Funding

What is the context?
The current national framework for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) funding in England has faced increasing scrutiny in terms of its ability to meet the diverse needs of children and young people across educational settings. 

In its January 2025 report, the Public Accounts Committee finds that, without reform and additional funding, LA high-needs block deficits could total some £8bn by 2027-28. Current estimates are that cumulative deficits will total £4.6bn by March 2026. The report also concludes that current financial support programmes provided by the DfE will have no discernible impact on these longer-term challenges, nor support local authorities in managing their financial position.

We acknowledge that there have been rapid rises in high-needs funding, but this has simply not kept pace with the growth in demand for support and services. Funding for high needs rose by 50% between 2015 and 2025, but the number of EHCPs has risen even faster – by 80% up to 2024 – and demand continues to grow.

ASCL position: The SEND funding model must create transparency across schools, colleges, families, health and local authorities. A successful inclusive model requires sufficient funding to empower these stakeholders to work together to provide greater parity to the experience of children and young people. 

Policymakers must move away from a system driven by financial constraint and inequity. A successful system will be driven by good practice and excellence.

Why are we saying this? 
We believe that there is merit in the exploration of funding models that are more closely aligned with a throughput or upstreaming model. 

In mainstream schools, EHCPs are often the only route through which schools can access the funding they need to support pupils with additional needs. 

In special schools and AP, the balance of place and top-up funding is shifting as costs grow, and the value of commissioned place funding has remained the same for over a decade. 

In mainstream FE colleges there are a significant number of students with support needs who do not have an EHCP and for whom extra support funding does not cover their needs. Course funding is insufficient, and they may not be funded via high-needs provision. 
We think that the current pupil-led, input-focused methodology may have led to unintended consequences and a system that has become adversarial in nature. These unintended consequences can include: 

• increases in EHCPs driven by the fund values associated to a banding system
• perpetuating unnecessary bureaucracy which diverts available funding away from specialist support
• increased time and money spent in negotiations between schools and colleges and local authorities where deficits are the insurmountable barrier

All alternative models must be evaluated and closely monitored to test the adequacy of the funding mechanism and ensure that the responsibilities of mainstream settings are deliverable. 

We think that an alternative policy for SEND funding, implemented through co-production with stakeholders, including parents, educators, and young people, has the potential to address long-standing systemic gaps, reduce delays in support, and promote more inclusive and aspirational educational environments.

 

What is the context? 
Since 2014, any students who did not achieve a grade C+/4+ in GCSE English and/or maths have been required to resit the qualification as a ‘condition of funding’ of their post-16 programme of study. A November resit opportunity is available for these students, as is the main summer series.

Up until now, the DfE has not specified the amount of time that sixth forms or colleges need to teach these resit subjects.

From September 2024, sixth forms and colleges are ‘expected’ to give resit students a minimum of three hours a week for English and four hours a week for maths. From September 2025 a new ‘requirement’ to teach 100 hours per annum in each subject has been introduced. These hours must be ‘stand-alone, whole-class, in-person teaching, with any additional support, such as small group tuition or online support, supplementary to these minimum classroom hours’.

Furthermore, current funding thresholds (the percentage of students who should be resitting GCSE English or maths, but aren’t) are being reduced from 5% (reducing the funding level of students above this tolerance by half per student) to 2.5% in September 2025. Previous plans to reduce this further to 0% in 2026 have been paused, and will be kept under review.

ASCL position: ASCL disagrees with the new mandated rules on GCSE maths and English resits in the 16-19 phase. 

We particularly disagree with the new minimum requirement for 100 hours per subject per year. Schools and colleges should be allowed to decide for themselves how many hours to allocate for these two subjects and in what ways they teach them, as they do for all other qualifications. 

We also disagree with the change to the condition of funding rules, which will mean that the present 5% tolerance levels for non-compliance (the ‘safety net’) will be reduced to 2.5% in September 2025.

Why are we saying this? 
ASCL is always clear that school and college leaders are best placed to determine the length of the school week, how much time should be given to certain subjects and topics, and what the school or college curriculum looks like. This policy represents another dangerous step towards centralisation by stealth, without formal consultation or primary legislation.

Many school sixth forms, sixth form colleges and FE colleges meet the current funding condition by providing high-quality tutoring, online learning and additional support outside of the classroom. None of these interventions would count towards the new minimum expectation or requirement.

The specified number of hours is not possible for all institutions to provide, under current budget and staffing restraints. In 2024, the DfE only recruited 74% of new maths teachers against its own target, so the recruitment and retention crisis is only like to get worse between now and September 2025, unless there is rapid intervention.

As post-16 providers are able to set their own admissions criteria, those who can’t meet the new minimum number of hours may be incentivised not to admit students who don’t have a grade 4+ in English or maths, as their entire programme of study would be unfunded. This may in turn leave this group of students ‘homeless’ in some areas of the country.

As this group – which ASCL refers to as the 'forgotten third’ – is already disadvantaged, this would further disenfranchise them and raise the risk of them not being in education, employment or training.

ASCL has continually raised concerns about the impact of the condition of funding, especially given the number of students who don’t achieve more highly in their resit exams. The minimum specified number of hours, coupled with the lowering of the threshold, is unacceptable and will have long term implications for the cohorts affected by this disastrous and ill-thought-through policy.


