Selective schools and falling rolls

Way back in history, well 2018 to be precise, I wrote a blog about selective schools during a period of rising pupil numbers. A fudge with no teeth | John Howson As the country now heads into a period of falling pupil rolls, discussed in my previous post in relation to all secondary schools, I thought that I would take a look at rolls across the selective school sector in the autumn of 2026.

The DfE uses two measures ‘capacity’ and ‘number on roll’. Capacity is defined as ‘The number of pupil places the establishment can accommodate.’ Outwood Academy Hasland Hall – GOV.UK link used as an example. In a rational system might the number on roll (NOR) be expected to be somewhere between +/- say 5% of the capacity number? In reality, in the selective school sector, currently this is not the case.

Selective schools fall into one of three groups;

within the 5% of NOR                                    69
NOR more than 5% below capacity20
NOR more than 5% above capacity74

Just over a half of selective schools are either within or below capacity, whereas 46% of these schools are more than five per cent over the DfE’s recorded capacity.

Are there any regional differences? Answering that question must acknowledge that the spread of selective schools is not even across England, with for fewer in the north and the midlands than in the south and west of England.

Regionwithin the 5% of NOR               NOR more than 5% below capacityNOR more than 5% above capacityTotal% above 5%
East of England404850%
East Midlands7631619%
London61121963%
North East00000
North West12431916%
South East244295751%
South West55102050%
West Midlands80111958%
Yorks & Humber312633%
Total67217416246%

The East Midlands has relatively few selective schools, mostly in rural areas, and most are either within or below capacity. Might this be down to transport issues, and any absence of free transport to  selective schools from rural areas? Both the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber’s regions few selective schools are mostly within or below capacity. Again, might transport be an issue?

In  London, the South East, South West, East of England and the West Midlands, at least half the selective schools are more than 50% over capacity, by DfE data.

London, has the highest percentage of selective school more than 50% over capacity at  63%, followed by the West Midlands at 58%. Both regions have few, if any, schools with selective school operating at more than 5% below capacity. Whether the urban nature of these regions males a difference isn’t clear, but the North West also has few schools operating below capacity.

The next piece of research is to consider the urban/rural nature of selective schools below capacity and whether the lack of free transport might be affecting these schools?

However, the big question is who will lose cash as pupil rolls fall? Will over-capacity selective schools reduce their rolls, and either stop hiring or make staff redundant or will non-selective schools have to bear all the loss of income resulting from falling rolls under the present pupil led funding system?

This is where the importance of pupil place planning becomes clear. What will a Labour government do? Favour selective schools or ensure they return to capacity?

This is an interesting question that needs airing, especially as this Labour government seem as unwilling as the last to design a secondary school system fit or all pupils.  

Vocational education: Closing doors or widening opportunities?

The education of young people has had quite an airing over the past week. At the Liberal Democrats conference, Munira Wilson MP, the Party’s Education spokesperson at Westminster, gave a platform speech that foreshadowed the announcement by Lucy Powell, the Secretary of State, about post-14 vocational education.

You can see Munira’s speech on YouTube. I suggest starting at 1 hour 38 minutes into the video lib dem conference 2026 autumn saturday afternoon session – Search

In her speech, Munira raised one of the key dilemmas of education. How to promote ambition without encouraging many young people to leave their communities to seek to achieve their ambitions? Many that leave our rural and coastal communities (the source of another debate at the conference) to fulfil an educational ambition, often at university, never return.

I believe that governments should be encouraging these young people to return and set up businesses in rural and coastal communities as part of regeneration schemes.

Labour’s,  Lucy Powell’s, focus was one the perennial issue within the British education system: how to resolve classroom and practical subjects at examination level in terms of parity of esteem? Labour answer is to recreate courses for 14-16 year olds in practical subjects, such as construction, care and business. New Vocational GCSEs unveiled in major shake-up to hands-on learning for teens – GOV.UK

In 2003, I wrote a paper for the Liberal Democrats entitled ‘No child left behind’ – a phrase borrowed from US President Bush – in which I advocated a 14-18 sector. I recognised that many young people at 14 were disillusioned with school, but might be brought back into education if they were offered courses more aligned with their career ambitions. Now, I understand Munira’s point that at 14 she wanted to be a teacher, but as a graduate went into a different career. Munira no doubt already wanted to go to university at 14.

