PS motion on the maintenance standards in nursery schools

Flexible legal tools exist that can prevent abrupt closures. However, the decline in school population and the financial situation of the FWB are realities that must be factored into both local and community-level policies.

1. Context

The PS motion, tabled in several municipal councils, denounces the rigidity of the maintenance standards set by the Royal Decree of 29 June 1984 for nursery, primary and basic schools, and calls on the Government for:

• an immediate moratorium on closures for the 2025-2026 school year;
• an urgent revision of the regulations, on the grounds that the demographic decline particularly threatens small rural schools.

The arguments put forward by the motion:

• closures deemed “inhumane” for the lack of just 1 or 2 pupils;
• a negative impact on social life and local roots;
• excessive competition between small rural schools and large urban institutions;
• the example of the Fontaine-Valmont school, said to have been saved by a flexible approach: it nearly closed in 2019-2020 (10 pupils), but thanks to an extra-legal exemption, it was able to remain open. Today it has 24 pupils.

2. Arguments against the motion

Already very favourable standards and existing alternatives

• Current standards are adapted to population density and the isolated nature of the sites.
• In rural municipalities (fewer than 75 inhabitants/km²), an isolated school must have 12 pupils per level or 20 pupils for the whole of basic education, thresholds that are extremely low compared to other regions and to Flanders.
• Below 80% of the standards (i.e. 10 pupils in an isolated nursery school), the school still benefits from a two-year grace period, with the possibility of permanent retention if no nearby alternative within the same network exists.
• Current rules already provide for deferrals and the possibility of indefinite retention for certain rural schools.
• Mergers, restructuring, transfers: mechanisms already provided for by law, but too little used today.

Contrary to what the motion claims, a flexible and legal toolbox already exists to avoid abrupt closures.

A sharply declining demography due to the falling birth rate

• Since 2018-2019, the school population in basic education has been continuously declining, leading to a fall in the FWB's budget envelope, which is calculated based on the number of enrolled pupils.
• Administration projections indicate a decline of 32,500 pupils by 2028-2029.
• Calling for a moratorium would amount to artificially maintaining empty or almost empty structures, whereas resources must be concentrated on areas under demographic pressure.
• Predecessors took no action in the face of this heavy trend. The PS motion comes late and offers no budgetarily viable solution.

Budgetary responsibility

• Every non-viable site kept below the standards generates considerable cost: management pay scales, APE positions (childcare workers), operating grants and subsidies, school buildings, etc.
• The Wallonia-Brussels Federation faces a very tight budgetary situation (15 billion in spending against 13.5 billion in revenue).
• Freezing the standards, as proposed by the PS, would amount to postponing the problem, to the detriment of responsible and fair management of public funds.
• This motion is unfair to other schools that follow the rules, as it proposes extra-legal exemptions left and right.

3. Conclusion

• No moratorium: in a context of falling birth rates and budgetary constraints, freezing the standards is not feasible. Current standards are already very favourable, especially in rural areas.
• A working group with WBE (Wallonie-Bruxelles Enseignement) and the federations of PO (Organising Authorities) is currently working to update and clarify the 1984 Royal Decree, taking current realities into account.
• Guaranteed flexibility: thanks to existing mechanisms (deferrals, mergers, exemptions), no closure is imposed mechanically or abruptly. The working group is to propose ideas to encourage institutions to group together or to ensure a phasing-out allowing parents and pupils to prepare in advance of a closure.
• The PS motion lacks coherence and proposes artificially maintaining non-viable schools, which would further weaken the FWB's finances over time.
• The PS motion thus plays on emotion by caricaturing existing rules as “rigid”. Yet the standards are already largely favourable to small rural schools, supplemented by flexibility mechanisms such as deferrals. In a context of massive decline in pupil numbers and strong budgetary constraints, a moratorium is not responsible.