
Concern has been raised over the “financial viability” of primary school closures, after it emerged the controversial plans could cost the Isle of Wight Council millions of pounds.
Jen Hughes, a parent representative and campaigner against the closure of Oakfield CE Primary School, raised the subject at a cabinet meeting last night, in light of figures set out in a newly published paper.
The report shows a total closure cost of £3,030,693 in 2025/26 and £473,191 the year after but recommends the closures of primary schools in Oakfield, Arreton, Cowes, Wroxall and Brading to address ‘surplus capacity’ in the schools system and better fund primaries remaining open.
In a ‘worst case scenario’, it estimates a capitalised pension and redundancies cost of £2.25 million.
The local authority would also face £502,000 in costs from deficits built up by schools proposed for closure.
Reading out County Hall’s response, council leader Phil Jordan said:
“The maximum cost of school closures is estimated at £3 million. However, the actual cost is likely to be considerably less.
“The £2.3 million in redundancy and capitalised pension costs will be influenced by the redeployment strategy and natural staff movement ahead of closures.
“It’s not possible to accurately determine how much the maximum cost of £2.3 million will be reduced without knowing individual circumstances.
“According to the schools’ own 2024/25 budget submission in November 2024, 29 out of 33 maintained primary schools will operate with an in-year deficit.”
Cllr Jordan added that “delaying the addressing of surplus capacity” would mean schools incurring “greater deficits, with combined debts across maintained primary schools currently forecast at £5.2 million by March 2027”.
Closures would also “release much-needed funding” into the Island’s school system, “allowing school leaders to access the resources they need”.
The cabinet yesterday evening decided to defer its decision on the closures until March 20, with education cabinet member Cllr Jonathan Bacon saying it was “in the best interests of both proper scrutiny and transparency”.