But, what of those, the Newsom 50%, Half Our Future: A tribute to Sir John Newsom’s Report | John Howson  that don’t aspire to stay in education. At what age should we help them on the path to a working life? In 2003, I suggested links with further education, and its more grown- up approach and better facilities than many schools can provide for practical courses.

Labour’s announcement this week, ahead of their conference, seemed a bit rushed. Nothing about where to find the staff to teach  these new vocational subjects in schools? Nothing about the issue of ‘norm’ referencing in examinations. How do you ‘norm reference’ the building of a wall in a construction class or the creation of a meal in a hospitality course? Trying to create national standards will be a real challenge.

Both Munira, and then Lucy Powell, did speak about the need for more work experience in schools. Again, this is something that I support wholeheartedly, but again how do we deal with the limited opportunities in our rural and coastal communities? As so often in education, it will come down to who will pay for the transport?

However, NEETs are not just an education issue. Any government that is responsible for an economy that is not producing jobs for either young people of those made redundant in their 40s and 50s, has two choices, either benefits or some form of education and training provision, if it wants to keep down the numbers unemployed. With AI likely to recreate the job scene in a new format, the issue of the relationship between education and employment isn’t going to go away anytime soon.

70 Up

Like many of my generation, I watched 70 Up on TV last night with very mixed feelings. I first came across what was originally an ITV World in Action documentary called ‘7 UP’ when lecturing to trainee teachers at Oxford Polytechnic, as Oxford Brookes University then was, in the 1980s. The film was part of a module called ‘Societal Issues in Education’. The original documentary was about the lives and aspirations of 20 different children selected by the producer from schools across England. Eventually, it became  series, revisiting the group every seven years.

Looking at the first part of 70 UP, the final two-part episode that both recalled the past lives of those willing to participate every seven years, and caught up with them for a final time at age 70, I was struck by what was missing from the series. No child with a visible disability, only a nod to even the possibility of multi-cultural Britian, as it already was becoming in 1964, when the original programme first aired. A group of children both very different from those that might be selected today, but in many ways a group still to be found in many schools today.

We have been privileged to share the lives of this particular group, and one must thank them for taking part in such a public recording of many aspects of their personal lives. Some played to the camera, and obviously enjoyed the experience; others didn’t, and dropped out, while others, while not enjoying the experience still participated.

What is striking, and heartwarming in the first part of 70 UP is the nature of relationships the group formed. Some survived, some didn’t. That’s not surprising, as the past 60 years have seen great changes in both divorce laws and the fluidity of relationships at all ages.

Every participant was a star. For many, the boy from the children’s home that went on to not only make a family with his partner, but also to foster 170 children in care, was a real star. Fostering demands real respect, as I know from my time as a county councillor just how difficult it is to recruit carers. If 70 UP persuades just one family to contact their local authority and offer to become carers it will have been worthwhile.

Not all the episodes were easy to watch, especially those filmed in the 1970s when teenagers were finding their feet. It is worth noting how many went to Oxford University, and that says much about the sampling, especially of the original participants from private schools.

The women in the group joined 7 UP before the equal opportunity’s legislation of the 1970s, and it shows in those that worked rather than had careers. There were also fewer of them, again I suspect a sign of the times and attitudes in the early 1960s, before the sexual revolution and the ‘swinging sixties’.

Next week, there will be the final part of the series. 70 UP had a new producer, the previous, and only other producer, died after 63 UP was produced. Not surprisingly, not all the original participants survived to 70.

Indeed, I worry, that the treatment of the death of one of the original group of participants reveals both the best and worst of television in its mission to entertain; inform and educate its viewers.

Social mobility and the far right

The announcement that that Social Mobility Commission is to be abolished was announced when I was on holiday. As a result, I have only just caught up with news of its demise – one of the few QUANGOs to escape previous culls. While the term ‘class’ for its replacement within the civil service may be more ‘in your face’ than ‘social mobility’, I suppose it fits better with the debate about ‘White working class boys’ that has featured in many discussions about educational attainment during the past decade.

