Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Twenty-First Report - School Funding
Public Accounts Committee
HC 183
Published 22 October 2021
Recommendations
2
Under the national funding formula, schools that are more deprived have fared worse than those...
Recommendation
Under the national funding formula, schools that are more deprived have fared worse than those that are less deprived. In 2018–19, the Department introduced a national funding formula with the aim of allocating school funding more transparently, consistently and fairly …
Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
3
It is not possible to tell whether individual academy schools are receiving the government’s guaranteed...
Recommendation
It is not possible to tell whether individual academy schools are receiving the government’s guaranteed minimum per-pupil funding levels. In 2018–19, the Department introduced minimum levels of schools block per-pupil funding for all schools in England. In January 2020, the …
Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
6
The Department cannot say when it will implement its commitment to a starting salary of...
Recommendation
The Department cannot say when it will implement its commitment to a starting salary of £30,000 for new teachers. In September 2019, the Government set out its intention that salaries for new teachers would rise to £30,000 by September 2022, …
Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
Conclusions (35)
4
Conclusion
Schools are having to cross-subsidise their sixth forms with funding intended to support younger pupils. Between 2014–15 and 2020–21, the balance of funding shifted from secondary schools to primary schools. Secondary school funding per pupil dropped by 3.9% in real terms, while primary school funding increased by 4.2%. Part of …
5
Conclusion
The Department does not seem to have a grip on the impact of falling rolls on schools. Most school funding follows the pupils—under the national funding formula, the Department allocates nearly three-quarters of schools block funding on the basis of pupil numbers. We know of schools whose rolls are falling …
1
Conclusion
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Education (the Department) and the Education and Skills Funding Agency (the ESFA) on school funding in England.1
7
Conclusion
There has also been a relative re-distribution of funding from more deprived schools (those with a higher proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals) to less deprived schools. Between 2017–18 and 2020–21, average per-pupil funding for the most deprived fifth of schools fell in real terms by 1.2% to …
8
Conclusion
The written evidence that we received raised concerns about the impact of the national funding formula. Professor Tanya Ovenden-Hope said that the formula had not delivered the expected significant increases in funding for small schools, including rural schools which have traditionally struggled to remain sustainable.8 The NASUWT (The Teachers’ Union) …
9
Conclusion
The Department said that the national funding formula had fixed a system that had become broken. It explained that, between 2005 and 2017–18, school funding had not been adjusted to reflect changes in pattens of need across the country. For example, while the proportion of pupils eligible for free school …
10
Conclusion
The Department told us that funding allocations were now catching up with changing levels of deprivation—some areas remained very deprived but were not as deprived as they had been in the early 2000s, while other areas remained less deprived but were significantly more deprived than they had been. This situation …
11
Conclusion
The Department also highlighted the impact of the new minimum per-pupil funding levels on the distribution of funding. The effect of these had been to shift funding in the direction of schools that had very low levels of deprivation.12 The Department told us that it had always known that the …
12
Conclusion
The Department provides pupil premium funding (£2.2 billion in 2020–21) to help schools improve the attainment of disadvantaged pupils.14 From April 2021, the Department has calculated pupil premium allocations based on the number of eligible pupils recorded by schools in the school census in the preceding October, rather than the …
13
Conclusion
In 2018–19, as part of the national funding formula, the Department introduced minimum per-pupil funding levels for all schools in England in support of the government’s aim of ‘levelling up education funding’.17 In January 2020, the Prime Minister guaranteed that every school would receive minimum funding of £3,750 per primary …
14
Conclusion
Local authorities can apply local funding formulae in deciding funding for maintained schools and academy trusts. However, the Department limited the extent of local authorities’ discretion from 2020–21 by requiring them to include the minimum per- pupil funding levels in their local formulae.19 By contrast, academy trusts are not required …
15
Conclusion
We asked why multi-academy trusts had more freedom in how they distributed funding. The Department replied that academy trusts and local authorities had different roles: local authorities were responsible for distributing funding between schools, whereas academy trusts had direct responsibility for the provision of education in the schools that they …
16
Conclusion
We asked how the parent of a child in an academy school could establish whether the school was receiving the minimum per-pupil funding levels that they were promised. The ESFA said that the most accessible source of information was the schools financial benchmarking website, which contains income and expenditure information …
17
Conclusion
Overall, between 2014–15 and 2020–21, the balance of funding shifted from secondary schools to primary schools. Secondary school funding per pupil fell by 3.9% in real terms, while primary school funding increased by 4.2%. The main cause of this shift was local authorities protecting funding for primary schools in their …
18
Conclusion
The Department said that it had looked carefully at the balance between funding for primary and secondary schools when it had designed the national funding formula.26 We asked whether school sixth forms were losing out in an attempt to prop up the rest of the system. The Department disagreed with …
