Falling pupil numbers into the next decade: impacts, thoughts?

[greenteafiend]

(Apologies if there is already a thread about this)

The number of births in the UK seems to be on a gentle decline which started from about 2009 (as the financial crisis hit) and never really recovered. I think this is likely to continue, as all the trends causing people to reduce/delay kids seem to be ongoing, and immigrants increasingly seem to adopt similar fertility patterns to locals quite quickly these days (as opposed to a couple of decades ago, when foreign-born mothers seemed to have a lot more kids than local-born mothers). We've just had a "bulge year" for secondary intake, but it's likely that secondary numbers will start to go down quite soon.

There is no dramatic falloff across the whole of the UK, but I am guessing that the fall will be uneven, with some areas seeing steady or slightly-increasing numbers of kids entering school, while a few areas see significant falls.

I'm wondering what people in some areas are starting to see already, and what impacts this could potentially have in term of school choice, funding, the level of demand for private or selective schools, and possibly even mergers/closures in certain areas.

No! But you have to assume most will be. If we are an aging population we certainly will have more issues.

@TizerorFizz but my understanding is that the majority (from a monetary point of view) are not net contributors. So looking at funding for NHS/schools etc a larger population isn’t probably going to help.

I'm in London where it's quite marked in some boroughs, I moved slightly out & I think it will create more inequality with the desirable schools becoming even more desired & the ok ones struggling to get numbers, less money, slow decline etc.

Lots of people don't seem aware though or understand the problems of the demographic shift.

There are five primaries in the local market town, three of which were 2 form entry and the other two were 1 form entry. Two used to be over subscribed, two others were always full even if they were second choice for some and then the final school sometimes has a couple of places.
This has changed completely. All of the schools have spaces in reception with the least popular school and two of the two form entry schools having more than 10 spaces spare. That's an entire class. The sensible thing would be to close one class at one school but no one wants to be the one to do that as it spreads unease, the DC who would have gone to your school have siblings who are still at the original school but do you move the older sibling to the new school as well and therefore create more problems for the school where one class has closed? As that discussion isn't being had, all of the schools are feeling the pinch. Considering how much of a state school budget these days is taken up on salaries and utilities which remain the same unless there are 0 children in a class, these empty seats means that there is no budget. It also affects the school community. It used to be that you got your eldest into a primary and you stayed there until your last one left as there was no space anywhere else. Now, you can move children easily and the nee school will be promising the moon on a stick so it is all much more transient

@toomuchlaundry If you can get productivity up and dc train for the jobs we need, they will contribute. If that number is too low, we fail on two fronts. Insufficient tax income and too many people relying on it. We have the latter so need to try and boost the former. All parties actually recognise this. Having a higher population not contributing is clearly not sustainable if we wish a high level of state input.

I don't tĥink governments are really thinking properly about long-term planning for an ageing population and rapidly falling birth rates. We need cross-party consensus to put planning in place for this, that doesn't involve the Neo liberals of the Tory Party telling women to ' breed for Britain'. We have loads of housing round us, but the local infants school, which 8 years ago didn't have a place for DS2 ( he went to reception to a school much further away and got a place in year 1- we moved halfway through reception) is now constantly advertising to try and fill school places. It's a lovely school, too. I don't know who is buying the new houses but they can't be young families with kids.

Thus is just a ponzi scheme though. The young will not be able to pay the pensions of the old for a long time, and then they will be old themselves. We now have more over 60's than under 15 year olds for the first time in history. Having more babies will not help those 60-100 year olds, because they wont be paying tax for another 20 years. We need to look at alternatives ways of looking after the old. Maybe we will need to work for longer, and tax differently. Close tax loopholes so that there is a far better redistribution of wealth, the triple lock will probably have to go, tax industry properly, much better use of technology etc. And with AI, many of those babies may not have jobs to go into, so won't be paying tax.

@Angrycat2768 we have a massive new housing development near us, the average of people buying the houses is 60. These people are not going to help fill the spaces in the local primary school

Yes I suspect this is the case near us too. Over 60's and single people buying flats ( maybe both- divorce rates having rocketed amongst that age group). Immigrants aren't being housed in brand new housing developments. They are mostly in HMO or student accommodation.

Children are registered at one address for school if parents live separately.

Of course those in work pay for the pensions of the old. The old cost more and contribute less. It’s like a conveyor belt. The young get replaced as they age. It’s how it works. If there are insufficient younger people paying, services will decline. I’m not sure the young can service the huge debts either. I actually think the older better off should pay NI. It’s not fair to load up the young!

In my area four primary schools will merge into two schools next year. I imagine more will follow.

. I’m not sure the young can service the huge debts either. I actually think the older better off should pay NI. It’s not fair to load up the young!

plus we are asking them to pay for things that won’t get.

We’re Urban and our school has dropped to one form entry. Even with that, we’ve a mix of years in the classes.

For anyone who wants to know how dire it is going to be - look up ‘birth gap’. The demographic collapse of the vast majority of nations is well underway. We didn’t have enough kids and haven’t for decades to ensure population replacement. Now we don’t have enough women of childbearing age to rectify the position. It’s far worse in Japan, South Korea, China and other places - so you have to watch them to see what happens next.

On the plus side, getting DD2 into a good school should be a lot easier than DD1.

You need people to perform the basic tasks ie sanitation, health care and to pay taxes. Don't get stuck on net contributors. It's a curve ball. Who will look after you when you're old? Take you to hospital?

It’s far worse in Japan, South Korea, China and other places - so you have to watch them to see what happens next.

Japan has at least done some planning for it. A lot of society don’t want to acknowledge hence you still get “there are too many people”, “everyone I know has 6 dc”. So politicians can ignore it.

@DragonMama3 the other poster mentioned funding. If not a net contributor with respect to income thus is going to create a bigger burden in education, NHS etc. Yes we will need people to be carers etc but who will fund them?

Large declines may be a fact, but at lot of the media reports have failed to note (because it makes the story less exciting) that 2001 was one of the lowest birth years on record - then about 2005/2006 the birth rates picked up enormously and there was a total scramble to build new school places for all these kids from around 2010 - almost all the schools in my area of London took extra classes for several years.

Large declines may be a fact, but at lot of the media reports have failed to note (because it makes the story less exciting) that 2001 was one of the lowest birth years on record - then about 2005/2006 the birth rates picked up enormously

They didn’t pick up enormously but did increase, I thought the thinking was it was due to Labours policies.

The more people the more revenue.

We need babies and more people to pay taxes.

the babies become working adults.

But @DragonMama3 if you are not a net contributor you actually take more money out of the system than you put in, even if you are working

We need babies and more people to pay taxes.

ship has sailed though

We can get more people to pay tax via judicious immigration! You can never assume all babies turn into productive adults. If they work for the state, they cost more than their tax pays for. We have to have a balance. The state workforce clearly contributes to society but the billions and billions spent needs to be earned and not borrowed from now on. Read all about it at the OBR.

the "great wealth transfer" will surely come into play and the government will take advantage of that.