The primary school offer day has emerged as a poignant occasion in numerous communities. While relieved parents exhale with satisfaction upon enrolling their children in their preferred school, the likelihood of success has grown as reception applications have notably diminished. A combination of declining birth rates and the cost-of-living crisis, which is pushing families away from pricier urban areas like London, has led to a decrease in primary school applications. Consequently, less popular schools are struggling, while those in higher demand are quickly filling their vacancies.
In London, home to some of the highest-performing schools in the nation (with 96% rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted), there has been a 2.1% drop in applications for reception slots this year. This trend raises concerns as it marks a continuation of a downward trajectory. On Wednesday, close to 88% of applicants secured their first-choice school, a notable increase from 81.1% in 2014, the year record-keeping began.
A more striking example of this issue is observed in North East Lincolnshire, where every applicant was able to obtain a place at their preferred school. The council’s somewhat astonished announcement of this development highlights its unprecedented nature, reflecting the severity of the situation.
In the capital, declining interest has led to the closure or merging of schools despite initiatives by parents and educators striving to keep them operational.
This crisis is not confined to urban settings. In rural regions, primary schools often serve as the focal point of community activities—supporting summer events, after-school programs, charitable efforts, and casual exchanges at the school gate. Thus, school closures are having a profoundly negative effect. For instance, North Yorkshire, which boasts the highest number of rural schools in England, has shuttered 34 primary schools since 2018—the most in the country during that period.
The closures due to dwindling enrolment and subsequent financial pressures represent a significant setback for families and result in job losses for school staff, including meal supervisors, caretakers, and educators.
As student numbers continue to decline, school funding has diminished in real terms. The Department for Education (DfE) noted that funding for mainstream schools increased by about 7.1% last fiscal year; however, the DfE concurrently indicated that actual school costs have risen by 7.7%. In a disheartening conclusion, the DfE admitted that this creates a deficit of £250 million—less than what is needed to properly operate our schools.
Since the onset of austerity under the current government, headteachers have been compelled to make challenging decisions: should they cut teaching staff or diminish crucial support services for students with additional needs to stretch their already limited resources further? These reductions occur at a time when the demand for mental health support for children is unprecedented, persistent absenteeism is at an all-time high, and the need for education, health, and care plans has surged by as much as 50% in some local councils over the past year.
Despite the government’s unwillingness to eliminate the two-child benefit cap, it claims to be on a “mission” to dismantle barriers to opportunity for every child. It promises to diligently work towards achieving sustained improvements in educational outcomes and nurturing essential life skills in young people. However, these reassurances ring hollow without the essential funding required to realize such ambitions. Even the DfE has conceded that schools will struggle to meet the 2.8% pay increase offered to teachers without resorting to what it euphemistically calls “efficiencies.” After years of budget cuts, the notion that there is surplus funding left to trim is questionable.
The government could consider the suggestion made by Geoff Barton, the former general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL). At last year’s ASCL conference, Barton noted that “population estimates predict a decline of half a million students in England’s schools over the coming five years.” While this could be seen as a significant financial saving, he argued instead that it presents a “golden opportunity” to fortify the education system sustainably.
If perceived as a chance to reinvest in our underfunded educational facilities, this demographic shift could allow for increased per-pupil funding and additional resources for schools to enhance educational access for disadvantaged students. Barton emphasizes that this approach would yield substantial benefits without requiring a significant increase in expenditure. It remains to be seen if the current government will align fiscal responsibility with its expressed commitment to social equity.
Our educational landscape cannot endure more austerity measures, and declining enrollment should not prompt further reductions in funding for our children. The government must recognize that a transforming society demands a reimagined strategy for a sustainable education system. Reinvesting in our youth should be a straightforward decision. They deserve it.
Lola Okolosie is an educator and author.
