Schools are having up to 28 per cent shaved off their budgets by academy trusts that pool their funding, an investigation has found. Unions are now demanding greater scrutiny over how trusts pool budgets 鈥 known as general annual grant (GAG) pooling 鈥 as leaders await promised government guidance to support decisions around the controversial practice. Schools Week analysis of 15 MATs that employ GAG pooling found dozens of schools with budgets that are 15 per cent less than allocated by the government鈥檚 national funding formula. The retained cash is used to fund trust central teams, services provided back to schools or to bump up funding of other schools in the MAT. Trusts say pooling allows them to save schools money through economies of scale. And redistributing cash to struggling academies means some can actually get more than allocated by the government. Micon Metcalfe But school finance expert Micon Metcalfe said there should be 鈥渕ore disclosure鈥 around the funding model. 鈥淭he public generally should have a right to know that funding that is allocated to those children in those schools, if it’s not going directly to them, isn’t having a detrimental impact,鈥 she said. 鈥淭here should be a justification and clarity over it.鈥 GAG pooling is used by a fifth of trusts, surveys suggest. MATs pool all their schools鈥 funding that is issued by government, and dish out individual budgets based on their own criteria. Other trusts top slice their school budgets to fund central services. Under this method, schools get their national funding allocations and the trust instead charges a fee. On average, top-slice charges range from 5.5 per cent in the large MATs to 8.8 per cent in the smallest. This figure is usually published in annual accounts. Schools see 28 per cent budget cut GAG-pooling trusts said details showing central service costs are given in annual accounts, but it is difficult to deduce what proportion this accounts for in individual schools. So Schools Week asked 15 GAG-pooling trusts, through freedom of information requests, how much funding their schools got compared with the amount awarded by the Department for Education. Ten responded with the full data. rebuffed our request 鈥 saying releasing the information would be 鈥減rejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs鈥. Two other trusts, City Learning Trust and East Midlands Academy Trust, did not respond at all. Of those that did respond, Aspire Academy Trust retained 24 per cent of its 37 schools鈥 GAG funding in 2023-24 鈥 the highest of any trust. Eight of its schools received 28 per cent less than their government allocation, with all the others having at least 15 per cent effectively sliced. A spokesperson for the primary school-only trust said that while the pooled amounts 鈥渕ay appear comparatively higher鈥 than others, allocations were 鈥渂ased on need and requirements鈥. The range and scale of services provided to schools were extensive, they said, including estates management, IT, HR, health and safety, business support and school improvement support. That left cash delegated to academies 鈥渟pecifically for school-based staffing and curriculum-related resources only鈥. Pooling funding ensured 鈥渧alue for money at all times鈥 and met the 鈥渘eeds of all academies鈥 in a fair and equitable model鈥. Some schools might also get an additional 鈥渞eallocation鈥 of their original GAG based on 鈥渋ndividual needs鈥. Trusts provide more services centrally Oasis Community Learning, one of the country鈥檚 biggest trusts, took 17 per cent of its schools鈥 GAG allocations on average 鈥 the second highest. It did not provide school-level figures for its 54 academies, saying this would take more than 18 hours of staff time to compile, the limit for FOIs. It was followed by the Paradigm Trust in London, whose schools got 15 per cent less than allocated by the government, analysis suggests. In all, 77 schools across the 10 trusts who responded had at least 15 per cent of their budgets retained centrally. At three of the MATs 鈥 Brigantia Learning Trust, Enquire Learning Trust and Our Lady of Lourdes 鈥 no schools had more than 10 per cent extracted. However, sector leaders say it is not possible to compare trusts based on costs alone, as each provides its schools with different services. For instance, Paradigm said it runs many central functions 鈥渢hat would, in other trusts, be expected in each individual school budget鈥, such as IT and SEND support, and mental health provision. Its 鈥渆ntire school improvement team鈥 was included centrally and not recharged to individual academies. Dartmoor Multi Academy Trust retained about 12 per cent of school budgets overall last year. But as well as school improvement and financial management support, it provided schools with apprentice training, legal help and wellbeing forums. Pooling 鈥榟elps cut variances鈥 鈥 The academy trust handbook says GAG pooling enhances a MAT鈥檚 鈥渁bility to allocate resources in line with improvement priorities and running costs across the trust鈥檚 constituent academies鈥. Lord Agnew, the former Conservative academies minister, said it was 鈥渙ne of the greatest [academy] freedoms鈥 because it helped shift funding from stronger schools to stabilise weaker schools. Tim Howes, the chief operating officer of Futura Learning Partnership, whose trust retained about 8 per cent of school budgets on average, said the MAT 鈥渨anted to ensure that variances in local authority approaches [to funding] do not adversely impact any of our schools鈥. It works across five council areas. It also prioritises funding to disadvantaged schools. Steve Rollett, the deputy chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, added pooling could allow trusts to target funding between schools, reserves, and shared services 鈥 鈥減erhaps to cover a temporary blip in pupil numbers or to pay for a joint staff post鈥. A report published by IMP Software last year found two thirds of GAG-pooling trusts allocated cash to their schools based on need. Just over a quarter managed all funding centrally with 鈥渆ducation budgets released for local requirements鈥, while one in 10 used revised models 鈥渢o even out geographical differences鈥. 