School closures: not just a private sector issue

Recent headlines have focused on the challenges facing private schools following the VAT increase and the cost of living crisis. But state-funded schools and trusts are grappling with similar questions, albeit for different reasons.

Factors as diverse as Brexit, falling birth rates and demographic shifts are driving difficult conversations about school viability. This is particularly acute for small rural primary schools, but a surprising number of urban settings are affected too. A cocktail of ageing buildings, limited funding and declining numbers on roll is forcing governors and trustees to look objectively at the future of the affected schools.

Closing a school should always be a last resort. However, failing to acknowledge it as an option that needs discussion is not a sign of healthy governance or challenge. Governors and trustees of academy trusts are responsible for the proper use of public funds, and a long-term strategy of subsidising small schools from money taken from others needs scrutiny. If no creative solution can be found, closure must be properly investigated.

For obvious reasons, school closure can’t be a knee-jerk reaction. The Department of Education (DfE) has issued guidance on the closure of academies by mutual agreement and this formalises a number of considerations that academy trusts must take into account as part of their decision-making.

These include reviewing alternatives to closure – such as academy transfer, amalgamation, reduction in PAN or reuse of premises for other purposes (including nursery or SEND provision). Trustees must also consider the impact closure would have on pupils (particularly those sitting exams) and, of course, the wider community. Parents and local stakeholders will inevitably hold strong views, which trustees need to address in a measured and compassionate way.

The DfE guidance also sets out a presumption against the closure of rural primary academies. This means any case for closure must be strong and clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area.

From a legal perspective, considerations often centre on redundancy costs, pension liabilities and staff redeployment. There may also be liabilities triggered by terminating leasehold arrangements, especially in terms of repairing obligations and other issues connected to ending the school’s funding agreement. It’s also important to note that when an academy closes, the general annual grant stops immediately, and academy trusts are expected to meet closure costs from existing reserves.

Where, having weighed up these factors, there are no viable alternatives to closure, the DfE guidance sets out a six-stage process:

1. Stage one: the academy trust engages with the relevant regional director (RD) and local authorities to consider closure as a solution
2. Stage two: if closure is considered the best option, the trust submits a formal written proposal to terminate the funding agreement by mutual agreement, including documentary evidence and an equality impact assessment
3. Stage three: the RD considers the proposal and makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to grant an in-principle agreement to closure. An academy can’t close by mutual agreement without this approval
4. Stage four: following an in-principle agreement, the academy trust develops detailed plans, including a communications and stakeholder plan, while the department carries out updated value-for-money and equality assessments
5. Stage five: the Secretary of State makes the substantive closure decision. The academy trust must then conduct a listening period of at least four weeks during term time, allowing stakeholders to receive information about the closure and share their views on how the process should be managed
6. Stage six: the Secretary of State considers the outcome of the listening period and, if satisfied, gives permission for the trust to announce and implement the closure plan. This includes pupil placements, asset disposal, redundancies and submission of final accounts.

Conclusion

School closures are never straightforward and can feel deeply personal for families, staff and communities. With shifting demographics and budgets under pressure, trusts are increasingly having to address sustainability head-on. The key is to approach any potential closure early and transparently, supported by a clear evidence base – testing alternatives, engaging stakeholders properly and planning carefully for pupils and staff.

Done well, even difficult decisions can be handled in a way that safeguards educational outcomes and maintains confidence in the trust’s wider stewardship.