 

What is the context? 
The UK economy is in a parlous state, grappling with challenges including weak growth, stubborn inflation, and widening inequality. However, amidst these economic uncertainties, it is crucial to recognise the transformative role that education plays in driving recovery and long-term prosperity. High-quality education for all is not just a moral imperative but a strategic response to economic instability, enabling the workforce to adapt, compete globally, and contribute meaningfully to rebuilding the nation's economic foundations.

In its annual report on education spending the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) indicates that education spending has fallen as a share of national income since 2010/11. In 2023/24 education spending was 4.1% of national income, compared to 5.6% in 2010/11.

ASCL position: ASCL welcomes the government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and its commitment to the wellbeing of our children and young people. However, it must provide a level of investment equivalent to the task. 

We call on the Chancellor to use the opportunity presented by the Spending Review to address the inadequate level of investment in education. 

We ask that: 

• high-needs block deficits are eradicated and funding is future-proofed 
• DfE capital spending is sufficient for a school and college estate that is fit for purpose 
• multi-year revenue settlements ensure all schools and colleges can meet cost growth, including pay for all staff, and support student wellbeing 
• free school meals eligibility is extended to all families on Universal Credit and a process of auto-enrolment is implemented for all

Why are we saying this? 
A survey of headteachers in England carried out by ASCL in June 2024 found the impact of funding insufficiency will mean that over the next 12 months:

• nearly three-quarters will have to increase class sizes 
• nearly 60% will have to reduce their curriculum offer
• more than half are reducing subsidised school trips
• three-quarters are cutting classroom resources
• nearly two-thirds will have to cut pastoral support
• 62% will have to run an in-year deficit budget

With regard to levels of capital, the same survey found:

• nearly 70% have classrooms which require replacement or refurbishment
• more than half have sports facilities which require similar action
• more than 40% have asbestos in ceilings or walls
• a similar number have boilers or heating systems which require replacement
• 80% said they were unable to access sufficient capital funding to pay for repairs and maintenance

The January 2025 NAO report Maintaining Public Service Facilities indicates that the maintenance backlog across the education estate will require £13.8bn to address.

In its January 2025 report, the Public Accounts Committee finds that, without reform and additional funding, LA high-needs block deficits could total some £8bn by 2027/28. Current estimates are that cumulative deficits will total £4.6bn by March 2026. ASCL notes that high-needs cost pressures are included as a key risk in the DfE 2023/24 accounts. This risk has worsened in the 2023/24 reporting year, and was classed as ‘critical and very likely’ in March 2024

In 2025/26 college funding per student will be 11% lower in real terms than in 2010. For school sixth forms the spend per student will be around 23% lower. Provision of more costly technical programmes and support for students from more deprived areas requires appropriate levels of investment and a skilled workforce. However, more than 35% of colleges are in deficit, and in 2025 average pay for college teachers is expected to be 18% lower than for schoolteachers.

Ending child poverty is a complex challenge that requires a joined-up approach across government, but we know that children cannot learn when they are hungry. According to the government’s own estimates there are 4.3 million children growing up in poverty in the UK. That is an average of nine children in a classroom of 30.

Further reading 
ASCL submission to Spending Review phase 2, 2025

 

What is the context?
In July 2024 the DfE announced additional funding to support schools and early years with cost pressures, including pay awards for school staff, in the financial year 2024/25. The funding included an element (the post-16 school budget grant) for post-16 provision in schools and academies, but there has been nothing for colleges. 

The post-16 school budget grant will deliver an uplift equivalent to 3.65% of programme funding to eligible institutions.

Between the 2010–11 and 2019–20 financial years, spending per student aged 16–18 fell in real terms by 14% in colleges and 28% in school sixth forms.

In the 2021 Spending Review, the government committed £1.6 billion in extra funding for colleges and sixth forms by 2024–25. The distribution methodology (targeted at high value subjects and maths & English resits) meant that the uplift was not spread evenly between providers. Despite the additional funding, college spending per student in 2024–25 remains around 10% below 2010–11 levels, and school sixth form spending about 23% lower than in 2010–11. 

ASCL remains extremely concerned about the impact of inflationary cost pressures on school and college funding, and about the risks associated with years of pay erosion across the sector amid a recruitment and retention crisis. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that the pay of teachers and leaders in all types of post-16 provision should be treated in the same way as those in schools, by being included in any additional funding provided by the government. 

Why are we saying this?
At the time of writing, teachers in the college sector remain uncertain about their pay award or any funding to support it for 2024. In 2024/25 the 16-19 learner rate has been uplifted by 1.89%. 

According to the IFS, college staff have experienced significant real-terms pay cuts since 2010 with below-inflation pay awards leading to a decline of around 18%. ASCL urges the government to address this and make funding available to correct this and put an end to  the  disparity that exists with the salaries of teachers working in schools.

Further reading
NFER report: Building a stronger FE college workforce
 

What is the context?
We acknowledge the precarious financial position of the economy, and the challenges presented by surging inflation after the 2021 Spending Review. However, we remain extremely concerned about the impact of inflationary cost pressures on school and college funding, and about the risks associated with years of pay erosion across the sector amid a recruitment and retention crisis.

