The stark picture is down to rises in inflation, which the analysis claims will wipe out any benefits that schools may see from protected school budgets and a fairer funding settlement.
Schools that are already set to lose out under the fairer funding reforms will be hit doubly hard by the inflation rises, it says.
The analysis, carried out by the National Union of Teachers (NUT), says that out of 151 local authority areas, only Barnsley will come out positively – predicting a 1.8 per cent rise in its funding.
Other areas face real-terms cuts, ranging from two per cent to as much as 10 and even 20 per cent in some places.
Furthermore, the analysis does not take account of the increased staff costs, averaging around five per cent, as a result of higher pension contributions since September and higher national insurance contributions from April 2016.
There have been strong calls for some time for a new fairer National Funding Formula for schools because of huge discrepancies across the system. The 10 best-funded areas currently get an average of £6,297 per-pupil while those in the 10 worst-funded areas get £4,208.
In his Spending Review last week, chancellor George Osborne pledged to tackle the issue and education secretary Nicky Morgan is to publish a consultation on a new formula in the new year. The new system is due to be implemented by 2017/18.
The NUT analysis uses a model of fairer school funding put forward by the f40 campaign group, which is made up of local authorities with some of the worst per-pupil funding in the country.
Ms Morgan has previously said that the Department for Education would draw upon the f40’s work on fairer funding when it formulates its proposals.
The NUT analysis takes the estimates published by the f40 group showing the impact of its revised funding formula in each area and then adjusts these to include the impact of the Treasury’s CPI inflation forecasts over the period to the end of this Parliament.
The analysis states: “The apparent increases in funding that some areas would gain under ‘fair funding’ proposals would not be enough to protect them against the effects of inflation and extra staff costs the government is imposing on them.”
For example, it says that a possible 2.7 per cent funding increase for Shropshire would be converted into a 5.2 per cent loss due to inflation, while Hertfordshire’s possible
2.1 per cent increase would become a 5.8 per cent loss.
Meanwhile, among the areas that will be “hit twice”, Barnet will see a 1.3 per cent loss due to “fairer funding” increasing to an 8.9 per cent loss because of inflation. Wandsworth’s possible 3.7 per cent loss would become an 11.1 per cent loss. Bradford faces real-terms cuts of 11.5 per cent and Rotherham 10.4 per cent.
London is set to be particularly hard hit, containing 18 of the 25 worst-affected areas. This includes Hackney, which is facing a 22.4 per cent real-terms drop, Southwark
(a 20.1 per cent fall), and Lambeth (19 per cent).
The NUT is concerned that these areas “will find it impossible to keep class sizes down and will see subject areas lost alongside other cuts”.
Kevin Courtney, NUT deputy general secretary, said: “There are no winners and losers under the government’s funding proposals – there are only losers and even bigger losers.
“The funding reform programme must include additional money, otherwise far from being ‘fair funding’, the government plan is false funding.
“Schools are already facing job cuts, increasing class sizes and cuts in spending on books and materials. We need a proper debate on education funding, not the smoke and mirrors we get from the government. We need real protection for school and college funding against the impact of inflation and the higher employer costs being imposed on them.”
Fairer funding? Fairer funding projections adjusted for inflation. The table below shows (from top) the 10 areas least affected by inflation rises according to the analysis and the 10 worst-affected areas (City of London has a projected 43.4% real-terms fall but is not listed due to its very small number of schools)
| Ten areas least affected by inflation rises according to NUT analysis | Revised annual funding using f40 model | Gain/loss against current funding | Revised funding adjusted against forecast inflation | Gain/loss against current funding |
| Barnsley | £145.66m | 10.3% | £134.45m | +1.8% |
| Salford | £148.84m | 5.9% | £137.38m | -2.3% |
| East Riding | £187.97m | 5.6% | £173.49m | -2.5% |
| Knowsley | £90.13m | 5.5% | £83.19m | -2.7% |
| Wokingham | £96.8m | 5.4% | £89.35m | -2.7% |
| Worcestershire | £316.12m | 5.3% | £291.78m | -2.8% |
| Rutland | £23.13m | 5.0% | £21.35m | -3.1% |
| Leicestershire | £382.42m | 4.9% | £352.97m | -3.2% |
| West Sussex | £441.44m | 4.9% | £407.45m | -3.2% |
| Telford & Wrekin | £109.14m | 4.9% | £100.74m | -3.2% |
| Ten areas worst affected by inflation rises according to NUT analysis | Revised annual funding using f40 model | Gain/loss against current funding | Revised funding adjusted against forecast inflation | Gain/loss against current funding |
| Lewisham | £195.42m | -8.9% | £180.38m | -16.0% |
| Greenwich | £183.1m | -9.5% | £169m | -16.4% |
| Nottingham City | £177.59m | -10.2% | £163.92m | -17.2% |
| Haringey | £172.76m | -10.3% | £159.46m | -17.2% |
| Newham | £283.69m | -10.4% | £261.84m | -17.3% |
| Hammersmith & Fulham | £92.11m | -10.6% | £85.02m | -17.5% |
| Tower Hamlets | £222.63m | -11.5% | £205.49m | -18.3% |
| Lambeth | £181.86m | -12.3% | £167.85m | -19.0% |
| Southwark | £197.78m | -13.4% | £182.55m | -20.1% |
| Hackney | £167.73m | -16.0% | £154.81m | -22.4% |
Further information
- The f40 group’s estimates on which the analysis is based can be found at http://bit.ly/1Q4apVO
- Download the full NUT analysis for all 151 local authorities at http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/25349