In his newest article, Russell Dalton builds on his previous exploration of spend analysis, showing how deeper financial scrutiny can actively help schools design fairer, needs-led provision
Talk to school leaders about equity and you’ll hear the right words very quickly, fairness, inclusion, moral purpose. Talk to them about finance and the mood usually shifts. Budgets are something to survive, something to manage down, something that limits what we’d really like to do. That separation is understandable, but it’s also part of the problem.
Whether a school is maintained or part of an academy trust, finance is already shaping equity every single day. The question isn’t whether money influences fairness, but whether we’re paying close enough attention to how it does. Because behind every budget line is a decision about whose needs come first.
Equality Looks Tidy. Equity Rarely Does
On paper, the funding system gives the impression of fairness. Schools of a similar size receive broadly similar core funding. Add-ons like Pupil Premium and SEND allocations attempt to reflect additional need. From a distance, it looks reasonable. On the ground, it often doesn’t feel that way. I’ve seen schools with almost identical budgets dealing with completely different realities. One coping with high pupil mobility, complex SEND, safeguarding pressures and poor attendance. Another relatively stable, with fewer vulnerabilities but the same structural costs. Treating those schools as though they are starting from the same place isn’t neutral, it quietly advantages one over the other.
Financial analysis helps expose that mismatch. Not in an abstract, theoretical way, but in very practical terms, where staff time goes, which pupils benefit from smaller classes, where support is stretched thin and where it’s quietly comfortable. That’s where equity actually lives, not in funding formulas, but in day-to-day decisions.
Moving From Historical Budgets to Needs-led Planning
One of the biggest barriers to equitability in schools is the weight of historical budgeting. Many budgets are built on last year’s figures with incremental adjustments, reinforcing decisions made years earlier for contexts that may no longer exist. A needs-led approach, underpinned by financial analysis, challenges this inertia.
By mapping spending against current pupil profiles and projected needs, schools can realign resources to where they are most needed now. This might mean investing more heavily in early language development, pastoral capacity, or mental health support, even if those areas were previously underfunded or seen as “non-core”. Crucially, this approach also allows leaders to articulate why resources are being deployed differently. Equity is far easier to defend, to governors, regulators and communities, when it is supported by clear financial evidence rather than intuition alone.
What Happens When You Really Look at Core Funding
In one maintained secondary school I worked with, leaders finally sat down and broke apart their staffing costs by key stage. What they found was awkward but illuminating. A lot of money was tied up protecting small option classes in Key Stage 4. Meanwhile, Key Stage 3, where literacy gaps were widest and disadvantage most concentrated, was carrying larger classes and more non-specialist cover. No one had set out to design it that way. It had just evolved, year after year. Once the numbers were visible, the conversation changed. Curriculum models were adjusted. Some difficult decisions were made. More resource was pushed into early intervention, not because someone had a hunch, but because the data showed that’s where the need really sat. Nothing magical happened. The budget didn’t increase. But the impact shifted, and that’s the point.
Pupil Premium: Honest Analysis Beats Good Intentions
Pupil Premium is probably the funding stream most closely associated with equity and also one of the most misunderstood! In many schools, particularly maintained ones, it becomes a separate document, a compliance exercise, rather than something genuinely woven into financial thinking. One school I know took a different approach.
Instead of asking “What shall we spend Pupil Premium on this year?”, they asked, “What has actually made a difference over the last three?” They tracked spending alongside attendance, behaviour and staff feedback. The uncomfortable truth was that some expensive interventions looked impressive on paper but faded quickly. Meanwhile, a relatively modest investment in pastoral support, someone who knew families, followed up absences and caught problems early, had quietly delivered far more impact. They stopped chasing shiny solutions and made that role permanent. Over time, attendance improved, exclusions dropped and teaching staff noticed pupils arriving calmer and more ready to learn.
That wasn’t clever finance. It was honest finance.
SEND – When the Numbers Finally Match Reality
SEND funding is where equity conversations often get emotionally charged, understandably so. The gap between need and resource is real and many schools are carrying significant hidden costs.
One school undertook a proper analysis of what SEND provision was actually costing them. Not just teaching assistants, but leadership time, training, timetable flexibility, pastoral support, all the things that rarely sit neatly in one budget line. The result was stark. The notional SEND budget covered only part of the picture. The rest was being absorbed quietly elsewhere.
What changed wasn’t just the conversation with the local authority (although that became more grounded and credible). Internally, leaders started questioning whether their provision model was always the right one. Some reactive, high-cost approaches weren’t helping pupils as much as earlier, more flexible support. Equity improved not because funding suddenly became generous, but because decisions became clearer.
Maintained or Academy? The Principles Don’t Change
Academy trusts often have more capacity for trust-wide analysis, but maintained schools can, and do, achieve the same benefits through local collaboration.
In one area, a schools shared anonymised financial and contextual data. What emerged wasn’t a ranking, but a story, smaller schools carrying disproportionate fixed costs, higher-need schools stretching resources further and some unintended imbalances no one had meant to create. That shared understanding led to joint commissioning, shared expertise and better support across them all. Equity came from cooperation, not comparison.
Who Understands the Budget Matters
One of the quiet equity issues in schools is who gets to take part in financial conversations?
When budgets are only understood by headteachers and business professionals, decisions, however well-intentioned, are made with a narrow lens. When SENDCOs, pastoral leaders and curriculum leads understand the financial picture, the quality of decisions improves. I’ve seen schools transform the way they allocate resources simply by making financial information accessible and normal to talk about. Not dumbed down, just human. When leaders understand the cost of a timetable change or an intervention, they plan differently. That’s not about turning everyone into an accountant. It’s about shared responsibility.
Not everything that matters shows up cleanly in data. Breakfast clubs, nurture spaces, trusted adults. Their value is obvious to anyone who works in schools, even if it’s hard to quantify.
The mistake isn’t using financial analysis; it’s using it too narrowly. Good schools look at cost alongside attendance trends, behaviour patterns, staff workload and pupil voice. They accept that equity requires judgement, not just metrics. Sometimes the right question isn’t “Is this value for money?” but “Who would struggle more if we took this away?”
Budgets are Moral Documents Whether we Like it or Not
Maintained or academy, primary or secondary, every school budget is a statement of values. It shows who we prioritise, what we protect and what we’re willing to challenge. In the current funding climate, equity won’t be delivered by waiting for a better system. It will come from leaders who understand the one we’re in, well enough to use it deliberately, honestly and, at times, bravely! Financial analysis doesn’t make schools less human. Used properly, it helps us be fairer and that’s worth the effort.
Be the first to comment