I am sad to see the Commission abolished. Taking work back into government departments inevitably makes policy discussion less transparent, and places greater emphasis on the work of think tanks. The Commission has had something of a chequered history, as might be expected given its role and the fact that rt worked under a Conservative government for most of its life. I documented one such event in this blog post from 2017 Social Mobility Commission | John Howson that interestingly also mentioned AI, and the risk of the rise of the ‘far right’.

‘With the IT revolution once again picking up speed, and predications of massive job losses from the growth in Artificial Intelligence awakening the Luddite mentality in many of us, the Commission must act not only as the government’s conscience on social mobility, but also as a source of genuine new policies that are radical and forward thinking. More of the same just won’t work.

We have seen in Germany that the failure to ensure the success of the economy across the whole country has inevitably led to the rise of the far right in politics. Social mobility is important, but we cannot ignore those left behind. They must not become the poor relations kept, for ever, out of sight.’ Social Mobility Commission | John Howson Still, it is sad to see a Labour government abolish it.

I had a number of discussions with officials at the commission over the years, most notably about teacher supply matters. The following post followed the publication of one of the Commission’s reports in 2019  We cannot ignore those left behind | John Howson and also shows that, even under Conservative control, those of us from all political parties concerned about the issue of deprivation and education were able to have our voice heard: such is the value of good quality scrutiny.

One of the key outputs from the Social Mobility Commission was its annual State of the Nation Report. It will be a disappointment to lose that scrutiny, and I hope civil servants will either want to continue it or ask The Office for National Statistics to take it over. Here are a couple of links to my blog posts about the report:

Class rules: not OK | John Howson

Industrial revolutions alter a country’s geography | John Howson

Birds of a feather | John Howson

As I write this on a Sunday morning, I am reminded of the phrase in Matthew’s gospel at Chapter 26 and Verse 11: ‘The poor you will always have with you.’

That statement is not an admission of defeat, but a call to arms’. Abolishing the Social Mobility Commission must not weaken our mission for a more equal society. Now, I wonder where that advocation will feature any policy resulting from the spending of the £76 million pounds received by a political party this week?

Paying for a free press

This is the latest of my August holiday posts. Somehow, even on holiday on the other side of the world, education stories worth commenting upon still appear. Last Monday (17TH August), The Sydney Morning Herald carried an opinion piece headed, ’Good education ideas need the right execution’.

Interestingly, the story was about the success of the Multi Academy Programme in raising education standards in England. The author of the piece stated that ‘A key enabler of England’s progress has been the Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). He added that  ‘Rather than every school running its own back office, finance, HR and administration those functions are shared across the group’.

The author concluded that the creation of MATs allows teachers to spend more time on teaching and learning, and, hence on raising standards. In essence, this is a critique of the Thatcher government’s 1987 education reforms that took responsibility for schools away from democratically accountable local councils and, by devolving budgets to individual schools, made each school a small business in its own right.

I don’t disagree with Gant Rule’s basic thesis in his Sydney Morning Telegraph opinion piece that schools are better run as part of a larger organisation than as a small business. Where we part company is over the matter of local democratic oversight of schools.

Interestingly, opposite Mr Rules opinion piece in the newspaper is a full page advert placed by The McKinnon organisation that aims to ‘to strengthen the standard of political leadership and improve how our country is governed’.

It seems odd to me that an organisation championing such views about governance should sanction an opinion piece that seems to be in direct opposition to its stated values. This is because in England, MATs are subject to no local political control.

Additionally, a MAT might well have schools spread across the country and thus be in competition with other MATs for pupils and staff with no local accountability for any of its schools.

Indeed, regular readers of my blog will know of the campaign I supported to bring in-year admissions back into a single system rather than allowing MATs to drive a coach and horses through any sensible local planning. That privilege was certainly not in the spirit of improving how England’s education system was governed and was especially harmful for children taken into care and forced to change school mid-year (search for Jacob’s Law om johnohowson.wordpress for more details). The 2026 Education Act in England has returned all in-year admissions to the oversight of local authorities, a bonus for local democracy.

As a former county councillor, and cabinet member for Children’s Services, I am not unbiased in the discussions about who should run schools in England.

