Tag Archives: local government

Growing up in England: The Children’s Commissioner’s Report

Posted on by
Reply

The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, has issued a comprehensive report on growing up in England. ‘The Childhood Lottery: The hardest places to grow up in England’ The Childhood Lottery: The hardest places to grow up in England | Children’s Commissioner for England The data comes from matrixes across the Commissioner’s six pillar of work

Health: health services and outcomes

Care: social care and outcomes

Community; policing, youth justice and services available to children in l where they live

Education: jobs and skills: schools and  post-16 plus educational outcomes

Family: housing, play , poverty and family life

Better world: the environment, children’s voices and citizenship

The data are for the 150+ upper-tier authorities, so London boroughs, metropolitan districts, unitary councils and the remaining shire counties. As a result, the authorities range in size from Rutland to Lancashire and Kent. Some areas are more homogenous than others: some are contiguous with health, police and other non-local government functions, while others are part of larger organisation for policing and health with policies set outside the local authority areas. Some functions are split between upper and lower tier authorities, such as housing and recreation facilities.

Despite these issues, that in some cases make the average for the authority not reflective of its different parts, and highlight some of the issues with dashboards, discussed in a recent post on this blog. Are dashboards useful? | John Howson this is a powerful report bringing together lots of useful data.

There are dangers here. Oxfordshire is ranked equal 11th with York, and the fourth best county to grow up in England. But, tomorrow, I will be at a workshop , initiated by an Oxfordshire-based multi-academy trust, aiming to improve the lives of children in the most challenging part of the county’s urban landscape. (The report classifies Oxfordshire as rural). The issues in this area would have been highlighted if district councils had been used as the data point instead of upper-tier authorities. Parliamentary constituencies, where most of this data is probably kept somewhere for MPs questions, might have been an even better and more equal frame of reference, allowing different between both Tottenham and Highgate within Haringey to have been judged separately.

Rural areas may also have a bit of a raw deal: you can’t count bus data where there are no buses. The data on childcare placement more than 20 miles from their home doesn’t discount kinship care that might be valuable, but not local in a large rural county.

However, it is easy to carp, and one cannot but praise the efforts of the Children’s Commissioner. The survey may also reveal how weakened local government has become. Take youth justice: how many councillors attend local committees to discuss approaches to this vital topic. Do cabinet members for Children’s Services even know that they often have this responsibility?

I was fortunate, when a Cabinet member, to have both a Director of Children’s Services and a Youth Justice lead that kept me informed, and allowed me to understand the importance of this area. On the other hand, the Health and Wellbeing Board was a challenge for me, as it covered so many different areas, and children’s health didn’t have a sub-committee. The fact that Oxfordshire is a Marmot County had nothing to do with me as a cabinet member for children’s services.

There are messages for politicians at all levels in this report, not only about childhood, but also into young adulthood. Sadly, many adults face the same problems, and solving those issues might also help future generations of children and young people growing up in a divided England.

Can the government afford to reorganise local government?

Posted on by
Reply

Is local government reform dead in the water? Plans for major overhaul of councils halted – BBC News Council officials that have spent the summer putting in place arrangements for new shadow council elections next May, will either be delighted or annoyed at the waste of precious resources or upset that the changes have been delayed.

The government cites new legal advice. I assume this means that they have been told that they would lose any Judicial Review of the process to reach the current stage of reorganisation.

I wonder whether the Treasury has taken a look at the proposals and said that the changes wouldn’t save money, and might cost more to operate the same services. Take Oxfordshire, where the proposals were for three unitary councils, each with a director of Children’s Services, at an extra cost of perhaps £300,000 plus on-costs for three Directors compared to the current one for the county. Multiply that by 17 councils, and that’s probably £3mn just for Children’s Services. Add just five new directors for other services that cannot be absorbed into the role of existing district council officer’s jobs, and the bill start to look very much like an expensive exercise. This is even before you add in the cost of Mayors for most of these areas.

So, what looks like a good example of poorly planned reorganisation of councils, is starting to look like an expensive waste of money. Hard luck on Surrey, whether the former county has already been split into two unitary councils, just as happened to Northamptonshire after the former county ran into financial trouble.

I cannot say that I am sorry for the pause, and will also not be sorry if reorganisation is kicked into the long grass, as I am not sorry. The prospect of funding fin Children’s services for areas with high needs for both SEND and children in care, being funded in the future only by a small number of council tax payers rather than spreading the cost over a wider area, as at present, was a frightening prospect.

