School Funding Allocation

Everyone’s talking about the SEN white paper. But let’s address the elephant in the room. Schools currently rely heavily on EHCP-linked funding to employ support staff. And in reality, those staff are often supporting multiple pupils, not just one named child. That is the operational truth in most classrooms, whether policy purists like it or not. Now we’re talking about redefining EHCPs and funding structures. Fine. In theory, that could be positive. But here’s the practical question no one is answering clearly: If EHCP definitions change, what happens to the funding stream that schools use to pay for LSAs, TAs, and behaviour support staff? Because those roles are not optional extras. They are the scaffolding that keeps many classrooms functioning day to day. You can announce bigger headline investment. You can restructure the framework. You can shift the language. But if the funding becomes less directly tied to individual need, schools may end up with: • Less predictable funding • Less flexibility in deployment • More pressure on already stretched support teams And that doesn’t show up neatly in policy summaries. It shows up in real classrooms, with real children, and real staff trying to cover multiple needs at once. From a recruitment and frontline perspective (and this is what I see every week), support staff are already in short supply. Schools are not overstaffed in SEND support. They are barely coping. So the honest question is this: Are we genuinely reforming SEND funding … Or quietly redistributing it in a way that could reduce schools’ ability to fund the very people who make inclusion workable? Because if the structure changes without ring-fenced, accessible funding for support staff, the day-to-day impact won’t be theoretical. It will be fewer adults in classrooms. More stretched provision. And more pressure on teachers who are already carrying significant SEND responsibility. Policy headlines talk about system improvement. Schools will judge it on one thing only: Does this make it easier, or harder, to actually support children in the classroom every single day?

Public school spending in the United States has more than doubled since 1970, yet student performance has barely improved. Where has the money gone? In a new article for Politics & Policy, Corey DeAngelis and I examine how unionization affects how schools allocate resources. Using nearly two decades of data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Current Population Survey, we find that higher union density is consistently linked with higher staff-to-student ratios, driven largely by growth in administrative and support roles, not teaching positions. States with right-to-work laws show leaner staffing patterns and greater stability over time. Districts with larger administrative teams tend to have lower math and reading scores, particularly among 8th graders. While unions can bring benefits, such as improved teacher pay and retention, our results suggest that unchecked bargaining power can also divert resources away from the classroom. Policy reforms could help realign incentives: • Tie funding increases to measurable student outcomes rather than overall headcount. • Increase transparency in staffing and spending at the district level. • Expand family choice and competition, which naturally constrain administrative growth. • Encourage collective bargaining that prioritizes instructional quality and teacher development over bureaucratic expansion. Rebalancing how we spend on education is not about cutting teachers, but rather ensuring that resources flow to where they matter most: students and learning. Read the full article below. #EducationPolicy #PublicFinance #LaborEconomics #SchoolReform #Unionization

Procedure for allocating of budget with the collaboration of stakeholders. 1. Establish Clear Objectives Define Goals and Priorities: Work with stakeholders to understand the overall goals of the project, program, or organization. This could include financial targets, strategic initiatives, and key performance indicators. 2. Identify Stakeholders List All Stakeholders: Stakeholders may include department heads, project managers, financial officers, external partners, and even customers or community members depending on the context. 3. Gather Input and Data Consult Stakeholders: Organize meetings, surveys, or focus groups with stakeholders to gather input on the needs, challenges, and priorities for funding. Analyze Data: Assess historical financial data, performance metrics, and expected trends. 4. Develop Budget Proposals Draft Budget Estimates: Based on input from stakeholders, develop initial budget proposals. These should outline the estimated costs for each department or initiative, with detailed justifications. 5. Collaborative Review and Feedback Share Proposals with Stakeholders: Present the draft budget to stakeholders for feedback. This could involve review meetings or workshops where stakeholders can provide input or adjustments. 6. Negotiate and Make Trade-Offs Prioritize Requests: If the proposed budget exceeds available resources, stakeholders must prioritize funding based on urgency and impact. This may involve tough decisions, such as scaling back on some initiatives. Adjust Funding Allocations: Allow stakeholders to negotiate on funding levels for different areas, making adjustments where necessary to ensure that the most critical areas are adequately funded. 7. Finalize Budget Allocation Consolidate the Budget: Once all revisions have been made and stakeholders are in agreement, consolidate the budget into a final document. This document should include detailed explanations of allocations, timelines, and expected outcomes. 8. Communicate the Final Budget Distribute the Budget: Ensure that all stakeholders have access to the finalized budget and are informed about their roles in implementing it. Clarify Expectations: Clearly communicate expectations, responsibilities, and timelines for budget execution to all relevant parties. 9. Monitor and Adjust Track Spending: Monitor budget execution throughout the fiscal year. Regularly review financial reports to ensure spending aligns with the budget. Collaborative Adjustments: If there are changes in circumstances (e.g., unexpected costs or savings), work with stakeholders to make necessary adjustments to the budget. 10. Evaluate and Review Evaluate Performance: At the end of the budget cycle, assess how well the budget met the goals and whether resources were allocated effectively. Post-Implementation Review: Hold meetings with stakeholders to review the process, discuss challenges, and gather lessons learned for future budgeting cycles.