However, I find it interesting that a newspaper can publish an. opinion piece by Mr Rule opposite a full-page advertisement from the organisation Mr Rule co-founded. Perhaps the declaration that the piece is part of a partnership between the Herald newspaper and McKinnon makes it alright.  

Unlike Mr Rule, I believe that schools should serve their local communities, and that MATs rarely recognise that fact. Councillors can be voted out of office: CEOs of MATs are safe from local scrutiny. There must be some discussion about how democratic the MAT model of school governance is and how it fits into the McKinnon’s vision for the health of any democracy, either in England or Australia?

TVEI and the Manchester Bacc: same problem, same solution?

I hesitate to couple together Andy Burnham, our new Prime Minster, and Mrs Thatcher, one of most marmite Prime Minsters’, but they do both seem to have an interest in the role of education in preparing young people for work.

In 1982, Mrs Thatcher introduced a new scheme in what has been described in the following terms by a researcher:

The Technical Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) was intended to instil a significant element of vocational and technical education into the curricula of mainstream schools and colleges (Williams and Yeomans, 1994). It was the first major initiative by central Government in curriculum development. The pilot was announced by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the House of Commons on 12th November 1982. Learning from the past Paper No. 6

The new initiative by Andy Burnham initiative is described in the following terms:

Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham said: 

“For too long the English education system has been built around the needs of just a third [sic] of young people who go to university. That means that every year, thousands go through school without a clear path into a good career. 

Our answer is the MBacc – a game-changing new plan for technical education. We’re using our devolved powers to reset the scales and give young people a clear line of sight to good jobs and the steps that will take them there. 

If we don’t make this change now, it could be the single biggest barrier to future growth – and to the life chances of young people here. The needs of our economy are changing, and right now the system is not capable of keeping pace and meeting the needs of businesses or the ambitions of the next generation.” 

Unlike the English Baccalaureate, which is geared towards the subjects top universities value, each MBacc gateway will guide young people to the subjects and qualifications most valued by the city-region’s employers. The gateways draw on the latest labour market data and provide a clear line of sight to high quality jobs in Greater Manchester’s growing economy. There will also be clear MBacc pathways for those who want careers in the emergency services or the Bee Network.  Andy Burnham unveils plan to turbocharge growth in Greater Manchester with new technical education route, the Greater Manchester Baccalaureate – Greater Manchester Combined Authority Accessed 29th  July 2026 0955

Interestingly, Burnham lists the following subject as part of the MBacc.

Engineering 

Design & Technology 

Business Studies 

Drama 

Music 

Performing Arts 

Regular readers of this blog will know that many of these are subjects that have difficult in recruiting new entrants into teaching. In the case of music, this is a subject where the DfE has slashed the ITT target. Engineering doesn’t have a target, so is probably in ‘other subjects’. Design and Technology is only filing its places as, like music, the target has been reduced

SubjectTarget 2026/27July offersFill: July viewJuly AcceptedFill on accepted
Chemistry6901460YES1302YES
Biology675629PROBABLY466POSSIBLY
Mathematics20002953YES2567YES
Design & Technology620701YES630YES
Art & Design605709YES590YES
Geography685549N466NO
Classics7545NO37NO
English19801835POSSIBLY1535POSSIBLY
Drama370318POSSIBLY263NO
Business Studies1200357NO267NO
Music260266YES220YES
Religious Education450349NO294NO
Others2035508NO414NO
History5201112YES952YES
Modern Languages10851363YES1172YES
Physics8101600YES1438YES
Physical Education6551551YES1326YES
Computing565961YES808YES

Andy Burnham must be careful not to announce a policy he cannot deliver nationally without a strategy for teacher supply, otherwise the very schools he seeks to help may be the ones that cannot recruit the teachers in a market where supply nowhere near meets demand on a national scale.

Manchester is blessed, as is the North West as a whole, with more ITT places than most of the rest of England. The test of any Prime Minister is whether he can scale up a local initiative into a credible national policy? The first step would be for Lucy Powell to take ownership of the policy.

Are London schools overfunded?

Let me be clear the answer is, of course they are not. However, as my previous post showed, there were significant differences in exclusion and suspension rates in the latest DfE data between many London boroughs and other local authorities across England. Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? Part 2 | John Howson with London borough having some of the lowest levels of both exclusions and suspensions.