鈥 and actually saves schools thousands Oasis said it aimed to use 5 per cent of GAG to pay for 鈥渘ational services or 鈥榯he centre鈥欌. A further 12 per cent was 鈥渇or costs that schools would have to include in their individual budgets鈥. This led to a 鈥渓ower cost and higher standard than might otherwise have been able to achieve alone鈥. 鈥淲e are confident that by procuring and delivering on scale鈥 we can achieve better value for money than 54 schools purchasing the same services individually,鈥 an Oasis spokesperson added. 鈥楶rocuring and delivering on scale means better value for money鈥 It recalculated funding using pupil numbers and deprivation levels based on government rates, rather than those set by local authorities. The only adjustments were 拢20,000 lump sums for one-form-entry schools and cash to support growing schools on lagged funding. The Diocese of Ely Trust, which retained about 12 per cent of its schools鈥 GAG, said that when the value of the goods and services this paid for was accounted for, the smallest schools got 鈥渂etween 101 to 102 per cent of their ESFA income back鈥. Among other things, it provided curriculum resources, CPD and insurance. Brigantia said more than 拢440,000 went towards purchasing services for its schools such as IT technicians, Microsoft licences and exercise books. The trust believes that once the services it provided back to schools were accounted for, the central trust held 6 per cent. 鈥榃e don鈥檛 know if it鈥檚 value for money鈥 But a public accounts committee report from 2022 said the practice 鈥渕eans there is no way to identify if every pupil in a MAT has received the government鈥檚 guaranteed minimum level of funding鈥. The practice also runs counter to the long-held aim of a national funding formula, to make funding more transparent by setting out in clear blocks how cash is awarded. 鈥淚t is a good thing that trusts can do it,鈥 Metcalfe said. 鈥淏ut it’s very unclear how much is actually supporting very large central teams that may or may not provide value for money.鈥 Hilary Goldsmith, a school business leader, added 鈥渞eal, genuine transparency [between staff and MATs] about what GAG pooling is for, why and how it leads to school improvement鈥 was needed. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about ensuring staff fully understand the value and agree with the numbers,鈥 she said. Metcalfe said per-pupil funding allocations for each school in GAG-pooling trusts should be published on MAT websites. 鈥楾hinking needed on collaborative decisions鈥 Rowena Hackwood, the chief executive of the Astrea Academy Trust, told a conference last month that the MAT has 鈥渉ad to have a little bit of a think about how we develop and present that idea of what it means to have a shared, collaborative view of how we allocate our resources鈥. She said the amounts trusts ringfenced for things such as professional services, school improvement support and estates 鈥渢ypically comes to between 10 and 18 per cent鈥. ‘Scrutiny should be the price for receiving public money鈥 But she added: 鈥淲hat we were finding was that 鈥 our school leaders didn’t know that was the case, and they were wondering why they couldn’t get all of that stuff for 5 per cent.鈥 However, Astrea rejected our FOI request 鈥 despite acknowledging the public interest 鈥渋n knowing how taxpayers鈥 money is used and how schools are resourced鈥. They said information available in the public domain was sufficient. Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the NEU, argued the 鈥渓ack of transparency鈥 around GAG pooling 鈥渕akes a mockery of formularisation鈥. 鈥淪crutiny should be the price for receiving public money.鈥 But Rollett said that all trusts鈥 finances and processes were subject to rigorous external audit. E-ACT and the David Ross Education Trust also said it was not possible to say how much of the GAG funding their individual schools were accountable for, and that some of this information was available publicly. GAG pooling rise 鈥榠nevitable鈥 Benedicte Yue Some, such as the EDSK think tank, have called for the practice to be banned. On pooling allowing trusts to smooth out funding differences, Benedicte Yue, a trust chief financial officer, also said the national funding formula was 鈥渁lready allocating funding based on pupil characteristics鈥. 鈥淚t may not be perfect, but it is transparent, and GAG-pooling arrangements could perhaps be more clearly explained externally.鈥 But Dan Morrow, the chief executive of the Cornwall Education Learning Trust, said pooling funding was 鈥渁n inevitable structural move鈥, with chains increasingly recognising they were 鈥渙ne employer鈥. 鈥楾his is about using every lever we have to put children first鈥 鈥淸This means] the notion of arbitrarily keeping funding in silos makes no organisational sense. Rowena Hackwood 鈥淭op-slicing relies on a static picture and is less responsive to need and the idea that you can resource where the highest need or risk is.