Unless the current pause is short-lived, and that seems unlikely if the process was flawed, then even 2028 for a restart of shadow elections looks like a remote possibility.

Sorting out the relationship between councils and academies is a much bigger priority for me than shifting the arrangements for school admissions and other functions between existing and new councils.

I guess some officers may be looking at promotion opportunities disappearing, but I also guess councillors in Rutland, the smallest county, will be overjoyed, as may be those councillors nearer home in West Berkshire, as they may well be able to remain as a separate unitary council rather than being swallowed up into the new Ridgeway Council.

However, everyone will really want an outcome decided, as a pause is in nobody’s interest, whatever their outcome might be.

Tell me the old, old story: the working class and schools

Posted on by
2

With the publication later today of the Star Academy Trust commissioned report into outcomes for ‘white working-class boys’, I thought I would look at what I posted when the inquiry was announced last year. Class matters more than ethnicity | John Howson

“However, I cannot help thinking that the focus of the inquiry is wrong. All the evidence suggests that of the three factors of race, gender and class, it is the third one that really matters. Yes, they are often inter-related, but looking at socio-economic data, it is often schools in deprived areas, regardless of the ethnicity of their pupils that fare less well in school performance table.”

Way back in 1982, nearly 50 years ago, I used some evidence from a book published in 1926 by Kenneth Lindsay, and entitled ‘Social Progress and Educational Waste’ about the wide variations in the percentages of children obtaining secondary education – not mandatory for all until 19944 – to discuss differences in provision for schooling across England. (Variations in Local Authority Provision of Education Oxford Review of education, Volume 8, Number 2, 1982). Lindsay, in his book, found one school in Lewisham that won as many scholarships to secondary school as the whole inner city area of Bermondsey out together.’ Differences in education by social class were commonplace.

In the 1960s, The Plowden Report into primary education found that ‘the boroughs in which expenditure [on schooling] was generally low were very much the same in 1960-61 as they were in 1950-51.’ Later that decade another report Half our Future looked at the children leaving school at 15. I celebrated its 50th anniversary with this blog post Half Our Future: A tribute | John Howson both Reports revealed the differences in outcomes for different social classes and how those gaps might be reduced.

Finally, in terms of evidence of the different education outcomes for different groups in society, it is worth reading the Oxfordshire County Council report to Education Scrutiny Committee of 16th October 2014 ESC_OCT1614R05 Educational Attainment of White Working Class Boys.pdf

So, don’t expect anything new, today, but I would like this report to be linked to the speech by Andy Burnham, also to be given today that should speak about the importance of ‘place’ and devolution in our society.  

Both Lindsay and Plowden wrote when schooling was a devolved activity, sometime described, at the time, as ‘a local service nationally administered’. Since then, the administration of schooling has become more site -based with schools operating their own budgets, but more nationally controlled from Westminster. This shift in ‘place’ doesn’t seem to have done much for the educational achievements of white working-class boys.

So, will a shift back to more local or regional decision-making move on the dial for outcomes? Much, I think depends on the interplay of the 4 ‘P’s of Education power

Parents

Premises

People

Purpose

And how they operate together.

The Conservatives, after the 2010 general election had ideas, but they didn’t work for those not wanting to go on to high education. Interestingly, although academies were free from following the National Curriculum, few looked at whether it was appropriate as a curriculum for their communities.

However, what is common to all places is the vital need to engage with effective early learning. If all young people achieve successful early in life, then, with the building blocks firmly in place, more can be achieved later. Fail early, fail often in schooling, and with failure comes disillusion and a lack of engagement.  

So, let’s continue the battle to achieve success in education for all, but it won’t be easy, and will need a view of ‘place’ that incorporates local, regional and national policy-making that supports communities and their schools.

So where does parental choice fit into this model of support? More importantly, where does a selective secondary school system fit into the thinking about the issued raised in today’s report?

“

Falling rolls: Are school closures inevitable?

Posted on by
Reply

The past month has seen a number of posts on this blog about falling school rolls, and what the impact of pupil-led funding formula might mean for schools.  Now that the DfE has published the data around admissions to schools for September 2026 and the 2026/27 school-year, it is possible to look at the latest trends. Primary and secondary school applications and offers: 2026 – GOV.UK

Thanks for the doctrine of parental choice, pupils may attend a school in a borough other than the one where they actually live, but most primary age pupils will probably attend their nearest school. Exceptions are around faith schools, where the nearest school may be in an adjacent borough. This is more of an issue for the secondary sector than for the primary school sector.