According to statistics produced by the previous government, school spending per pupil in 2024/25 will be equivalent to 2010 levels, with real-terms cuts in the intervening years having been reversed. According to the IFS (June 2024) school spending power overall is still 5% lower than in 2009/10. Between the 2010/11 and 2019/20 financial years, spending per student aged 16–18 fell in real terms by 14% in colleges and 28% in school sixth forms.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) refers to the “stubbornness of educational inequalities” in its report The state of education: what awaits the next government? (6 June 2024). Its research indicates that, despite significant increases in the proportion of pupils achieving key GCSE benchmarks, the performance gap between pupils eligible for free school meals and their more advantaged peers has remained essentially unchanged, at between 26 and 29 percentage points, for two decades.

ASCL position: ASCL calls on the Chancellor to use the opportunity presented by the Autumn Budget to address the inadequacy that exists in levels of funding across the sector so that all schools and colleges, including specialist provision settings, have sufficient funding to meet the learning needs of their pupils and students. 
 
We ask that:

• school and college spending power is returned, in real terms, to 2010 levels
• there is sufficient resource for parity of pay between staff in schools and colleges
• high-needs block deficits are eradicated so that available funding reaches local authority and frontline provision
• levels of capital investment ensure that the school and college estate is safe and fit for purpose 
• free school meal provision is extended to include all families in receipt of Universal Credit and a process of auto-enrolment is implemented

Why are we saying this? 
A survey of headteachers in England carried out by ASCL in June 2024 found the impact of funding insufficiency will mean that over the next 12 months:

• nearly three-quarters will have to increase class sizes 
• nearly 60% will have to reduce their curriculum offer
• more than half are reducing subsidised school trips
• three-quarters are cutting classroom resources
• nearly two-thirds will have to cut pastoral support
• 62% will have to run an in-year deficit budget
• more than 40% are planning to ask for parental donations

With regard to levels of capital, the same survey found:

• nearly 70% have classrooms which require replacement or refurbishment
• more than half have sports facilities which require similar action
• more than 40% have asbestos in ceilings or walls
• a similar number have boilers or heating systems which require replacement
• 80% said they were unable to access sufficient capital funding to pay for repairs and maintenance

Further reading 
Autumn budget submission by ASCL





 

What is the context? 
The aim of the DfE’s SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan is to address the demands and challenges that exist within mainstream, special and alternative provision in supporting young people with SEND. 

Its three key objectives are to:

• Deliver better experiences for families
• Improve outcomes for children & young people
• Create a financially sustainable system.

The Change Programme, involving 32 local authorities (LAs), is intended to play an essential implementation role in delivering on these commitments. However, amongst all partners, there is currently a lack of understanding about how it will be rolled out and how it will deliver on its aims. The operational aspects of the Change Programme implementation plan are contingent to a significant degree on strengthening inclusion in mainstream schools. This requires increased workforce capacity, sufficient resourcing, and staff training. 

While LAs in the nine regions where this Programme is being rolled out acknowledge their role and responsibility in convening partnerships to address local SEND challenges, there appears to be an oversimplification of the implementation process and insufficient investment in what is needed to support partnership working and enhance school practice. 

ASCL position
ASCL believes that the theory of change used by the Change Programme is fundamentally flawed and that the levers for change are inadequate. The programme makes unrealistic assumptions about the capacity of LAs to deliver school improvement at scale. The expectation for schools and colleges to increase the breadth of what is ‘Ordinarily Available’, i.e. to do more without increases in core funding, is not feasible. There must be funding to strengthen capacity in classrooms, in addition to the £70 million allocated to administer the programme.

Roles and responsibilities (for LAs, Education and Health) must be clear and achievable. In particular:

• LAs, schools and colleges must have sufficient resource to deliver on the expectations of the Change Programme.
• The expected increase in the breadth of Ordinarily Available Provision must be underpinned by a sustainable funding model that engages all schools and colleges in the local area

Why are we saying this? 
Change is required to address systemic failures that have resulted in the lack of availability of the services needed to support children and young people early in their education journey.

This change requires investment in health, social care and education, and improved accessibility to support services. We do not see any indication that the Change Programme will provide this.

Following years of cuts, LAs lack capacity in the strategic roles required to lead on and deliver the aims of the Change Programme. We think that schools are being set up to fail.
 

What is the context? 
The Department for Education’s latest pupil projections predict a substantial fall in pupils on roll in schools in England through the rest of the decade. With school funding so closely linked to pupil numbers, this demographic change presents imminent challenges to the education system and the financial health of schools. In the most affected areas, this could result in school amalgamation or closure. However, changes to pupil numbers are not consistent throughout the country. While many regions will see fewer pupils, some will see their pupil population rise. In its recent report School funding model : Effect of falling pupil rolls, the Education Policy Institute (EPI) indicates that, under the current National Funding Formula (NFF), total pupil-led funding would fall by almost £1 billion by the end of the decade due to the falling rolls. 

ASCL position: As the pupil population decreases schools cannot simply reduce costs in proportion to falling numbers because many costs are fixed, or vary by the number of classes, not by the number of pupils. Continuing to apply the current funding formula would therefore mean further cuts to provision, resources, and activities and in some schools the only option could be unplanned closure. Schools must not be left to manage the huge financial risk that this change in the national picture presents.
 
