Anandadeep Mandal (PhD) - Written Evidence on Falling Primary School Rolls – FPS0001

Table of Contents

1. Executive summary

2. Key statistical evidence

3. How demand is changing and expected to change

4. Causes of falling primary school rolls

5. Impacts of falling rolls

6. Implications for SEND and complex needs

7. Mitigation and responsibilities

8. Implications of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act and the white paper

9. Recommendations

10. Conclusion

References

1. Executive summary

This evidence argues that falling primary school rolls should be treated as a structural public services challenge, not merely as a school admissions issue. Demand is falling because fewer children are being born, earlier large birth cohorts have moved into secondary education, and some local areas, particularly high-cost urban areas, are losing families. The effect is visible in official national projections, local authority capacity returns, school budget pressures and rising SEND need.

The national picture is clear. The Department for Education projects that the state funded nursery and primary school population will fall from 4,505,000 pupils in 2025 to 4,205,000 in 2030, a reduction of 300,000 pupils or 6.7 per cent. The whole state funded school population is projected to fall from 7,899,000 pupils in 2025 to 7,504,000 in 2030, a reduction of 395,000 pupils or 5.0 per cent. This follows a fall of around 60,000 pupils across all school types in the January 2025 census.

The capacity picture shows why the issue is urgent. In 2024/25, England had 9.1 million state funded school places, including 5 million primary places and 4.1 million secondary places. There were 680,000 unfilled primary places, the highest number since the school capacity survey began in 2009/10. In May 2025, 86 per cent of primary schools, equivalent to 14,390 schools, had at least one unfilled place. Across primary and secondary schools combined, there were 1.2 million unfilled places, equal to 13 per cent of all available places.

The core policy problem is that income falls faster than cost. School funding is largely driven by pupil numbers, yet many costs are fixed or semi fixed: leadership, premises, safeguarding, insurance, utilities, SEND coordination, administration, and the need to maintain a viable class structure. A primary school that loses twenty pupils may lose more than £100,000 of formula related income, using the 2026/27 primary minimum per pupil level of £5,115, but may not be able to remove a class or reduce premises costs. This creates financial instability before there is any educational gain from smaller cohorts.

The danger is that falling rolls interact with rising need. In 2025, more than 1.7 million pupils in England had special educational needs, an increase of 93,700 pupils or 5.6 per cent since 2024. In primary schools, 18.2 per cent of pupils had either an education, health and care plan or SEN support, up from 17.1 per cent. Primary schools saw the largest increase in the number of pupils with education, health and care plans, with 21,000 additional pupils with plans since 2024. Therefore, fewer pupils does not mean fewer responsibilities.

2. Key statistical evidence

3. How demand is changing and expected to change

Demand for primary education is falling nationally and is expected to fall further through the rest of this decade. The DfE projection for nursery and primary schools is a decline of 300,000 pupils between 2025 and 2030. This equates to the loss of around ten thousand classes if one assumes thirty pupils per class. The DfE also projects that the under five full time equivalent population in state funded education will fall from 803,000 in 2025 to 771,000 in 2030, a reduction of 32,000 or 4.0 per cent. It also reports that the number of five year olds is now projected to decrease by 6.5 per cent between 2024 and 2028, compared with a 4.4 per cent decrease in the previous projection model.

The trend is linked directly to birth data. The Office for National Statistics recorded 585,396 live births in England and Wales in 2025, down from 594,677 in 2024. This is a fall of 9,281 births in one year. The provisional total fertility rate fell from 1.41 children per woman in 2024 to 1.39 in 2025. The standardised mean age of mothers rose to 31.1 years and fathers to 34.0 years in 2025. Later parenthood, lower fertility and high household costs now feed directly into reception class numbers.

The pattern is uneven. The National Audit Office found that demand for primary school places fell nationally by 3 per cent between 2018/19 and 2024/25 and is projected to fall by a further 7 per cent from 2025 to 2030. However, 16 per cent of local authorities saw increases in primary pupil numbers over the same period. Among local authorities forecasting falling primary numbers, 66 per cent still expected increases in one or more smaller local planning areas. This means national decline coexists with local growth. Policy must therefore avoid both crude national assumptions and purely school by school responses.

