The distribution of school funding and inputs in England: 1993-2013

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in www.econstor.euThe distribution of school funding and inputs in England: 1993-2013 IFS Working Paper W15/10 Luke SibietaThe Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is an independent research institute whose remit is to carry out rigorous economic research into public policy and to disseminate the findings of this research. IFS receives generous support from the Economic and Social Research Council, in particular via the ESRC Centre for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy (CPP).The authors gratefully acknowledge a grant from the Nuffield Foundation (EDU/41701). The Nuffield Foundation is an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social well-being in the widest sense. It funds research and innovation in education and social policy and also works to build capacity in education, science and social science research. More information is available at http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org.The views expressed and conclusions drawn are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Nuffield Foundation or any other individuals or institutions mentioned here, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has no corporate view. All remaining errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. The distribution of school funding and inputs in England:1993-2013 * Luke Sibieta † March 2015Abstract School funding per pupil increased substantially between 1999-00 and 2012-13 in England. It also became more varied across schools with higher levels of funds targeted at more deprived schools. Real-terms increases in funding per pupil were much larger for the most deprived group of primary and secondary schools (83% and 93%, respectively) as compared with the least deprived primary and secondary schools (56% and 59%). In this paper, we decompose these increases in funding per pupil into the amount explained by quantities of dierent types of sta per pupil, their price and changes in non-stang costs. We nd that some of these increases in funding per pupil translated into larger numbers of teachers per pupil and a higher real-terms cost per teacher (about 20-30% of the increase in funding per pupil). However, a much larger portion of the increases in funding can be accounted for by higher levels and increased variation in the use of teaching assistants (largely lower skilled sta), other non-teaching sta and non-sta inputs (such as learning resources, professional services and energy). Furthermore, there is also evidence to sugg...

The Effect of School Spending on Student Achievement: Addressing Biases in Value-Added Models

“…Year‐by‐year changes in expenditure may not necessarily translate into meaningful changes in school investments, as school administrators might be reluctant to make binding decisions, such as hiring teachers, and instead spend extra funds on one‐off items. However, the period 2007–2010 that is covered by our paper poses an important exception, as the MFG factor was announced in advance for a 3‐year period, giving schools the security of a longer planning horizon (Sibieta, ). Indeed, in the four years that are covered by our empirical application, 25% of spending increases (measured as 3‐year averages of the current and two preceding years) went to teachers, 24% to teaching assistants and 51% to other items.…”

Long-Run Trends in School Spending in England

“…These differences in spending per pupil across schools by social deprivation have already been documented (Sibieta, 2015b). To investigate the drivers of the phenomenon in more detail, Figure 5.6 seeks to illustrate the differences and changes in spending per pupil by social deprivation within local authorities.…”

“…In previous work, we have sought to detail how the increase in day-to-day spending over the 2000s translated into actual inputs (Sibieta, 2015b). We showed that around 20-30% of the increase in spending translated into greater numbers of teachers and higher teacher pay per head.…”

Education policy and governance in England under the Coalition Government (2010–15): Academies, the pupil premium, and free early education

“…However, in England, spending per pupil was protected in real terms (Sibieta, 2015). The Coalition Government also introduced and developed a raft of education policies.…”

“…Central control of the pupil premium grant is not direct; rather, Ofsted reports on its use when it inspects schools. These changes resulted in higher levels of funds being targeted at more deprived schools between 2010 and 2013 (Sibieta, 2015). In Wales a similar grant for disadvantaged pupils, the pupil deprivation grant (PDG), was launched in 2012; this too was designed to help close the attainment gap (Welsh Government, 2014a).…”