The government must address this situation by committing, as a bare minimum, to maintain total schools funding at the current level, rather than reducing it as rolls fall. This would help to address urgent educational priorities, rather than this money being returned to the Treasury. This approach would begin to address the financial pressures caused by years of underinvestment and help to put education on a more sustainable footing without costing additional money.

Why are we saying this? 
Falling pupil numbers impact school budgets and financial sustainability because distribution under the NFF is largely pupil-led (In 2023/24 93.4% funding distributed via NFF is pupil-led) Small changes in pupil numbers can have significant implications for school budgets, even though the school’s costs might not change much. A drop of ten pupils will reduce funding by around £44,000 in a primary school and £57,000 (in 2023/24 the NFF  minimum per pupil funding levels are £4405 primary  and £5715 secondary). in a secondary school, but doesn’t necessarily mean fewer teachers are required. The ‘class’ based running costs are likely to remain the same.

Not all schools will be affected equally by declining pupil numbers. The issue is currently more acute in the primary sector, but this will change as the current demographic dip moves to secondary. 

Further reading 
Education Policy Institute (EPI) report School Funding Model: Effect of falling school rolls, April 2024

IFS Annual Report on Education, December 2023

NFER Falling pupil rolls: What does this mean for the education system, July 2022

What is the context?
DfE’s Condition of School Buildings Survey (May 2021) calculated the total condition need (defined as the modelled cost of the remedial work to repair or replace all defective elements in the school estate) as £11.4 billion.
 
The DfE Annual Report 21-22 included the condition of school buildings as one of six significant risks, classifying the risk as critical and worsening.
 
In June 2023 the NAO reported that DfE lacked comprehensive information on the severity of potential safety issues across the estate. The NAO also reported that DfE had been considering RAAC as a potential issue since 2018. Between 2018 and 2021 the DfE worked with the sector to raise awareness of RAAC, including issuing a survey to all responsible bodies in March 2022. However, it was not until August 2023 that technical evidence raised the level of risk to buildings where RAAC is present, leading to 174 (correct at 14 September 2023) sites having to close or partially close pending RAAC mitigations being put in place.
 
ASCL position
We welcome the government commitment to provide capital funding for emergency mitigation work needed to make buildings with identified RAAC safe, and the expectation that all reasonable requests to cover revenue costs will be approved. However, we urgently need assurance that access to current, and already inadequate, education capital budgets will not be diverted to deal with issues arising from RAAC in the school and college estate. The Secretary of State’s commitments currently lack necessary detail on the sources of funding and the timescale for delivery of actions to eradicate RAAC.
 
We call on the Chancellor to do the right thing in the Autumn Statement 2023 and provide sufficient additional capital and revenue funding so that no school or college, whether affected by RAAC or not, is disadvantaged financially by this crisis.
 
Why are we saying this?
The safety of all school and college buildings must be of the highest priority to government, as it is to the responsible bodies who run and maintain them.
 
The House of Commons briefing, School buildings and capital funding (England) confirms that between 2009-10 and 2021-22 capital spending on education declined by 50% in real terms.
 
Planned capital spending for the period 2022-23 was £6.4 billion. The HMT Autumn Statement 2022 document indicates planned capital spend (Education) of £7 billion for 2023-24 and £6.1bn for 2024-25.
 
Further Information
RAAC identification guidance

What is the context?
Too many children are missing out on the nutrition they need to thrive. There are stark inequalities in children’s health, depending on their context, such as where they grow up. Ensuring all children have the same access to school food prevents stigma and secures equity.
 
The current system of means testing children’s access to free school meals is just not working. According to research by Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG):

• 1 in 3 school-aged children in England living in poverty (800,000) miss out on free school meals.

• The main cause is restrictive eligibility criteria.
• Government action in England lags far behind that in Scotland and Wales, where government funding means primary schools are moving towards free school meals for all children.

Access to a nutritious diet has important health and educational benefits for children and young people. Improved diet increases concentration and can potentially decrease health inequalities. It would benefit all children and young people and contribute to a healthier population into adulthood.
 
ASCL position
All children and young people, regardless of their background, should have the same opportunity to access nutritious school food so that they are ready and able to concentrate and learn. We need a school food system that delivers good food, is fairly funded, and is accessible to all children in school.
 
ASCL believes that investing in good food for all children of compulsory school age reduces inequalities by improving the health and wellbeing of future generations. It supports children’s school attendance which enables them to reach their educational potential, and so play a full and productive role in the economy and wider society. 
 
However, funding for free school meals to improve the health and life chances of children and young people must not be taken from existing education budgets. Instead, it provides an opportunity for public spending more broadly to reduce inequality and optimise the workforce of the future.
 
Why are we saying this?
In 2022 Impact on Urban Health, working with PWC, produced a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of free school meal expansion. The headline findings indicate that every £1 invested in universal provision would generate £1.71 in core benefits¹. The CBA evidence suggests that almost half of the benefit would be realised in increased lifetime earnings and contributions, and 54% would be realised in cost-of-living savings for families. Over a 25-year period, the research estimates a total core benefit of around £41 billion. If we take wider indirect benefits² into account that figure could be approaching £100 billion.
 
In their September 2023 report, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) reported that 80% of school staff surveyed said that providing universal free school meals to all school children would reduce child poverty in their school.

What is the context?
The DfE’s SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan: Right Support, Right Place, Right time proposes a unified system driven by new national standards. Alongside these standards, the plan sets out a list of laudable intentions that government believes will improve SEND provision.

