The National Education Union should 鈥渟eek clarity鈥 from the statistics watchdog about its claim the government has 鈥渇ailed to provide adequate information on funding鈥 for teacher pay, the education secretary has said. The Office for Statistics Regulation ruled last week that the government鈥檚 claim its teacher pay deal is 鈥渇ully-funded鈥 on a national level is backed up by evidence, but said ministers must be more transparent about affordability for individual schools. In particular, the watchdog urged the DfE to 鈥渃onsider including its definition of fully funded鈥 in future analysis of school costs, to 鈥渆nhance transparency鈥. In response, the NEU, which had complained to the OSR about DfE claims about the offer, said the government 鈥渇ailed to provide the adequate information on funding to school leaders鈥 in a blog post on March 28. Today, education secretary Gillian Keegan She said the OSR judgment 鈥渁ppears to contradict several statements on your website”, though she only pointed to the one about inadequate information. 鈥淚 am sure you will endeavour to seek clarity from the OSR, as I have done, and correct those statements if necessary.鈥 She added that 鈥渁s a leader and public figure, I know I have a duty to act with integrity, objectivity and accountability鈥. 鈥淭hat is why I was keen for the UK Stats Authority to review my department鈥檚 presentation of the facts and supporting evidence. I believe all parties in this dispute should seek to uphold these standards as we seek resolution to the teacher pay dispute.鈥 The letter stated that “polling evidence from Teacher Tapp suggested that teachers would have accepted the offer had they believed it was funded”. Fourty per cent of teachers said . Just under a third said they would not accept it, while a quarter were unsure. DfE was urged to define ‘fully-funded’ Last week the OSR ruled that although it was 鈥渘ot within our remit to judge the affordability of any pay offer鈥, the DfE 鈥渉as evidenced its claim that the offer is fully funded in line with its definition鈥. But director-general Ed Humpherson acknowledged 鈥渟ome users may interpret fully funded to refer to the individual school level鈥. It follows criticism that the government鈥檚 evidence on affordability looked at an average across the school system, masking problems on the ground, for example in special schools. Keegan claimed the OSR鈥檚 response had been 鈥渦nequivocal鈥, and noted that the STRB evidence and school costs technical document 鈥渁re clear that the Department鈥檚 approach focuses on averages across all schools in England鈥. She also said the OSR had concluded the claim of fully-funded was evidenced 鈥渋n line with the definition used in the evidence that the department provided to the School Teachers鈥 Review Body, and in the Schools鈥 Costs Technical Note, both published in February鈥. However, a search of the documents reveals that the phrase 鈥渇ully-funded鈥 is only used once in relation to National Professional Qualifications, not in relation to pay. Both documents were also prepared before the government made its improved pay offer in March. In a response to Keegan, Bousted and Courtney noted her letter 鈥渄oesn’t include that definition – and this doesn’t aid public understanding of these issues鈥. 鈥淭he NEU estimates that 70 per cent of schools will receive less from you in increased funding than your estimate of their increased costs. 鈥淭o aid public understanding could you clarify what proportion of schools you believe will receive increases in funding which are less than their increases in costs?鈥 The DfE was approached for clarification about what definition Keegan was referring-to. The lack of a definition of 鈥渇ully-funded鈥 in analysis was also a bone of contention for the OSR. To 鈥渆nhance transparency鈥, Humpherson last week urged the DfE to 鈥渃onsider including its definition of fully funded鈥 in future analysis.