London demonstrates the local complexity. London Councils reports that demand for reception places across London is forecast to fall by 2.5 per cent between 2025/26 and 2029/30, while demand for Year 7 places is forecast to fall by 3.8 per cent. Inner London faces sharper falls, with reception demand expected to fall by 6.4 per cent and Year 7 demand by 7.6 per cent. London Councils also estimates that these changes could remove around £15 million from primary schools and £30 million from secondary schools over four years. Around 90 London schools have closed or merged in the last five years.

4. Causes of falling primary school rolls

The first cause is demographic. The school system expanded in response to earlier high birth cohorts, particularly the cohort born around 2012 and 2013. That cohort has now moved into secondary education. Fewer younger children are entering primary education behind it. Capacity that was sensible during a growth period can become surplus during decline.

The second cause is affordability and family movement. In many high cost urban areas, housing costs, private rents, childcare costs and insecurity for young households reduce family formation or push families away. London Councils identifies falling birth rates and the shortage of affordable housing as factors affecting applications. This means the geography of falling rolls is linked to housing policy, labour markets, transport, migration, local regeneration and family incomes.

The third cause is system design. Local authorities have the statutory duty to secure sufficient school places, but many schools are academies and therefore operate in a more complex governance structure. In January 2025, 46.1 per cent of primary schools were academies or free schools and these schools educated 47.3 per cent of primary pupils. In secondary education, 83.0 per cent of schools were academies or free schools. This fragmentation matters because adjusting published admission numbers, closing provision, merging schools or repurposing space requires cooperation between councils, maintained schools, academy trusts, dioceses and central government.

The fourth cause is the legacy of expansion. Since the school capacity survey began, there has been a net increase of 1.3 million state funded mainstream school places, made up of 730,000 primary places and 550,000 secondary places. Much of the primary expansion was needed when pupil numbers were rising. The challenge now is to manage the reverse cycle without damaging schools that remain essential to their communities.

5. Impacts of falling rolls

The most immediate impact is financial insufficiency. The 2026/27 schools operational guide sets a primary minimum per pupil level of £5,115. Pupil number loss therefore translates quickly into lower income. A loss of ten pupils implies around £51,150 less at the primary minimum per pupil level; twenty pupils implies around £102,300 less; and a one form entry school losing thirty pupils over a short period could face a formula related reduction of around £153,450 before considering other factors. These calculations are illustrative, but they show why schools can become financially vulnerable before any formal closure threshold is reached.

The National Audit Office provides the national scale. It estimated that 56,300 fewer primary pupils in 2027 could mean £288 million less in pupil based funding. It also warned that falling pupil numbers could affect pupils inequitably because financial challenges already disproportionately affect lower performing schools with higher shares of disadvantaged pupils. The DfE allocated just under £27 million through the falling rolls fund in 2025/26, which is modest when set against the estimated scale of funding loss.

The second impact is staffing instability. Where budgets fall, schools may reduce teaching assistants, pastoral workers, intervention tutors, office staff, lunchtime supervisors, enrichment activities and specialist support. These reductions may be invisible in national capacity data but very visible to families. In some cases, mixed age classes, larger classes in remaining year groups, leadership restructuring or reduced curriculum breadth may follow.

The third impact is community loss. A primary school is often a local civic asset. It identifies early need, supports attendance, protects children, brings families into contact with services, offers breakfast and wraparound provision, and anchors community identity. Closure may improve estate efficiency on paper, but it can increase travel time, weaken parental engagement and reduce access for children with mobility, SEND or safeguarding needs.