The current reality for schools is that they do not have the resources to meet the needs of the pupils they are being asked to support. The improvement plan lacks any detail of the financial modelling undertaken by the government to demonstrate where funding is available to implement the plan. 

The high needs block has increased by £2 billion in the first two years of the current spending review period (2022 – 2025). However, significant sums are needed to meet debt recovery commitments (Safety Valve and Delivering Better Value SEND programmes). It is unclear how much of the additional funding is available for investment necessary to make the system improvements that children and young people with SEND so desperately need.

ASCL position: ASCL is very concerned about the lack of identifiable funding assigned to implement the DfE’s SEND Improvement Plan. Funding allocated to high needs is disappearing into the black hole of high needs block deficit recovery and is not getting to the frontline where it can make a difference and meet need. 

ASCL calls on the government to 

• provide a fully costed implementation plan that clearly identifies the quantifiable funding streams available to deliver all aspects of the SEND Improvement Plan
• review and uplift the commissioned place funding factor value, which has been £10,000 since 2013, and as a result of inflation is now wholly inadequate

Why are we saying this?
The system must demonstrate good value for money, but any debt management scheme must deliver on both reducing debt and also supporting children and young people to thrive. 

ASCL members highlight the tension that exists between additional funding received into the high needs block at local authority level, and the requirement to use this to plug existing deficits, service Safety Valve agreements or support a Delivering Better Value programme. This money is not always getting to the front line.

Members also highlight the insufficiency of the £10,000 place funding, and in particular, the lack of review of this amount over many years. We are hearing that special schools are concerned about maintaining safe pupil to adult ratios. This tends to arise from a combination of insufficient funding (they cannot afford to keep current support staff numbers in post) and a recruitment and retention issue within the teaching and TA workforce.

Schools are using reserves to plug year-end deficits caused by unfunded pay awards in 2022/23, when special schools had to fund 5% pay rises for teachers and up to 10% for support staff. This is not sustainable.

What is the context? 
The notional SEN budget is a proportion of a mainstream school’s core revenue budget which is notionally set aside for meeting the needs of pupils with SEND. This is problematic because it is calculated differently in different local authorities and, more fundamentally, because it bears no relation to the actual needs of pupils in a school. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that the SEN notional budget is unhelpful. We think that the profile of demand and distribution of pupils with SEND makes it extremely difficult to improve the accuracy of the notional budget calculation to the point where there is a good fit between the notional budget and underlying need. Instead, policymakers should focus on sufficiency and weighting of factors in the National Funding Formula methodology to ensure that schools and colleges have sufficient resource in their core budget so that funding for additionality can be targeted entirely to support those pupils who need it.

Why are we are saying this?
In ASCL's think piece Proposals for the Schools White Paper 2022 we suggested that work is required to reverse the adversarial nature that has become a symptom of the system in recent years. Addressing the inadequacy of the funding available is essential, but so is inclusive ambition. Legacy underfunding and inconsistency of provision, both in terms of the cost model and programmes of support, mean that it can be difficult to know what works well and represents value for money. This could include developing a national framework which clarifies the responsibilities of a mainstream setting and tests the adequacy of the funding mechanism. We think that this would introduce greater parity to the experience of children and young people receiving support.
 

What is the context? 
In the funding year 2023/24, the core schools budget is increasing by £3.5 billion (revenue) compared to 2022/23. This includes £1.5 billion previously settled as part of the October 2021 spending review (SR21), and £2 billion from the Autumn 2022 statement. The additional £2 billion will remain in the core schools budget in 2024/25.  

The core schools budget includes revenue funding available for distribution via the schools and high needs national funding formulae, the mainstream schools additional grant (MSAG)  and the pupil premium. The Autumn Statement did not include additional funding for early years or post-16 provision. 

ASCL position: ASCL welcomes the additional funding for the core schools budget announced by the government in November 2022. However, we are very concerned that the percentage increases for mainstream, special and alternative provision for 2023/24 will be insufficient to address the cost pressures related to pay, fuel and general inflation. The failure to provide any additional funding for early years and post-16 providers is simply unacceptable. The outcomes for our children and young people continue to be significantly compromised.

Why are we are saying this?
In its Annual Report on Education Spending, the IFS estimates that total school spending per pupil will grow by approximately 7% between 2022 and 2024. We are mindful that this calculation includes local authority spending, sixth form funding, and funding for increases to pension and national insurance contributions, as well as direct allocations to schools. We are concerned here only with direct allocations to schools.

In 2023, funding allocated directly to mainstream schools by the National Funding Formula will deliver an average increase of 5.6% per pupil, including the MSAG.

In the financial year 2023 to 2024, maintained special schools and pupil referral units, special and alternative provision academies (including free schools), and maintained and academy hospital schools will receive a separate allocation amounting to 3.4% of their total place and top-up funding income, similar to the mainstream schools additional grant. 

The special schools’ minimum funding guarantee (MFG) for 2023 to 2024 has been set at 3%, compared with 2021 to 2022 funding levels.. The additional funding allocations referred to above must be excluded from the MFG calculations, so that special schools receive both the 3% MFG increase over two years and the additional 3.4% in 2023 to 2024.

