Consultant recommendations are not inevitable
Increasingly, employers rely on external consultants to justify restructuring proposals, staffing reductions and changes to the way schools are organised. One of the most common examples is the use of school resource management advisers (SRMAs), a DfE-funded consultancy programme available to schools, local authorities and academy trusts.
Employers may present consultant recommendations as authoritative or unavoidable, particularly where proposals are linked to financial pressures. Reps should challenge this narrative. Consultant recommendations are advisory and employers remain responsible for any decisions they make.
Staffing decisions should be based on educational need, workforce sustainability and the needs of pupils, not consultant recommendations alone.
Consultant-led restructures should therefore be treated like any other restructuring proposal. The role of the workplace union group is to scrutinise the employer’s case, organise members and develop collective responses that protect jobs, working conditions and educational provision.
Challenge assumptions and demand transparency
Many SRMAs use a management approach known as integrated curriculum and financial planning (ICFP) as well as benchmarking data to analyse staffing and financial decisions.
The NEU does not regard this as a neutral framework. Benchmarking can place pressure on employers to reduce staffing costs to match national, regional or school-type averages, regardless of local circumstances or educational need.
NEU reps should challenge any attempt to treat benchmarking data as the sole basis for
staffing decisions. Schools differ significantly in their intake, staffing structures and levels of pupil need. Educational provision cannot be reduced to a set of averages or financial ratios.
Effective bargaining depends on access to information. Reps should seek access to any consultant reports, recommendations and supporting evidence used to justify proposed changes. Transparency enables workplace groups to test assumptions, identify weaknesses in the employer’s case and develop credible alternatives.
Further guidance on scrutinising financial information is available in the NEU leveraging MAT finances toolkit.
Consultant recommendations should also be tested against the realities of the workplace. Members are often best placed to identify workload implications, staffing pressures and risks to educational provision that may not be reflected in consultant reports. Gather evidence from members about workload and staffing pressures; the likely impact of proposed changes; pupil support and educational provision; safeguarding, wellbeing and inclusion concerns; and alternative approaches that could avoid staffing reductions.
Building a collective response
Consultant reports should not become a conversation between senior leaders and external advisers alone. Reps should ensure members have opportunities to examine proposals, identify concerns and challenge assumptions.
Workplace meetings, surveys and structured conversations can help members assess proposals collectively and identify bargaining priorities. Regular engagement helps build confidence, develop workplace organisation and ensure that negotiations are informed by the experiences of those carrying out the work.
Consultant recommendations should not determine the outcome of negotiations. Reps should work with members to develop collective bargaining demands that reflect the needs of staff and pupils. Depending on local circumstances, these may include no compulsory redundancies; protection of staffing levels; publication of consultant reports and recommendations; meaningful consideration of alternatives to staffing reductions; assessment of workload impacts before changes are introduced; and protection of educational provision and pupil support. The NEU redundancy and reorganisation checklist can help workplace groups identify issues for negotiation and challenge employer assumptions.
Developing collective demands helps members move from reacting to proposals to organising around achievable objectives. It also demonstrates that the union is not simply opposing cuts but putting forward positive alternatives that protect jobs, working conditions and educational standards.