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...