School costs are more closely aligned with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) than with the GDP deflator as a measure of inflation. According to the ONS, CPI was running at 10.7% (12 month rate) at the time the Autumn Statement was delivered. The OBR forecast (December 2022) for CPI across 2023 indicates an average inflation figure of 7.4%.
 

What is the context? 
In Key Stage 1 (Reception to Year 2), all children receive free school meals (FSM) under the universal infant free school meal (UIFSM) scheme. After that, the eligibility threshold is set at an annual household income of less than £7,400 before benefits. In other words, you have to be extremely poor to qualify. In June 2022 the government extended eligibility for FSM to children from families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) with a household income of less than £22,700. 

ASCL position: ASCL calls on the government to amend the criteria for free school meal eligibility by removing the current household earnings threshold and extending the entitlement to all families in receipt of Universal Credit. This is essential in order to ensure that more children and young people living in poverty are eligible for free school meals.

Why are we saying this?
According to the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) 1 in 3 children in poverty are not eligible for FSM. ASCL believe that all children and young people in poverty should be eligible for free school meals. 

There is no widely accepted definition of ‘food poverty’. However, a household can broadly be defined as experiencing food poverty or ‘household food insecurity’ if they cannot (or are uncertain about whether they can) acquire “an adequate quality or sufficient quantity of food in socially acceptable ways”.

According to the Department for Work and Pensions’ Households Below Average Income survey, in 2020/21 4.2 million people (6%) were in food insecure households. Among the 10.5 million people in relative poverty, 16% were in food insecure households, including 17% of children.

The recent increase in the cost of living has increased household food insecurity. A YouGov survey by the Food Foundation found that, in April 2022, 15.5% of all UK households were food insecure (ate less or went a day without eating because they couldn’t access or afford food).

In June to July 2022, of the 91% of adults in Great Britain who reported an increase in their cost of living, 95% saw the price of their food shopping go up, and 44% had started spending less on essentials, including food. 

Further information
House of Commons Library: Food poverty briefing here.
National Food Strategy here.

A note on Scotland and Wales
Free school meals in Scotland:
The Scottish government is gradually rolling out universal free school meals to all primary school pupils. Pupils from Primary 1 to 5 are now eligible, with the full roll-out all the way to Primary 7 expected to be completed later in the parliamentary term.

Free school meals in Wales:
The Welsh government has committed to rolling out universal free school meals to all primary school pupils by September 2024 using a phased approach, starting with the youngest pupils from September 2022.

 

What is the context? 
We welcome the government’s focus on supporting people to retrain through their lives and gain new skills aligned to the needs of the economy. 
  
We continue to be concerned about the severe underfunding of the Post-16 sector, which plays such a vital role in delivering the technical and vocational education that the government says it is so keen to boost, as well as academic routes which are also of the utmost importance.
  
ASCL position: ASCL supports the proposal for skills being central to the government’s growth plan. However, we believe that the increase in skills education as set out in the Act will only be achievable if the learner base rate is at least adequate. It is also imperative that the cost of working with employers is recognised in that rate. 

Why are we saying this?
We believe that the systematic under-investment in education and training since 2013, including at level two and below, has contributed to the ‘forgotten third’ of young people who under-achieve in comparison with their peers. If the Skills and Post-16 Education Act is intended to be a leveller in society then education and training, including for skills, must be properly funded. 




 

What is the context?
The ESFA has confirmed changes to 16-19 funding for the academic year 2022/23. The headline is that the national funding rate for full-time 16 and 17-year-olds and students aged 18 and over with high needs, will be £4542 (£4188 in 2021/22). This is welcome and has been achieved using funding made available as part of the 2021 spending review (SR). The increased rate includes a commitment for provision of an additional 40 planned hours per student in band 5. In academic year 2022 /23 all institutions are expected to deliver on average 40 more hours on band 5 programmes than in academic year 2020 to 2021(the benchmark year).

In 2022/23 the annual planned hours minimum for band 5 students will be 580+.

ASCL position: we believe that where a provider delivers the minimum 580+ hours this should fully satisfy full-time funding requirements, irrespective of how many hours they have delivered in previous academic years. The same principle should apply proportionately to the other funding bands and larger qualifications such as T Levels.

Schools and colleges should not have to provide any further audit evidence over and above the census/ILR data.

Why are we saying it?
DfE expect all students funded in full-time band 5 (and all T Level students), to receive an additional 40 hours per year, (and other students to receive a proportional increase) and for providers to submit additional evidence of how this has been achieved. For example, a provider offering 560 hours might be expected to offer at least 600 hours in 2022/23. This will be monitored by the DfE with potential consequences for non-compliance. Guidance suggests that even if a provider already delivers more hours to the students than the new minimum required for their funding band, they will still expect them to proportionately increase hours for students in future years. For example, if a provider is already offering 580 hours, DfE would hope that the same provider would offer 620 hours in 2022/23. Where this is not possible providers can explain why in the end of year report. For example, if an institution’s ILR or census return showed an increase of only 30 hours above their 2020/21 baseline, the reason explained in their report could be that this was due to them changing the range of courses they deliver, with some that had a high number of hours no longer being offered, but detailing how they had added 40 hours to the courses that remain.