Although Inner London boroughs do feature more amongst the boroughs with the largest decline in applications between 2019/20 and 2026/27 school-years, although four London outer London boroughs are to be found in the top ten boroughs with the largest percentage decline in applications. These four include three boroughs in South London.

Despite the presence of Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames near the top of the table, boroughs on the outer edge of the capital are more likely to be found towards the foot of the table, with smaller falls in the number of applications over the time period.

It is easy to see from this data why primary schools across London are closing or amalgamating. Indeed, the pressure for further rationalisation of the school estate across the capital is likely to be intense in the next few years. How that pressure is handled will determine the careers of many staff, both teaching and non-teaching, and the fate of pupils.

I wrote a play to demonstrate some of the issue facing staff and parents list year – see (1) Post | Feed | LinkedIn if you are interested.

One of the features of the play is that not all schools are facing the same degree of hardship from falling rolls. To follow up on this point, I looked at two measures for pupil numbers and school capacity primary schools – including separate infant and junior schools – in one outer London borough.

The DfE website information on schools for the borough shows five schools where the roll exceeds the school capacity. However, a more detailed look at capacity and numbers using a different part of the DfE website reveals a more widespread issue in the borough.

I wonder whether the basic information on capacity is actually the capacity based upon the admission number policy and the other on the actual building capacity?

The table for the second indicator reads as below

The data might suggest that some schools are educating children in temporary buildings, assuming the DfE’s data on capacity are up to date. However, if the numbers are correct, then nearly half the schools already have significant spare capacity, and the situation may only become worse.

The key question for both local and national politicians arising from this data, if it is correct, are, ‘Do we let the market solve the problem of falling rolls or do we intervene and manage the capacity in a manner that is best suited to numbers over the next decade?’

Those historians of education that have studied policy decisions will know what happened in the 1970s and early 1980s, a period when there was the last large-scale downturn in pupil numbers. How officers and politicians in Haringey tried to tackle the issue in the late 1970s is an interesting and cautionary tale.

Can we make savings in our school system?

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
1

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?

Falling Rolls: Is the funding formula making matters worse?

Posted on by
5

There has been a lot of discussion recently about falling school rolls in the primary school sector in London. This discussion led me to wonder whether a funding formula that is heavily weighted to a per pupil funding model might mean schools with falling rolls would have to adapt to a decrease in their income.

One possible outcome of less funding could be a worsening of pupil teacher ratios if individual support for pupils with SEND is cut, and also whole classes are amalgamated. My thesis is that Inner London boroughs might be witnessing the worst of the falling rolls problem, partly because they are boroughs with little room for new housing to be built, but also because inner cities have traditionally been the home of new arrivals to a country. Post Brexit, many European families from countries such as Poland and Romania may also have chosen to return home, taking their children with them.

With the release last week of the school workforce data for 2025/26, by the DfE, it is possible to review the pupil teacher ratios (PTRs) for each borough for the three-year period from 2023/24 to 2025/26.

Of the boroughs in London, including the City of London, 11 boroughs improved their primary PTRs between 2023/24 and 2025/26. All but one, Camden, were Outer London boroughs. All the other Inner London boroughs recorded a worsening of their primary PTRS over the three- year period.

In the case of Kensington and Chelesea, albeit a small borough, the change was from 17.2 to 19.1 pupils per teacher over the three years: a decline of some 10%. This is a relatively large change for such a short period of time.

Seven Outer London boroughs also recorded a worsening of their primary PTRs over the same period. Of these boroughs, two, Newham and Greenwich have been classified as Inner London boroughs at sometime in the past.

Apart from the City of London, the boroughs with most improved PTRs are on the edge of London – Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Barnet, Croydon and Bromley.

The data in the table does suggest that falling rolls have been accompanied by a worsening of PTRs. Might this be caused in part by the construction of the National Funding formula that is heavily weighted towards a per pupil element? Reduced funding is certainly likely to impact upon class sizes and the use of teachers with small groups. Increasing class sizes and cutting individual teacher support for vulnerable learners is likely to impact upon a school’s PTR. If the reduction in pupil number sis widespread across a borough, then the impact will be seen in the PTRS for all primary schools in the borough.

I think that there is a case to be made that falling rolls are worsening PTRs for the remaining pupils across much of Inner London.

