherent system for forward planning for schooling, based around local authorities responsible for their ‘place’, such system could quickly have identified how to rationalise a system where capacity exceeded need.

This process wasn’t always easy, as the recent article about falling rolls in Haringey that I posted on researchgate showed. (PDF) Policy Process and Pressure Groups: Falling School Rolls in Haringey

‘Save of Schools’, is still a popular slogan for local politicians. I though this issue through in my one attempt at drama based around a primary school facing falling rolls ‘Heading Off’. Not great drama, but allows the issues around falling rolls to be discussed. Post | Feed | LinkedIn

In the present system of maintained schools, academies, foundation schools and the remaining voluntary aided and controlled schools, where is the forward planning taking place? Should the DfE appoint a commission charged with a review of the estate, and how it might be rationalised?

Such a commission might need to look beyond just the condition of the estate to also address the thorny question of the size of post-16 provision and any relationship between size, the range of curriculum on offer and the level of outcomes. It is easy to duck this challenge in a divided system where the ‘buck’ can be past to another group, whether politicians, MAT boards or regional directors at the DfE.  It is a measure of good government that it is prepared to make hard choices. I wrote  a blog about this issue earlier in the year. Are small sixth forms a good idea? | John Howson

Pupil teacher ratios have been under pressure for some time. On a per pupil funding model, retaining the present funding model could save the government considerable amount of cash as school rolls fall. However, at the school level, fewer pupils make it hard to fund salary increases, where funding is calculated on an ‘average’ overall salary bill.

As I have pointed out before, schools with an above average salary bill, and falling rolls face reals funding issues. MATs can ‘vire’ between their schools, usually through increasing the overhead charge on each school and rebating to help schools with deficits: but is this the right approach?

Rationalising the use of funds for schooling will inevitably collide with the principle of parental choice if closing a popular school is the most sensible way forward. So be it. After all, the original concept of ‘parental choice’ in Section 6 of the 1980 Education Act did contain the get out clause of ‘prejudicial to the efficient use of resources’. Parental choice was never an absolute right.

In a recent post, I asked whether breakfast clubs were meeting their stated aims or whether they were providing free childcare to working families? Might a small charge for those pupils not on free school meals raise some income to help defray the cost to the Exchequer? Not a popular move, but perhaps employers might be willing to help with a tax break. Are Breakfast clubs just a new form of extended school day? | John Howson

Will falling rolls also save money  on SEND? My recent post about the London boroughs and the trends in requests for EHCPs does suggest that the number of requests should reduce with falling rolls even without any assessment of current approaches to funding. This might be a considerable saving, especially if some of the burden  from the former High Needs block  placed on schools. EHCP requests and falling rolls | John Howson

However, against all these savings there are areas where expenditure should, in my view, be increased. I have campaigned for 16-18 travel to education to be free across the country, and not just in urban areas. This is now one for mayors and their counterparts in strategic authorities to take on board. Extend education free travel to 16-18 year olds | John Howson

Then there are the grants not uprated for inflation since 2014. The grant for music is the one best known to me at present, bit there are no doubt still other grants that need a review and updating.

I was also disappointed to see no mention of youth services in the budget. Despite falling rolls, this is an area where more spending is needed.

Finally, I would restore the training grant to all trainee teachers. It is both wrong to pay some trainees and not others and to retain the historical fiction behind tuition fees to place trainee teachers in a different category to trainee army officers and trainee civil servants. Why aren’t all trainee teachers paid? | John Howson

I will also end by reminding readers that the millions the DfE has spent on a teacher vacancy service could have been saved with a bit of commonsense. The present service isn’t free to schools with the administrative costs not being large but being unnecessary. I closed down TeachVac when I took on the role of Cabinet member in Oxfordshire in 2023, but a service that costs nothing to the DfE should still be possible.

The Geddes Axe remained long in the memory of public sector workers, but  I hope that better targeted and rational cuts rather than an across-the-board swipe at a sector will be the order of the day over the remainder of this parliament.

Cut in spending on schools seem likely both to save the wider economy, and to support defence spending for the next war. If Russia wanted to send a message to Europe as a whole, attacking an offshore island that has strongly supported Ukraine is sadly no longer an unthinkable thought.