The inadequacy of school funding has been a recurring issue over the past decade and a half, since the first programme of austerity cuts. Yet, apart from the 2017 general election when the NEU’s School Cuts website made political waves, funding for schools (and colleges, where the problem is even greater) has not reached anywhere near the level of wider attention as the NHS.
Arguments about real-terms reductions and per-pupil rates often struggle for traction outside the sector, but the Sutton Trust has been tracking tangible indicators of financial stress in schools since 2017.
Each year, through NFER’s Teacher Voice Survey, we ask school leaders about cuts to staff, subjects, equipment and activities. This year’s results are particularly shocking.
Over half of secondary leaders reported cuts this year to teaching staff, teaching assistants and support staff, for financial reasons. Last year, 38 per cent reported cuts to teaching staff. This year the figure is 51 per cent. For teaching assistants, it has grown from 41 to 50 per cent.
In primary schools, the situation is arguably even worse. In 2017, the height of the attention to school cuts, 21 per cent of leaders reported teaching staff cuts and 54 per cent reported teaching assistant cuts. In 2025, these figures have risen to 31 and 76 per cent respectively.
Recent funding injections from both Conservative and Labour governments have barely touched the sides as schools face spiralling bills, unfunded teacher pay rises and the rising costs of SEND and high-needs provision, not to mention acting as a social safety net for children and families when other state services have proved insufficient during the pandemic and cost-of-living crises.
Widespread cuts are also reported in trips and outings (53 per cent), sports and extra-curricular activities (33 per cent) and IT equipment (55 per cenm).
These cuts have consequences, potentially undermining access to the arts and widening the digital divide. One-third (33 per cent) also report cuts to GCSE subject choices, imperilling government aspirations towards broadening the curriculum.
However, perhaps most concerningly is the number of schools cannibalising dedicated funding for disadvantaged pupils – the pupil premium – in order to plug budget gaps elsewhere. Forty-five (45) per cent of secondary school leaders report having to do this, the highest since we started tracking this in 2017, and 46 per cent of primary leaders.
At a time when the socio-economic attainment gap has become a chasm, we simply cannot afford this. Nine in 10 senior leaders feel that pupil premium funding, which has declined by almost 20 per cent in real terms since 2014/15, is not sufficient to adequately serve their pupils.
The picture for disadvantaged pupils is further exacerbated by the end of the national tutoring programme (NTP). Despite its problems, 51 per cent of schools were still availing of the scheme in its final year 2023/24.
While many have argued that schools could simply continue to fund tutoring from their pupil premium budgets, the reality of this is laid bare by this year’s polling.
Fifty-eight (58) per cent of all senior leaders report offering less tutoring this year, and 37 per cent say they have had to cancel all tutoring due to the end of NTP funding. Just 7 per cent reported being able to replace their NTP funding with other sources and maintain their offer.
This all adds up to a worrying picture – for the financial health of schools in general, but for the prospects of disadvantaged pupils in particular. The government’s ambitious opportunity mission simply cannot be delivered without addressing these issues.
With a government stuck in fire-fighting mode, serious underlying problems have been allowed to fester, imperilling opportunity for the next generation of young people.
Given widespread speculation as to the outcomes of the upcoming spending review for the department for education, the immediate prospects for a remedy do not look positive. But if the government is serious about governing in the long-term national interest, investing in young people is an absolute imperative.
Your thoughts