Upfront SEND funding for mainstream schools: what is proposed? The Department for Education is consulting on a new approach to funding SEND support in mainstream schools from 2027–28. Participating local authorities could transfer part of their high-needs funding into school budgets through a new “local SEND inclusion factor”. Schools would receive more money upfront and, in return, would be expected to meet a greater share of SEND support costs from their core budgets before seeking top-up funding. The current threshold is £6,000 per pupil per year and has remained at that level since 2013. Participating local authorities could apply to raise it, with additional funding transferred to schools to reflect their increased responsibilities. The aim is to reduce delay and bureaucracy by giving schools greater certainty, enabling earlier planning and avoiding repeated applications for individual funding. The proposal is not simply an increase in funding. It would also change how financial responsibility is allocated between local authorities and schools. Much of the money would be distributed through local formulae using indicators such as deprivation and low prior attainment. Those indicators may not always reflect the number of pupils with SEND in a school, the complexity of their needs or the cost of the provision required. The consultation recognises this and envisages discretionary funding where the formula is insufficient. The proposed threshold would remain a funding mechanism, not a ceiling on provision. Local authorities would remain responsible under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 for securing the provision specified in an EHCP. Mainstream schools would retain their section 66 duty to use their best endeavours to secure the provision required by a pupil’s special educational needs, whether or not the pupil has an EHCP. The practical questions are whether funding will be sufficient and fairly distributed, whether it will reflect actual need, whether top-up funding will remain accessible, and whether parents and carers will be able to see how the additional money has translated into support. No final decision has yet been made. The consultation closes on 18 September 2026. Earlier and more flexible support is a sound objective. The key question is whether the proposed system will improve support while ensuring that schools are adequately and fairly resourced. Find out more: https://lnkd.in/eGZViGmt Sean Kennedy #SEND #SENDReform #EHCP #EducationLaw #SchoolFunding #InclusiveEducation Mandy Aulak

Companies fund education in cities. Meanwhile, rural schools are left behind. CSR spending is heavily skewed toward industrialized states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. Maharashtra receives over ₹5,375 crores in CSR contributions, while North-Eastern states like Mizoram and remote regions receive substantially less. Corporations choose locations where the cameras are. Not where the need is greatest. The schools struggling most get the least support. Because CSR isn't about need. It's about visibility. Urban schools get STEM labs and coding programs. Rural schools can't afford basic infrastructure. Wealthy regions get digital transformation. Remote communities still lack internet connectivity. Critical gaps remain in ICT facilities, fencing, and infrastructure for learners with special needs. But companies aren't rushing to fix those gaps. Because there's no photo op in building accessible bathrooms. No LinkedIn post in repairing leaking roofs. No brand value in hiring special education teachers. According to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, approximately 75% of CSR funds are concentrated in three sectors: education, healthcare, and rural poverty alleviation. Yet sectors like livelihood enhancement remain underfunded despite their potential to create sustainable economic growth. We say we're investing in education, but we're really investing in optics. Stop funding schools based on where your headquarters are. And start funding based on where the need actually is. #Education