This discrepancy between London and the rest of England, prompted me to explore the data at a regional level on two different factors: ethnicity and Free School Meals. At some point, it might be interesting to combine these two factors, but for now, they are treated as separate factors. This post deals with pupils eligible for Free School Meals. I hope, in a later post, to consider the data about ethnicity, where the are significant differences between different ethnic groups.

Firstly, here is the table for outcomes for entitle pupils for Free School Meals across primary, secondary and special school sectors.

Free School Meal – entitled pupils 2024/25 All school sectors

London stands out as the lowest rate for both exclusions and suspensions of any region in England. Permanent exclusions in the North East are more than four times higher than the rate in London, and even suspensions are more than four times higher than in the London region.

Of course, London schools may use other sanctions, such as in-school suspensions, but the differences do seem stark between the regions, with London schools using less than half the rate of suspensions of schools across any other region.    

In terms of pupils not entitled to Free School Meals, the differences between London and the rest of the regions are less stark.

Free School Meal – non-entitled pupils 2024/25 All school sectors

However, London still has a ‘suspension rate’ of less than half of that in the three regions with the highest rate of suspensions. Permanent exclusion rates for pupils not eligible for Free School Meals are generally very low across England, but, even so, London, along with the South East still had the lowest rate of permanent exclusions in 2024/25.

Free School Meal – non-entitled pupils 2024/25 Primary school sector

London doesn’t quite have the lowest permanent exclusions in the primary sector for pupils not entitled to Free School Meals: the rate in the south East is 0.01 better than in London. However, London does have the lowest rate for suspensions.

Free School Meal – entitled pupils 2024/25 Secondary school sector

Even with secondary school pupils entitled to Free School Meals, London has both the lowest rate of suspensions and of permanent exclusions o any region in England. Again, whether this is as a result other in-school measures, better staffing because of funding, or some other reasons isn’t discernible for the data.  

However, it will be interesting to consider the data for ‘ethnicity’ where London is one of the more diverse regions of England. This is because some London boroughs have low percentages of pupils on Free School Meals.

Does the funding of schools on a model of average salary funding model, with an additional London weighting in the National Funding Formula play any part in this data? For instance, does London employ more new teachers at below average salary rates.

Going forward, how will falling rolls affect the finances of schools in London and, hence, the possible rate of suspensions and exclusions in future years?

Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? Part 2

Earlier this week the DfE published the 2024-25 school-year data about temporary suspensions and permanent exclusions by schools. Release home – Suspensions and permanent exclusions in England – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

The good news is contained in the headlines:

The rate of suspensions in the 2024/25 academic year was 10.88 (equivalent to 1,088 suspensions for every 10,000 pupils). This is a decrease from 11.31 in 2023/24. There were 913,000 suspensions in 2024/25, a decrease of 4% from 955,000 in 2023/24.

The rate and number of permanent exclusions also decreased from 2023/24 to 2024/25

The rate of permanent exclusions in the 2024/25 academic year was 0.12 (equivalent to 12 permanent exclusions for every 10,000 pupils). This is a decrease from 0.13 in 2023/24. There were 9,900 permanent exclusions in 2024/25, a decrease of 9% from 10,900 in 2023/24.

As the data are per 10,000 pupils, the outcomes are not affected by falling pupil rolls. However, since falling pupil numbers have yet really impacted on the secondary school sector, where most pupils are excluded or suspended, I wouldn’t have expected falling rolls to have had an impact in 2024-25.

A more interesting questions is whether funding for schools plays any part in the ability of schools to retain pupils rather than suspend or exclude them. Answering this question is slightly more complex than it might be because not all schools may behave in the same manner. for instance, Oxfordshire, a county I know well, has a higher rate of temporary suspensions, where it ranked 83 worst out of 154 local authorities in the 2024-25 data, compared with a ranking of 11th best of the 154 authorities for permanent exclusions.

However, as I have shown before, London schools are well funded compared with schools outside the capital. Thus, without a deliberate local policy to try to reduce either exclusion and suspensions, or indeed both, by schools outside the capital, it might be expected that London local authorities might rank as authorities with the lowest percentages of exclusions and suspensions.

The data for the rankings of London authorities in both 2023-24 and 2024-25 are shown in the table.