For a longer-term analysis of PTRS in London, and how over time they have been better than in most of England see  (1) (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

School funding: MATs and local government reorganisation

Posted on by
Reply

One interesting anomaly thrown up by the division of the 1974 shire counties into more and smaller unitary authorities, is how schools funds will be handled following the break-up of the former county councils. Local government functions around education were an upper tier authority responsibility under the 1974 local government reforms. Some county boroughs and towns that lost control over schooling in 1974, including Oxford City, where I live, never accepted this loss of responsibility, and are looking forward to becoming an upper tier authority once again, this time as a unitary council – effectively a county borough under a new designation.

Much has changed in the governance of schooling since 1974, and local authorities, despite winning a small but important battle over control of in-year admissions in Clause 52 of the recently passed Act of Parliament, have far less direct involvement in schooling than in the past, and certainly than in 1974.

One interesting issue in terms of loss of control over schools is encapsulated in the supplementary question set out below. I asked the question in September 2018 to the then Conservative Cabinet member on Oxfordshire County Council.

Councillor Howson had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Member of Children’s Services

“Could you list the revenue balances for all maintained primary schools in Oxfordshire at the end of the 2017/8 financial year and show what percentage of revenue income the balance represents and how the percentage has changed since the end of the previous financial year, as well as the latest available number of pupils on the school roll?”

The Cabinet Member replied:

“Please find below the information required for all maintained primary schools in Oxford. This list includes the primary schools maintained as at 31 March 2018 and the data used for the number on roll is at October 2017.”

Supplementary:  Lord Agnew, the Minister of State told Auditors of Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) and committees that they may approve the virements of cash between schools in a Multi Academy Trust or a Multi Academy Committee.  Is the Cabinet Member prepared to ask Multi Academy Trusts or Committees in Oxfordshire not to take money from one school to support another and especially with those Multi Academy Trusts with Headquarters outside Oxfordshire, not to transfer money away from any school in Oxfordshire because we have been a member of the F40 Group and it would be unfair if money was taken from a school in Oxfordshire to support a school in a much better funded part of the Country.  If MATs won’t agree with this, would the Cabinet Member be prepared to write to the Secretary of State, asking for the same virements arrangements that are available to schools in MATs to be available to the State schools and stand-alone academies.”

The Cabinet member responded that she would be very happy to support that as Oxfordshire money should be for Oxfordshire Schools and anything she could do to support that she would be happy to undertake.

Why is this important? Take the example of Surrey County Council, now divided into two unitary councils: East and West Surrey. I guess that some MATs will have schools in both of the new council areas. Under existing rules, even if funding factors are different between schools in the two new authorities, even allowing for similar basic funding under the National Funding Formula for schools, the MATs can move resources between the different authorities.

Such movement is not possible for non-academy schools, even within a council area, let alone between areas. Ther e might not be much difference in surrey, but compare two secondary schools – one in say, in Henley in east Oxfordshire, firmly part of the South East region, and another secondary school in say, Swindon, in the South West region. Both are in the same MAT. Should funds be allowed to be switched between these schools by the MAT? (Note: this is a hypothetical example to illustrate the point)

It has become more of a challenge to understand whether academy trusts do move funds between schools because of the increasing use of pooled reserves in MAT accounts, as opposed to individual school balances, the purpose of my original question way back in 2018.

Local authorities may now be able to create an academy trust and encourage – it cannot seemingly compel – the maintained schools to join the new trust. One wonders why schools would do so if there was a risk of losing complete control over their budgets?

This issue about control over school funds is yet another example of a schooling system lacking coherence and vision, and a government that has missed a great opportunity to demonstrate that it understands the need for coherent and rational planning for the school system as a whole.

The NHS, centrally controlled since 1948 is currently undergoing yet another reorganisation to save money, and improve its effectiveness. I fear the school system in England will end up in the same mess of piecemeal reorganisations if there is not both adequate local oversight and a rationale operational model.

Will teachers vote to take industrial action?

Posted on by
1

The BBC are running a story that suggests a teacher association: the NEU will ask its members about whether they support industrial action that could, presumably, include striking and closing schools? Teachers in England move towards striking over pay – BBC News

My guess is that their members will vote for action: at least in the secondary schools. Whether the larger number of NEU members in primary schools will do so, might be more uncertain. Here’s a link to an early post of this blog, way back from February 2013 February | 2013 | John Howson about what happened then.

Now, we live in different times: a Labour government; many years of pay freezes and pay rises below those in the private sector, but two relatively generous recent settlements, and the possibility of a three-year deal in even more challenging times.