19
Conclusion
The Department told us that it was mindful of the challenges facing 16-to-19 education, including significant demographic pressures.28 It recognised that some schools with sixth forms were cross-subsidising their post-16 provision from the rest of their budgets, and said that this was one of the reasons why it had increased …
20
Conclusion
The funding that schools receive is largely determined by how many pupils they have. Under the national funding formula, the Department allocates 73.5% of schools block funding based on pupil numbers. A further 17.9% of funding relates to the number of pupils with characteristics that indicate additional need, including deprivation …
21
Conclusion
We have heard concerns about the funding of schools, across London and elsewhere, whose rolls are falling. Small schools, such as those with a single-form entry, may face a disproportionate financial impact if their pupil numbers fall. The Department recognised the themes we described including the impact in London, with …
22
Conclusion
The Department emphasised that all schools receive a single lump sum regardless of size to cover some of the fixed costs that do not vary with pupil numbers. In addition, 25 C&AG’s report, para 1.12 26 Q 32 27 Q 33 28 Q 39 29 Q 40 30 C&AG’s Report, …
23
Conclusion
We asked whether the Department was confident that the falling rolls fund had sufficient resources to help all the schools that might need support. The Department replied that there were mechanisms for the funding to vary according to local need and the context in a particular area.33 It also highlighted …
24
Conclusion
In September 2019, the Department announced a review of the support system for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). The review aimed to improve services for families who needed support, equip staff to respond effectively to children’s additional needs, and end the ‘postcode lottery’ that families often faced. …
25
Conclusion
In March 2021, the Department told us that it planned to publish a Green Paper towards the end of June 2021 with its proposals for improving SEND support.36 Consulting on proposals for change will be only the first step towards providing children and families with better services. Supporting the growing …
26
Conclusion
In July 2021, the Department wrote to tell us that it had decided it should take more time to ensure its reform plans could deliver the systemic change needed, noting that the COVID-19 pandemic had materially altered the context for reform. It said that it would use the additional time …
27
Conclusion
The Department recognised that the review process was taking much longer than it had wanted, but explained that, as it had started to test its emerging proposals, the risk had become clear that the review would not be as effective as intended, because the early stages of the work had …
28
Conclusion
The Department highlighted three key things that it was doing while it worked on the SEND review. First, it had increased high-needs funding by about £1.5 billion in two years and made available £300 million of capital funding in 2021 for school places for children with SEND. Second, it was …
29
Conclusion
We pressed the Department on the projected timeframe for the review to be completed, asking if it might be autumn 2021, the end of the calendar year, or the end of the 2021–22 financial year. The Department would not commit to a date, saying only that it would finalise the …
30
Conclusion
The school funding system currently involves local discretion in that local authorities and academy trusts are free to vary the allocations that the Department calculates using the national funding formula. The government has said that it intends to move to a ‘hard’ national funding formula, where the Department would set …
31
Conclusion
The Department explained that it had begun a consultation process about moving to a hard funding formula on 8 July 2021. Ultimately, its goal was to allocate funding consistently across the system as whole, so that schools with the same characteristics and pupil needs would be funded at the same …
32
Conclusion
In September 2019, the Government set out its intention that salaries for new teachers would rise to £30,000 nationally by September 2022. It stated that this increase would make teacher pay among the most competitive in the graduate labour market.46 However, at the 2020 Spending Review, the Government announced that …
33
Conclusion
In its written evidence, the National Association of Head Teachers emphasised the need to improve salaries for teachers and school leaders as a critical element of any strategy to resolve the “longstanding recruitment and retention crisis”. It said that schools did not have the fiscal headroom to reverse the real-terms …
34
Conclusion
In the three years from 2018–19, the Department gave grants towards teacher pay increases, and to meet the full cost of increased pension contributions. From 2021–22, the Department will incorporate most of this additional funding within the dedicated schools grant instead of giving it as separate grants, which will make …
35
Conclusion
The Department said that it remained committed to the £30,000 starting salary for teachers. It explained that it had had to adjust the rate of progress towards this based on conversations with HM Treasury and on the wider context. It stated that pay increases in September would represent an average …
36
Conclusion
The Department plans to provide funding of £3.1 billion between 2020–21 and 2024–25 to help children and young people catch up on learning lost during the period of disrupted schooling caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.53 Most of the money is expected to be spent by the end of 2022–23, and …
37
Conclusion
Sir Kevan resigned as the Education Recovery Commissioner in June 2021. In his resignation letter, he said that he did “not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support this size”.56 The Department said that it was very grateful to Sir Kevan, …
38
Conclusion
The Department noted that a large part of the additional funding that Sir Kevan had recommended had related to suggested changes to the timing of the school day, which had met with a mixed reception among schools and teachers. It had therefore decided to take more time, ahead of the …