Jenny Gilruth vs Scottish councils: Who will blink first in £145.5m teacher cuts battle?

It is now more than half a year since Glasgow City Council controversially moved to cut 172 teacher posts, but there remain significant unanswered questions about the decision and uncertainty over its ramifications.

The cuts emerged following a budget put forward by the council’s ruling SNP administration, with backing from the Greens, on February 15 this year.

They immediately caused a massive headache for the Scottish Government, which is committed to increasing teacher numbers.

There was no explicit mention in the council’s budget papers of any reduction in teacher numbers, other than a nod to service “redesign”.

Then there is the question of an equality impact assessment. It was revealed earlier this month that Glasgow City Parents Group (GCPG) had embarked on legal action against the council over the claim it failed to carry out such an assessment before the budget decision was taken, although the council has insisted it did and that all decisions were taken “lawfully”.

The alleged lack of a full impact assessment, or any explicit reference to teacher reductions, were not the only apparent omissions from the budget deliberations, however.

On February 12, three days before Glasgow set its budget, Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth wrote to the local authority umbrella body Cosla, as well as all council finance directors and education directors, outlining measures she was introducing to protect teacher numbers.

She said: “Under the current provisions, we have witnessed two successive years of falls in relation to teacher numbers. In this context, it is clear to me that the status quo is not sustainable.

“Next year’s allocation of additional funding for teacher numbers of £145.5 million will, therefore, be distributed via Specific Resource Grants, and those grants will be conditional on councils agreeing at the outset to maintain teacher numbers. Taking this approach reflects our longstanding commitment to protecting teacher numbers, which is in the best interests of our children and young people.”

Glasgow’s share of this £145.5m was to be £16.499m.

But at the meeting three days later, there was no mention in the budget papers, or in the speeches from City Treasurer Ricky Bell, about any of the money in the budget being dependent on maintaining teacher numbers.

The budget was passed, after the SNP reached a deal with the Greens, based on an assumption the council would still receive the £16.499m, despite the same agreement paving the way for teacher cuts.

It is not known if the council’s finance chiefs and ruling administration just assumed Ms Gilruth was bluffing about withholding the cash, but everything she has said since has suggested she was not.

The issue has left the education secretary at loggerheads with local authorities, which appear to be united in their belief that the money should not be linked to maintaining teacher numbers when so much of public spending is under pressure.

Concerns about the potential impact of the next teachers’ pay deal on local authority finances are also influencing the reluctance to agree to the terms set by the Government, while councils have highlighted falling school rolls.

Deadlines have been set for local authorities to sign their grant letters agreeing to preserve teacher numbers, releasing the £145.5m, but they have passed with no deal.

The grant letter for Glasgow asks it to maintain teacher numbers at “no lower than the figure of 5,654 as reported in the 2023 Summary Statistics for Schools in Scotland plus an additional 39 for a total of 5,693”.

The money was initially supposed to be issued to Glasgow in three instalments of £4,124,750 in June 2024, £4,124,750 in September 2024 and £8,249,500 in February 2025. Ms Gilruth has said that the money has not been released.

At the end of June, councils again refused to sign the grant letters, agreeing to ask umbrella body Cosla to seek a “compromise” with the Government.

It is unclear what will happen next. Ms Gilruth has been adamant that councils will not receive the £145.5m unless they agree to maintain teacher numbers.

Her authority and reputation would be hugely undermined if she capitulated now, but she would equally not want to be blamed for leaving councils on the brink of financial ruin by withholding the money indefinitely.

From the perspective of the councils, they need the funding as soon as possible, and most, other than Glasgow, are not thought to be planning significant cuts to teacher numbers.

Despite the brinkmanship, both sides appear to believe a compromise is possible, but it is difficult to see where.

Pressure on Glasgow City Council will not ease any time soon, amid the the prospect of strike action by teachers, not to mention a legal challenge.

But the local authority has already reduced its teaching workforce by 172, through not filling vacant posts, changing primary staffing formulas, and not renewing temporary contracts.

At the same time, local authorities must know the risks they are taking by leaving £145.5m in unclaimed public funding on the table during the current financial climate.

Ministers would have no shortage of other sectors queuing-up to make use of the money.

In the longer term, the impasse exposes the significant question-mark hanging over the Scottish Government’s policy on teacher numbers.

The SNP manifesto in 2021 promised to increase the number of teachers and classroom assistants by 3,500 during this parliament, but so far teacher numbers have fallen by 250.

That downward trend will only continue as a result of decisions like those taken by Glasgow City Council.