Further information
16-19 Funding Guidance for 2022/23 is available here
16-19 Funding guidance : Addition hours in study programmes is available here
 

What is the context?
In the 2022 to 2023 financial year, schools will be allocated £1.2 billion of additional funding to provide support for the costs of the Health and Social Care Levy and wider costs. This funding will be allocated through the schools supplementary grant 2022 to 2023.

The funding for maintained mainstream schools will be paid to local authorities, which will be required to pay it to individual schools at the rates published. The ESFA will pay funding at the published rates directly to mainstream academies.

In addition to the schools supplementary grant, local authorities have been allocated £325 million additional high needs funding for 2022 to 2023, on top of the dedicated schools grant high needs block allocations, calculated under the national funding formula. This includes funding for the Health and Social Care Levy and wider cost pressures in special schools and alternative provision. Those schools will not receive this additional funding under schools supplementary grant methodology, but should discuss with their local authority any increases as part of the top-up funding paid from local authorities’ high needs budgets.

ASCL position: ASCL calls on the government to issue robust conditions of grant associated to the additional high needs funding in 2022/23. Conditions of grant must require local authorities to calculate and pass on funding to special schools and alternative provision that adequately safeguards their workforce costs in respect of the Health and Social Care levy and wider cost pressures.

Why are we saying this? 
This is a very welcome addition to the high needs ‘pot’. However, we would  have expected to see a more rigorous condition of grant attached to the use of this fund. Without this, we fear that special schools and alternative provision settings are at risk of being disadvantaged compared with mainstream schools.

Further information
 Schools supplementary grant 2022/23 methodology is available here.
 

What is the context?
Devolved Formula Capital (DFC) is direct funding for individual institutions to maintain their buildings and fund other small-scale capital projects. This is the intended function.

Local authorities (LAs) receive the DFC payments for their maintained schools and the LAs are required to pass on these allocations to the schools. Academy trusts, VA bodies, and other institutions receive their DFC from the DfE. Local authorities may receive a DFC payment for maintained schools that have recently converted to academies; they are required to pass this on to schools in the usual way, regardless of conversion status.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that the funding available through devolved formula capital allocations is insufficient to meet the intended function, and that the current distribution methodology does not accurately reflect condition. It is also the case that the lack of coherence between different strands of schools’ capital represents a barrier to keeping some schools in a condition deemed fit for purpose.  For example, the DFC allocation may be significantly below the minimum threshold for applying for condition improvement funding (CIF) .

Why are we saying it?
DFC is distributed according to the number and age range of pupils and an estates factor which is applied as a weighting determined by age range. 

• In 2011/12 the  allocation for DFC was £182 million. There were 8.1 million pupils and 20,300 schools.
• In 2020/21 the allocation for DFC was £202 million. There were 8.9 million pupils and 24,360 schools.

For primary schools, the CIF project minimum threshold is £20,000 and for secondary schools it is £50,000. A single form entry primary academy may receive around £6,500 per year in DFC funding, and a medium-sized secondary school around £18,500 (as outlined here). In both cases, the DFC allocation is significantly below the CIF project threshold.
 

What is the context? 
Condition improvement funding (CIF) is allocated to single academies, small multi-academy trusts and sixth form colleges via the ESFA. The school condition allocations corresponding to these institutions are aggregated to form the CIF. The CIF is a bid-based funding stream through which these institutions can access condition funding. The size of this fund  reflects institutions eligible to bid, in terms of the number and age-phase of their pupils, their location, extent of modernisation and condition. 

Responsible bodies (larger multi academy trusts and local authorities) are allocated a school condition allowance (SCA) based on the total size of the pupil cohort across the whole estate.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that there should be greater equity of access to condition funding to help improve school and college estates.

The CIF bidding process  is not transparent and is not easily accessed or successful without the engagement of costly experts to write the application submission.

ASCL believes successful applications should be linked more effectively with a robust condition data collection process which delivers funding in a way that enables school and sixth form college (SFC) leaders to plan capital works more strategically over time. This requires greater alignment between access to CIF and access to school condition allowance (SCA).

ASCL also believes the timeline from application to announcement of successful projects must be shortened to ensure that works can be scheduled to fit the regular closure periods  within the academic year. The current timing of the announcement of successful applications has slipped to late spring / summer.

Why are we saying it?  
ASCL has two concerns:

• Firstly, there is no close link between the way that school estates condition data is collected to inform the ESFA (the Condition Data Collection) and the way in which institutions that rely on CIF can access the funding. The CIF funding annual application cycle tends not to support longer term strategic planning. This creates inequality between institutions eligible for CIF and responsible bodies which automatically receive school condition allowance (SCA). 
• Secondly, the CIF bidding process often requires costly bid writing services to be successful, which then takes funds away from those with the greatest need.

What is the context?
Over the past decade, the cost of 16-18 education has risen significantly, the needs of students have become more complex, and the government has demanded much more of colleges and schools. But the national funding rate for 16 and 17 year-olds has remained frozen since 2013, at £4,000 per student per year. In the September 2019 spending round, the government announced that it would raise the rate for 16 and 17 year-olds to £4,188 per student.

ASCL position:
ASCL fully supports the Raise the Rate campaign (www.raisetherate.org.uk) in their call for the learner rate to be at least £4,760 per year, and for that rate to be raised in line with inflation each year.