鈥 Hackwood added: 鈥淥ne of our greatest strengths as a trust is our ability to harness our collective power鈥攑ooling resources to invest smarter, not harder. “From finance to data systems, some services simply deliver better value when centralised. This is about using every lever we have to put children first.鈥 Pooling ‘might discourage schools from joining’ Despite this, the IMP report showed that some trusts believe pooling 鈥渕ight discourage schools from joining鈥 especially in cases of voluntary transfers鈥. There were also concerns about it potentially 鈥渄iverting attention from broader funding challenges鈥 to 鈥渃omplaints about the trust鈥檚 allocations鈥. A report by Kreston accountants predicts pooling will continue to grow as it provided 鈥渕ore flexibility over how trusts achieve their objectives鈥 and allowed them to 鈥渕ake quicker changes鈥. Metcalfe added that 鈥渘ot giving people enough financial accountability and ability to deploy staff can mean that they cannot take accountability for standards鈥. However, Chris Kirk, of education advisory firm CJK Associates, said providing more services from a trust level meant heads could 鈥渇ocus on teaching and learning. That can be a really good thing 鈥 it means that others who have professionally trained for managing estates, finance, HR can support them by focusing on those things.鈥 Where is promised guidance? Schools Week revealed last year that the DfE was considering drawing up guidance on GAG pooling. The department said this week that it 鈥渃ontinues to consider and engage the sector to understand what further support and guidance might be helpful for academy trusts, across a range of areas, including on the pooling of GAG鈥. Chris Kirk Rules state that trusts 鈥渕ust consider the funding needs and allocations of each constituent鈥 school and have an appeals process that can be escalated to DfE. Its ruling would be final and could result in 鈥減ooling provisions being dis-applied鈥. In February the government said no appeals on GAG pooling had been 鈥渆scalated鈥. And a former policy adviser, who did not want to be named, said: 鈥淚n what other world would we expect an organisation to have a single strategy, but not a single budget? That makes no sense. 鈥淎nd those wanting more red tape and checking and publishing of stuff 鈥 as if schools aren鈥檛 already heavily scrutinised 鈥 I鈥檇 ask why it鈥檚 OK for a trust to spend more money filling in forms, but not OK for them to spend more on a challenging school serving a low income community that needs to get better? 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know why we care about this if trusts are following the rules set out and the schools are getting better.” How GAG pooling led to parliament spotlight GAG pooling was thrust into the spotlight last year when staff at University of Brighton Academies Trust (UBAT) went on strike over the issue. Schools Week revealed one of its schools had 20 per cent of its budget retained centrally. One staff member said the practice 鈥渙verrides the [DfE鈥檚] funding formula鈥 and was a 鈥渟ignificant amount鈥 from one school, which was 鈥渇orced to make contact cuts whilst central teams get bigger鈥. The issue even landed in parliament, with Catherine McKinnell, the schools minister, telling MPs: 鈥淭he trust is now committed to 鈥 collaborating with school leaders on future budget setting.鈥 It will also now shut following the fall-out, with its schools handed to over trusts. Our FOI shows UBAT took about 10 per cent from its schools鈥 budgets on average. James Ellis, the trust鈥檚 lead National Education Union rep, claimed at the union鈥檚 conference last week the money was spent on 鈥渂loated executive pay鈥, with nearly 鈥渁 million quid on marketing 鈥 and they were buying in loads and loads of private external consultants鈥. The trust said it had 鈥渓istened to our community鈥 and was 鈥渞educing central spending this year鈥. It will now set budgets for next year on a typical 7 per cent top slice, which is 鈥渂roadly in line with sector averages鈥. But Schools Week鈥檚 FOI found three primaries in the trust received up to 20 per cent more than they were allocated by the ESFA 鈥 the most of any trust. A spokesperson said these decisions 鈥渨ere focused on supporting some of our smaller schools with leadership capacity鈥.
Dom Harrex 25 April 2025 In my work with trusts, I have seen lots of different ways that top-slicing and pooling have been used and there is clearly no universal practice in either. It does make comparing trusts with each other difficult in terms of per pupil income and expenditure. For me, the biggest issue is how trusts are using their central budget and how they engage stakeholders in its plans and share how they do things and their performance with the wider public. The national and local formulas that are in use to distribute funding are never going to perfectly match pupil need in an individual school with funding, however many factors are used and however complex they get. We should trust schools and trusts to decide for themselves how best to allocate their funds, within an appropriate regulatory framework. I am less interested in the precise level of funding per pupil and more interested in how staff and parents in a school feel involved in decision making and how well they feel the school is adequately resourced and well managed. It is important to discuss issues like GAG pooling as they are fundamental changes to how things have been done. It is equally important not to dismiss their benefits because they are different.