Schools that cannot pay for themselves cannot serve their students for very long. Financial sustainability gets treated as the commercial half of a school, separate from the educational half and slightly in tension with it. GSE puts it the other way round, since every educational commitment a school makes is a promise to spend money for years, and no school without a surplus can keep those promises.
What the surplus actually buys
Teachers are the largest cost in any school, and the cost that decides quality. Paying them properly, and paying them competitively enough that the good ones stay, comes out of the surplus. So does the renewal of buildings and equipment before they fail, the specialist provision that a stretched school cuts first, and the reserve that carries a school through a year when enrolment misses plan.
Schools that run without a surplus do not announce it. They defer maintenance, hold a vacancy open, let class sizes drift upward, and reduce the learning support that the fewest parents will notice. Each of those decisions is defensible on its own, and two or three years of them leaves a visibly weaker school.
Build a ten-year model and stress test the early years
An investor in a school should build a financial model that runs ten years, and it should be stress tested against what could go wrong in the first few.
A school does not reveal itself in three years, which is why the model needs ten. The early years are consumed by construction, opening and a roll that is still filling, and the returns that make the investment worthwhile arrive once the school is full and the campus is paid for. A three-year or five-year model shows the hard part and stops before the part that justifies it.
Those returns are strong over ten years, and that is what makes the stress testing worth doing. A model describing only the good years is a forecast dressed as a plan. The stress test has to demonstrate that sound and solid foundations can be created in phase one, because a school that survives its opening period in reasonable shape will reach the years that pay for everything.
What to test the model against
The things that actually happen to new schools are fewer and more predictable than the range of possible disasters suggests, so test the model against those.
Enrolment arriving slower than forecast is the most common, so a model should show what happens at seventy per cent of the planned curve for three consecutive years. An opening delayed by a full academic year matters as much, because a licence or a building runs late and a school can only open in August. Then there is a competitor opening nearby in year two, fee increases the market will not accept, which means holding fees flat in real terms for several years, and staff costs rising faster than fees. That last one is the quiet one and the most likely of all.
Each of these carries a funding consequence, and the output worth having is the peak funding requirement under each scenario instead of a single headline number. An investor who knows the worst case they are willing to fund can commit to it before the project starts, which is a different conversation from discovering it in year two. The debt underneath all of this is covered in GSE’s article on how school projects are financed.
Phase one decides the rest
Most of what determines whether a school becomes sustainable is settled before it opens. The size of the campus against the roll it can realistically fill, the fee level against what the catchment will actually pay, the staffing model at partial enrolment, and the debt the property carries all get fixed early and are difficult to change afterwards.
Build for twelve hundred students and fill to six hundred, and the school carries the cost of the larger building for its entire life. Set a fee above what the market will bear and the result is an empty school and a discounting habit that is hard to break. A staffing structure designed for a full school is unaffordable at half capacity, and one designed only for the opening year cannot deliver the curriculum the prospectus promised.
No amount of good management afterwards recovers what phase one gets wrong, and phase one is the part the ten-year model has to prove.
Where sustainability is quietly lost
Schools rarely fail suddenly, and the erosion follows three familiar patterns that are visible long before the accounts show anything.
Discounting usually starts it, as a school under enrolment pressure gives fee concessions to fill places. Those concessions stay with the students for years, and net fee income falls while the headcount looks entirely healthy.
Maintenance gets deferred next, and the cost of not replacing a roof or a chiller compounds quietly before arriving as a capital demand, usually at the worst possible moment.
Staff costs then drift upward as salary scales move and the staff gets older, and a school that has not planned for it finds its largest line consuming a rising share of income every year.
Revenue beyond fees, used carefully
Schools with a single income stream are more exposed than they need to be. Facility hire outside school hours, holiday programmes, adult and community classes and early years provision can all add income against assets the school already owns.
None of it should distract the school from teaching. Diversification works where it uses spare capacity and stops where it starts consuming the attention of people who should be running a school. A poorly chosen venture costs more than the revenue it brings, and the schools that get into difficulty this way usually did so while chasing something fashionable.
The educational argument
A school in financial difficulty makes educational decisions for financial reasons. It admits students it should have turned away, keeps a teacher it should have replaced because recruitment costs money, and cancels the provision that served the students who needed it most.
None of that appears in a prospectus, and all of it is visible to the families inside the school. Financial strength is what allows a school to decide on educational grounds, which is the only reason an operator should care about it.
Read next
- Profit Versus Non-profit Schools. Why the surplus matters under either model.
- Why Most New School Projects Fail Financially. What the stress test is testing for.
- How School Projects Are Financed. The debt underneath the model, and the losses most raises leave out.
- The School Dashboard: What an Owner Should See Every Month. Watching the erosion before it reaches the accounts.
Part of GSE’s What We Believe collection.
To talk about your school project, reach us through the contact page.