The fourth impact is inequity. Some schools lose pupils because families with more choice move away or choose other schools, leaving behind a smaller but more complex pupil body. A declining roll can therefore coincide with higher free school meal eligibility, more children with SEND, more children in temporary accommodation, higher mobility and greater safeguarding pressure. In January 2025, 25.7 per cent of pupils were eligible for free school meals, representing almost 2.2 million pupils. Pupils with SEN were also more likely to be eligible: 43.8 per cent of pupils with an EHC plan and 39.3 per cent of pupils with SEN support were eligible for free school meals, compared with 22.2 per cent of pupils without SEN.

6. Implications for SEND and complex needs

The SEND implications are central. Fewer primary pupils should not be interpreted as lower educational demand. Need is rising while rolls are falling. In 2025, 5.3 per cent of pupils had an EHC plan, up from 4.8 per cent in 2024, and 14.2 per cent had SEN support, up from 13.6 per cent. The total number of pupils with SEN rose by 93,700 in one year.

EHC plan data indicate pressure across the system. In January 2025, 638,700 children and young people had an active EHC plan, 10.8 per cent higher than in January 2024. During 2024, local authorities received 154,489 requests for an EHC needs assessment, 11.8 per cent higher than in 2023, and carried out 105,340 assessments. Only 46.4 per cent of new EHC plans were issued within the twenty week statutory timeframe, down from 50.3 per cent in 2023.

Spare primary space should therefore be seen as potential inclusion infrastructure. With the right funding, it could support resource bases, speech and language provision, sensory rooms, nurture groups, family support, early intervention, mental health support, small group teaching and specialist outreach. Without funding, it becomes an unfunded overhead and may prompt cuts precisely where children need additional support.

7. Mitigation and responsibilities

The first requirement is a national falling rolls strategy. The NAO concluded that the DfE has not taken timely action to set out how it will support the sector to respond to falling pupil numbers. A national strategy should define acceptable spare capacity, identify when intervention is necessary, protect educational outcomes, and ensure that the estate is used for public value rather than assessed only by occupancy.

The second requirement is stronger local place planning. Councils need the power and data to coordinate maintained schools, academies, trusts, faith bodies and other providers. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is important because it includes provisions on school places and admissions and creates a stronger expectation that councils and schools work together on place planning. The Act also gives councils the opportunity to open all types of school, not only academies, where this meets local need. These reforms should help, but they require clear guidance, transparent processes and timely data.

The third requirement is better funding design. Falling rolls funding is too limited if it only addresses temporary dips or short term gaps. The DfE should create a transition fund that supports planned restructuring, federations, mergers, nursery expansion, SEND provision, community service integration and estate repurposing. Funding should be linked to a published local plan, not to isolated institutional rescue.

The fourth requirement is a child impact test before any closure or merger. The test should examine travel time, sibling placement, SEND accessibility, deprivation, safeguarding, faith provision, rurality, language need, childcare, breakfast clubs, transport and community use. The test should also consider whether a school with falling rolls is serving children whose needs are rising.

The fifth requirement is better data sharing. The DfE, local authorities and trusts should use a common dashboard combining births, housing development, school capacity, admissions, in year mobility, free school meal eligibility, SEND demand, EHC plans, financial risk, transport times and estate condition. This would allow earlier planning rather than crisis management when deficits or closures become unavoidable.

8. Implications of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act and the white paper

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act and the white paper Every Child Achieving and Thriving should be read together with falling rolls. The Act seeks stronger cooperation on admissions and place planning. The white paper sets out a vision for schools and SEND reform, including broader school experience, inclusion for children who have been sidelined, and stronger engagement between children, families and schools.

The opportunity is that falling rolls could make inclusion more achievable if spare capacity is repurposed intelligently. Smaller cohorts, unused rooms and declining reception demand could be used to strengthen mainstream SEND support, early years, speech and language support, family hubs and mental health provision. The risk is that the same schools lose the income needed to deliver this ambition. Without transition funding, the policy ambition of inclusion may collide with the financial reality of lower pupil numbers.

The Act may also increase operational expectations on schools, including breakfast club provision, curriculum consistency, school food standards for academies and stronger admissions cooperation. These aims are positive, but implementation must recognise that many schools facing falling rolls are already managing rising SEND complexity, staff costs, estate costs and community expectations. Financial sufficiency should therefore be judged against need and function, not only against pupil numbers.

