Results

According to a central government estimate, the number of surplus places across England had
reached some 1.5 million by the early 1990s (DES 1992). It was generated by a national
decline in the birth rate since the 1970s and by local demographic changes such as population
drift away from rural areas. Reorganisation tends to be unpopular with parents and staff in
schools who become aware of what they stand to lose from it long before they experience
what they might gain. Many local councillors, mindful of the risk that a disliked policy might
cost them precious votes among parents of school age children, were unwilling to tackle the
mounting surplus. By this time, ministers in the past Conservative central government, like
their counterparts in other countries including the USA (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), had
embarked on a raft of policies to reduce burgeoning expenditure in the public sector through
attempts to increase efficiency of service provision. Within this policy thrust, ministers
eventually gave themselves powers to intervene if LEAs with a substantial proportion of
surplus places did not undertake reorganisation initiatives of their own (custom writings 2019).
Accompanying this threat was a central government incentive for LEAs: a related policy
enabled them to borrow capital from the centre at a very advantageous interest rate
specifically for school building and refurbishment connected with reorganisation. The more
places removed, the more capital borrowing allowed.