School reps and members often hear school management cite funding shortages as a reason for refusing to implement good practice on pay and conditions, or for proposing redundancies.
We know that funding is a major problem and the NEU nationally is campaigning for the additional investment education desperately needs. But we must mobilise members to challenge assertions made by school management on funding. We must make sure that funding decisions properly value and prioritise school staff.
With local democratic accountability undermined or removed due to the fragmentation of the education service, scrutiny and challenge at the school level is more important than ever.
That means we need full transparency on funding at the local level and full involvement of NEU reps in decisions taken on funding in schools. Funding shouldn’t be used as an excuse to cut jobs or to block improvements to pay and conditions – it should be a key element of the bargaining process. This short guide is designed to help NEU reps get funding issues onto the bargaining agenda.
What reps should do
If school leaders say funding pressures mean cuts to staffing, pay progression or conditions, reps should
- Ask for the evidence used to support those claims.
- Insist on transparency about how funding decisions are being made and prioritised.
- Challenge assumptions that savings must come from staffing.
- Seek union advice early if funding arguments are being used to justify job losses.
Key questions reps should ask about funding
Reps are entitled to meaningful information to engage in consultation. Useful questions include the following.
- Has the school budgeted on the assumption that all eligible staff progress on pay, as it should?
- What reserves are held, and how has the school decided when it is appropriate to use them?
- Are staffing costs being targeted for savings while other expenditure (e.g. leadership pay, consultants, expansive capital projects (as opposed to maintenance)) is protected?
- Has spending shifted in ways that disguise pressures, for example using support staff or supply cover differently?
Example: If redundancies are proposed, reps might ask whether reserves are being maintained at the same time, and why staffing reductions are considered unavoidable.
Things to be alert to
Reps should be especially vigilant where employers:
- Propose small numbers of redundancies over time, rather than openly consulting on the full impact.
- Present decisions as already taken, rather than genuinely consultable.
- Rely on funding arguments while refusing to disclose financial information.
If any of these arise, reps should escalate the issue and seek NEU support.
Where the law supports challenge
Employment law does not require employers to run out of money before consulting meaningfully or justifying proposals. In particular:
- Where redundancies are in contemplation, employers must consult at a formative stage and provide sufficient information to allow reps to respond properly.
- Guidance such as the ACAS Code of Practice1 may be taken into account by tribunals when assessing whether consultation was reasonable. This reinforces the importance of openness and good‑faith engagement.
- Funding pressures do not remove the obligation to consult or to consider alternatives to redundancies.
In practice, if funding information is withheld or drip‑fed, this can undermine consultation and should be challenged.
Other funding issues to raise
Set out below is a non-exhaustive list of other questions for reps to raise on funding.
- Does the school consult reps when proposals on funding priorities/use of funding are at a formative stage?
- Does the school provide reps with comprehensive info on funding, sufficient to enable them to take part in consultations affected by funding issues on a fully informed basis?
- If redundancies are being proposed, has the school properly considered and provided full information and consultation to reps on alternatives to redundancy?
- Also if redundancies are being proposed, has the school complied with the minimum information employers must provide where funding is relied on to justify workforce reductions? See Making staff redundant: Redundancy consultations - GOV.UK
- Does the school target the pay budget for cuts, instead of protecting pay as a key priority?
- Has the school budgeted on the assumption of pay progression for all eligible staff, as it should?
- Are any reserves/funding surpluses held by the school and if so what are the plans for their use?
- What is the practice on pay for senior leaders and (in MATs) CEOs? How is the impact of such practice on pay resources for other staff measured and decided?
- If the school is in a MAT, what is the practice and what are the benchmarks on reserves and top slicing? Further NEU guidance on MAT finances at Multi-academy trusts (MATs) funding | National Education Union
- If the school is in a MAT, does the MAT pool its General Annual Grant (GAG) funding? If so, can it be demonstrated that the school is getting its fair share of funding?
- Demand evidence to support any claims by the school that pay progression (or other things) can't be afforded.
- Demand full transparency on funding, so that reps can assess the extent to which areas of spending are appropriately prioritised. You can also use this information to look for patterns – for example, has the employer spent increasingly less on supply teachers by getting Teaching Assistants to cover classes?
- Demand evidence to support any claims by management that pay progression (or other things) can't be afforded.
- Demand full transparency on funding, so that reps can assess the extent to which areas of spending are appropriately prioritised.
Getting help
If funding claims are being used to drive cuts, job losses or changes to contracts, reps should contact the NEU district or branch for advice as early as possible, particularly where redundancy processes may be triggered.