Why are we saying it?
The increase to £4,188 is a welcome first step, but research from London Economics has shown that the rate needs to increase to at least £4,760 per student per year to ensure that schools and colleges can continue to deliver a high-quality, internationally competitive education. The ongoing underinvestment in 16-18 education is bad for students, bad for our international competitiveness and bad for social mobility. 

What is the context? The government has recently committed to additional investment in Further Education.

ASCL position: ASCL welcomes the education funding increases announced in September 2019 but is concerned that this has not included any increase for adult learners. FE colleges, which deliver the majority of adult learning, are grossly underfunded which disproportionately impacts adult learning as a consequence.

Why are we saying it? The proposed additional investment in FE is actually only for 16-19 students, some of whom will be in school sixth forms and some in FE colleges. None of it is for adult learners over the age of 19, so the language is misleading and gives a false impression that the underfunding of colleges is finally being addressed.  
 

What is the context? ASCL members are increasingly concerned about issues relating to the operational effectiveness and value for money of PFI contracts to which their schools are subject. The contractual obligations of a PFI contract means that annual charges are indexed and there is usually no relief available for schools, even when the individual schools budget is decreasing in real terms.

We believe that some schools which wish to join a multi-academy trust may find this difficult as a result of the complexity and financial constraints associated with a PFI contract.

ASCL position: ASCL is concerned about the very serious financial and other implications, and hence the impact on the quality of education provision, in schools locked into PFI contracts, with year-on-year increases not matched by current funding.

Why are we saying it? The education of children and young people must not be compromised by the complexity, restriction and affordability of PFI contracts.
 

What is the context? ASCL broadly welcomes recent changes announced to the distribution methodology of the 16-19 discretionary bursary to fund T Level industry placements, and recognises that the total amount provided for this is unlikely to change. 

ASCL position: ASCL believes that the 16-19 discretionary bursary should not be used to fund T Level industry placements and associated costs. These are new high-cost activities, which should be funded separately and on top of the existing 16-19 discretionary bursary budget. 

Why are we saying it? The guidance on the distribution methodology gives a specific example of where the bursary could be used for funding industry placements for T Level students. As these placements are for 315 hours (45 days) they will be disproportionately costly and would mean little or no remaining funding available for students on other programmes.

What is the context? The overall national education budget is not currently set such that all educational institutions are funded at a level that enables them to provide an outstanding quality of education for their students

ASCL position: ASCL believes that 19 year-old students should receive the full-time 16-19 funding rate, irrespective of what type of study programme they are undertaking. 

Why are we saying it? Students in schools and colleges are the workforce of the future. Adequate preparation for the world of work is essential in all types of qualification. Schools and colleges offering full time study programmes for students at age 19 should not be advantaged nor disadvantaged by the study programme they offer.

What is the context? Recent funding announcements regarding an increase in 16-19 funding indicate that more money will be weighted towards STEM subjects. 

ASCL position: ASCL welcomes the additional funding for higher cost 16-19 STEM subjects. However, this additional cost weighting should be applied to all 16-19 STEM qualifications, e.g. A Levels and applied general qualifications (AGQs), and not just to T Levels.

Why are we saying it? The additional cost of providing these subjects occurs regardless of the resulting qualification. 

What is the context? As part of the recent reforms to the dedicated schools grant (DSG), the high needs block is allocated according to a national formula. The reforms to the DSG include a restriction on the flexibilities that LAs have to move funds from the schools block to support other blocks, typically the high needs block. Historically, around three quarters of LAs have moved funds in this way. This policy change has brought the severity of the situation in high needs funding into sharp focus.

ASCL position: A recent Isos/LGA report adds to the existing evidence that a lack of places for SEND learners is placing significant financial stress on high needs blocks, which in turn places extra stress on school resources. ASCL calls for greater capital investment in appropriate local state SEND provision to avoid the need for LAs to commission costlier places elsewhere.

Why are we saying this? The Isos/LGA report indicates that EHCPs in state-funded schools increased by 35% in the four years up to 2018, and that there is limited capacity in special schools, as well as limited access to reasonable cost provision.

The report suggests that, if steps are not taken to address the current funding shortfall, it will rise to between £1.1 and £1.5 billion within the next few years.

What is the context? The NFF (September 2017) acknowledges the requirement for a minimum per pupil funding level but it doesn’t go far enough. The current methodology benchmarks minimum per pupil funding against a basket of factors including basic per pupil funding (AWPU), some additionality factors and some school factors.

ASCL position: The basic per pupil funding that a school receives should be sufficient to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum without subsidy from additional needs funding. Minimum per pupil funding level calculations should not include additional needs or school led funding.

Why are we saying it? It is ASCL’s view that the minimum per pupil level should reflect the cost of delivering a core curriculum in a baseline school and should not include additionality funding. We think that pupils eligible for additionality funding should have full access to that funding. Schools should not have to use additionality funding to subsidise core curriculum delivery.

ASCL position: Schools should be sufficiently funded such that parents are not being asked to subsidised their child's basic educational needs. 

Audit should not be a process that disadvantages the academy sector through being overly bureaucratic and costly in its financial reporting and recording mechanisms.

ASCL welcomes the government’s commitment to supporting young people to get the best start in life, through the opportunity that high quality education and training provides. 

However, ASCL believes that the Apprenticeship Levy does not represent value for money for schools and we require the DfE to ensure that it does not result in diverting money away from the education of young people.