Now factor in, falling rolls leading to job uncertainty in many primary schools, better recruitment to lower targets for new teachers, the need for increased spending on defence and welfare, and an electorate that will judge the government on the length of NHS waiting lists rather than what happens in schools, and the balance between expressing concerns by voting for industrial action, and actually taking action sometime in the autumn, is as the saying goes, a ‘whole different kettle of fish’.

My bet is, shake the big stick now, but think carefully about strike action in the autumn. Or perhaps persuade the government to tweak the pay offer, when it comes from the pay review body, so that both sides can claim victory.

It is interesting that this story is running 100 years after the only real General Strike in British history. This is an anniversary that, unlike Sir David Attenborough’s century, has been largely ignored by the media. I guess nobody wanted to drag it up during a period of local and state elections across the United(!) Kingdom.

One interesting fact from Thursday, is that Labour lost control of Haringey Council. They did so in the 1968 local government debacle. In that period of two-party politics, to the Conservatives. This time the outcome is more complicated. In 1968, the year of revolutions across Europe, Labour in government didn’t sack the Prime minister. Indeed, Harold Wilson led the Party into the 1970 general elections: a much closer race than the 1968 results might have predicted.

The Haringey result is interesting to me, as it meant that in 1971, I started work as a teacher in Tottenham under a Conservative administration. I don’t recall much changing when, in 1972, Labour regained control of the borough. Now the remainder of that decade was a turbulent time in British politics and not only the teachers, but also non-teaching staff. They took industrial action, leading eventually during the ‘Winter of discontent’ in 1979, to all Haringey’s schools being closed, not by the teachers, but by the caretakers going on strike. The Labour administration did not expect anyone, even church schools, to try and break that strike.  These days, with the internet, and remote schooling commonplace, such an outcome in terms of teaching and learning might be much less likely.

For a discussion of the effects in 1979 see my posts from 2020  March | 2020 | John Howson COVID-19 PM’s Suez? | John Howson and The State cannot just abandon children | John Howson and especially from February 2020 Closing schools, but not stopping education | John Howson

School Transport- who pays for diesel’s price increases?

Posted on by
Reply

Since the start of the conflict in the Middle East, the price of diesel at the pumps has increased from around £1.42 – the average price before the conflict – to £1.90 at the start of May What is happening to UK fuel and petrol prices? – BBC News By comparison, at the height of the concerns over the Ukraine conflict, the price of diesel peaked at just under £2 per litre.

So, could the pump price charged for diesel fuel in 2026 go even higher than the price witnessed in 2022? As I write this, on the 3rd May 2026, it seems quite possible, and even probably that this will be the case: hopefully, I am proved wrong.

The increase in the price of fuel, the rise in the minimum wage, and other cost pressures due to inflation still being above the Bank of England’s target figure of 2%, will be bad news for those local authorities with significant transport bill for conveying pupils to and from schools, either for SEND or because their pupils live in rural areas beyond the two or three mile distance, historically seen as the distance where it is reasonable for parents to pay to ensure children attend their nearest school.  

Although fuel costs are not as high a proportion of total transport costs as are wages, an increase of a third in fuel prices is going to have an impact on transport contracts being negotiated for the new school year starting in September 2026.

A council with a £40 million education transport bill, not unreasonable for a large rural shire county, might see a 5-10% extra charge. This translated to £2-4 million extra across a council’s financial year, and likely even more across a school-year if prices continue to rise further.

 The risk is that some operators might well collapse under the price increase, especially if they are in fixed price contracts with a local authority, leaving a seller’s market, as operators will know that pupils must be transported to school.  Could this outcome drive prices even higher?

How will local authorities cope with these prices increases? Those with reserves, will draw on them until the next round of council tax rate setting in February 2027. However, many local authorities don’t have large reserves, and with local government reorganisation looming for the rural areas, running up a deficit may not be possible.

What remains is either cuts to other services or a government bailout to cover the extra cost of fuel. With social care, and adult social care especially, taking the lion’s share of the budgets of rural counties, there may be few services where cuts are possible, especially since adult social care can involve its own significant fuel costs associated with ‘care in the community’.  

Protecting services such as the youth service and the funding for under-fives could be at risk if local authorities have to bear the brunt of transport related cost increases, especially since the war started just at the wrong time for local government financing, when budgets for 2026-27 were already finalised.

With so many different political parties now in charge, it will be interesting to see how they approach this problem, and who is asked to take the consequences.