9. Recommendations

The following actions would help Government and the education sector manage falling demand while protecting children and public value:

1. Publish a national falling rolls strategy by 2027, linked to the education estate strategy, SEND reform and school funding reform.
2. Introduce a transition fund for schools in areas with sustained falling rolls, with eligibility based on financial risk, deprivation, SEND demand, rurality, community value and local reorganisation plans.
3. Strengthen local authority powers to coordinate place planning across maintained schools, academies, trusts and faith bodies, with clear routes for resolving disagreement over published admission numbers.
4. Require local areas with sustained surplus primary capacity to publish a place planning and inclusion plan covering three, five and ten year scenarios.
5. Use spare primary capacity before closure is considered, including for nurseries, SEND resource bases, speech and language provision, family hubs, mental health support, wraparound care and community services.
6. Make all closure, merger and significant admission number decisions subject to a child impact test, a SEND impact test and a community impact test.
7. Ensure school funding recognises fixed costs and complexity of need, not only pupil count.
8. Protect small rural schools and high need urban schools from mechanical decisions based only on occupancy levels.
9. Create a national place planning dashboard using ONS births, DfE projections, SCAP capacity data, admissions data, SEND data, housing data, mobility data and school finance data.
10. Evaluate whether falling rolls can support smaller class sizes or more intensive support where this improves outcomes and represents good public value.

10. Conclusion

Falling primary school rolls are predictable, but the consequences are not fixed. If policy treats surplus places only as inefficiency, England risks school closures, staffing cuts, weakened SEND inclusion, reduced community infrastructure and greater inequality. If policy treats spare capacity as a public asset, demographic decline can support a better system: smaller groups where needed, earlier intervention, inclusive mainstream provision, stronger family support and more resilient local planning.

The Committee should therefore urge Government to move beyond short term falling rolls funding and develop a coherent national response. The test should be simple: every decision about spare places should protect children’s learning, safeguard inclusion, support communities and deliver long term value for money. Falling rolls are not only a problem of empty desks. They are a test of whether the education system can adapt fairly to demographic change while keeping the needs of children at its centre.

References

Department for Education. 2025a. National pupil projections: July 2025. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/national-pupil-projections/2025 Accessed 30 May 2026.

Department for Education. 2025b. Education, health and care plans: England 2025. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/education-health-and-care-plans/2025 Accessed 30 May 2026.

Department for Education. 2025c. Schools, pupils and their characteristics: academic year 2024/25. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics/2024-25 Accessed 30 May 2026.

Department for Education. 2026a. School capacity in England: academic year 2024 to 2025. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-capacity/2024-25 Accessed 30 May 2026.

Department for Education. 2026b. Special educational needs in England: academic year 2024/25. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england/2024-25 Accessed 30 May 2026.

Department for Education. 2026c. Schools operational guide: 2026 to 2027. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pre-16-schools-funding-local-authority-guidance-for-2026-to-2027/schools-operational-guide-2026-to-2027 Accessed 30 May 2026.

Department for Education. 2026d. Every Child Achieving and Thriving. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/every-child-achieving-and-thriving Accessed 30 May 2026.

House of Lords Public Services Select Committee. 2026. Falling Primary School Rolls: call for evidence. London: UK Parliament. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9788/falling-primary-school-rolls Accessed 30 May 2026.

London Councils. 2026. Sharp decline in London pupil numbers puts school standards at risk. London: London Councils. Available at: https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2026/sharp-decline-london-pupil-numbers-puts-school-standards-risk Accessed 30 May 2026.

National Audit Office. 2026. Responding to changing demand for school places. London: National Audit Office. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/responding-to-changing-demand-for-school-places/ Accessed 30 May 2026.

Office for National Statistics. 2026. Births in England and Wales: 2025. Newport: Office for National Statistics. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2025 Accessed 30 May 2026.

UK Parliament. 2026. Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/21/contents/enacted Accessed 30 May 2026.

30 May 2026

Page 9