NEU members in several MATs have had to fight back against cuts that were being made at school level, while large amounts of cash were taken to fund the MAT’s central teams. There is almost no transparency in the way that MAT finances operate – it is difficult to find out how much a MAT might be taking from each of its schools, and how funding is being allocated within the trust.
While schools, staff and communities can be completely cut out of these decisions, the NEU argues that MATs should be transparent about their finances.
How does funding work in MATs?
The key thing to understand is that the board of the MAT (that is, its trustees) have ultimate power to decide the way in which funding is retained for central services and distributed to each of its academies. There are two ways that MATs organise their finances:
1. Top slicing
In most cases, MATs take a ‘top slice’ percentage from their schools’ budgets to fund central services. The trust’s central team may provide functions such as HR, IT, legal services, and more. A normal level of top slice for a large trust would be about 5.5 per cent, but the general trend in MATs is that the top slice is increasing, and some now charge ten per cent or more.
MATs usually provide a figure for how much they top slice in their annual accounts, although this does not have to be a precise percentage for each school. The accounts provide a broad description of what this is used for but offer little meaningful detail. This is why it’s important to ask the MAT what the top slice funds — especially when, as is often the case, this isn’t clearly explained to staff or schools.
MATs can also change the rate of the top slice from year to year. While there is no legal requirement to consult with schools or staff about this, the NEU would argue for as much transparency and consultation as possible.
2. GAG pooling
Instead of top-slicing a percentage of funding, a growing number of MATs instead pool their academies’ grant funding – including the general annual grant (GAG).
A proportion of this funding is then used to pay for the central functions of the trust, with the rest distributed to academies as the MAT sees fit. GAG pooling is often justified on grounds of efficiency, and it can enable MATs to provide differing levels of funding to their schools. For example, MATs have been known to transfer funding from one academy to support another one with falling rolls. With GAG pooling, there
is even less transparency about how much trusts are taking from their schools - there is no requirement to publish the amount each school in the MAT receives, or how much is used to fund the MAT’s central services.
How does this differ from local authority schools and why does it matter?
The MAT system of finances is very different from the one operated by local authorities (LAs), who also use school funding to pay for some services. However, maintained schools are involved in deciding what proportion of their funding is retained by the LA and what it funds.
This is done via the Schools Forum, which is a democratically constituted body in which each maintained school can vote on funding decisions. The Schools Forum also publishes minutes of its meetings, where decisions taken are recorded publicly
Why should I care about how my MAT funds its schools?
In some cases, the amounts of money that MATs take from their schools have been hidden from staff and local communities, even while cuts were being imposed. For example, in 2024, NEU members at five schools within the University of Brighton Academy Trust (UBAT) took up to five days of co-ordinated industrial action over workload and job losses, which were being driven by the sums the trust was taking from its academies.
NEU investigations and pressure from the local MP revealed that the trust was taking up to 14 per cent from its schools’ budgets. The strikes forced the trust to stop GAG pooling and commit to greater transparency and consultation around finances.
The NEU thinks there needs to be a lot more transparency in MAT finances, so that individual academies know how much is being taken by the MAT, how money is being spent and to ensure this is being done equitably so that schools get the funding they need.
One way to ensure that MATs are held accountable on finances is through effective union pressure and scrutiny.
How can I find out about how funding works in my MAT?
MATs are legally required to publish their annual accounts, often referred to as ‘financial statements’, on their website. It is usually possible to find these via a web search, or a search on the trust’s website. The accounts will say whether the school operated a top slicing system or GAG pooling in the previous financial year.
This information is usually published under a section headed ‘central services’, where the trust will set out what services it provided
to its schools, and how it charged for these services.
If your MAT top slices, you can review previous financial statements to see whether the amounts have been increasing over time. If the information in those statements doesn’t align with what you know about your MAT’s funding situation, this could be used to put pressure on the trust to be more transparent about its finances.
Argue for more transparency
It is important to argue for maximum financial transparency, especially if the MAT is using financial arguments to justify decisions around resourcing, staff responsibilities or as the
basis for a restructure. Controversial decisions should be challenged when a MAT is not being forthcoming.
Recognised trade unions are entitled to information for collective bargaining purposes, which includes financial information of the kind available to trustees.
However, be aware that employers will often present financial evidence to support decisions they have already committed to making, so
it’s important to scrutinise the information provided carefully and not accept it at face value.
MATs are often resistant to being open about their finances, but staff, parents and the wider community have a right to know how funding allocated to their schools is being spent and the reasoning behind these decisions. This reluctance itself can be a powerful motivating factor in any campaign within a MAT.
Actions for reps
Use the bargaining cycle to address member concerns about school funding in your MAT.