NUMBER OF LONDON BOROUGHS IN THE TOP 35 RANKED LOCAL AUTHORITIES
SCHOOL YEAR PERM EXCLUSIONS TEMP SUSPENSIONS
202324 19 27
202425 16 28

The figures for both years are impressive, with 28 of the London boroughs in the top 35 local authorities for the lowest temporary suspension per 10,000 pupils. However, this is not a new trend. In a previous post last year, I wrote the following:

As ever, I am struck by the funding issue. London, the best funded part of England has some of the lowest rates for exclusion and suspensions. There are 17 London boroughs in the list of the 25 local authorities with the lowest rate of suspensions in 2023/24, and 19 in the similar list for secondary exclusions. In the list of ten local authorities with the highest rates of exclusion are five authorities in the North East. I think that there may be something in this data that needs further exploration, especially as I would expect teacher recruitment to be easier in the North East than in London. Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? | John Howson

Once again, in the latest data, local authorities  in the north East fare badly, with five in the ten lowest rankings for permanent exclusions, and six in the ten lowest rankings for temporary suspensions.

Many London schools also have the benefit of Teach First in addition to their DfE funding. Even though they have to pay towards the Teach First trainees, the extra support is possibly another reason why London schools perform so well on this measure.

I wonder whether this issue is a concern to our incoming Prime Minister in view of the rankings for some local authorities in the north West of England.

Can we make savings in our school system?

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 £sSpend
2158LEGAL
446ACCOUNTANCY
64PROF FEES
1569INSURANCE
1021GOVERNANCE
2211RAISING FUNDS
5196OTHER SUPPORT COSTS
14241OTHER COSTS
932EDUCATION 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.

Falling rolls in London: much worse than the rest of England

In my last post on this blog, I looked at the worsening of primary PTRs across much of the DfE’s ‘Inner London’ area. Falling Rolls: Is the funding formula making matters worse? | John Howson

This post looks how ‘Inner London boroughs have fare compared with the rest of England over those three years?

I think it is fair to say that London as a whole really has seen a significant downturn in primary pupil numbers. There are 22 local authorities where primary pupil numbers as published by the DfE have reduced by 5% or more between 2023/24 and 2025/26. Of these, 13 are London boroughs, and six – seven if Newham is included – are Inner London boroughs.

Seven of the top 10 places for the largest percentage decline in primary pupil numbers are filled by London boroughs. The other three places are taken by the Isle of Wight, Rutland and Torbay, three of the smallest unitary authorities in England.

Birmingham, Manchester and Leicester are the only large cities in the table. They fill three of the four bottom places for local authorities with a decline in pupil numbers of five per cent or more, along with Hillingdon in West London.

At the other end of the table, there are few London boroughs with less than a two per cent decline in their primary pupil populations.


London boroughs at this end of the table seem to be mostly outer London boroughs on the fringe of the metropolitan area. By contrast, there are seven county councils in the list of lowest declines in pupil numbers. This number increases to eight, if the Staffordshire figure, of an increase in pupil numbers, is correct.

The London boroughs will have the numbers in reception for each year, and will know how much worse the decline is likely to become over the next few years. More school closures look inevitable unless the funding model is changed to protect schools with declining rolls.

Not to protect the school estate in London is to assume that there will never be an upturn in pupil numbers. In cities, closing schools and selling off the site for housing means that in any upturn land may not be available for any new schools needed for the extra pupils. This is where thinking for the longer-term is important. During the last downturn of this size, most schools in London remained open, although some, such as Stamford Hill Infant and Junior School in Haringey, where I attended in the 1950s, did eventually close. Interestingly, the one form entry St Anne’s Church of England Primary School, close to Stamford Hill School that wasn’t actually in Stamford Hill, is still open.

However, this is not the post to discuss whether or not, in a more secular society, faith run schools should be closed where an alternative non-faith school can absorb the pupils. But this is an issue to debate, especially in urban areas.

In villages, the church-run school may still be the only school available, and that raises a much larger question about who should run state funded schooling? As the Wesleyan Methodists put it when faced by the 1902 Act, and decisions on whether to open state-funded secondary schools; are our teachers, teachers of children or teachers of Methodist children?