Ahead of MATPN South West, we caught up with Benedicte Yue, Chief Financial Officer at River Learning Trust, to discuss the financial landscape facing Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) today. From funding challenges to inclusive practices, Benedicte shared her insights on navigating uncertainty and building resilience. Here’s what she had to say:

Q: Please introduce yourself

A: I am Benedicte Yue, I am chief financial officer at the River Learning Trust, a 31 school, Multi-Academy Trust. I’m also a trustee of the Institute of School Business Leadership.

Q: Perfect. So, Benedicte, how would you describe the current financial pressures facing MATs and what advice would you give to overcome them? And in that context, what can schools do to find efficiencies?

A: The financial landscape has evolved over the last six years. The sector went through financial pressures at the end of the last decade after a few years of real term cuts in funding, but also as a result of Multi-Academy Trusts taking on many sponsor schools often experiencing both educational but also financial challenges. Then during the pandemic a lot of Multi-Academy Trusts have replenished their reserves as savings during lockdown on premises and supply for example and delayed expenditure outweighed additional costs. And since the pandemic, we had a period of high inflationary pressures where expenditure have been increasing faster than funding. This year, we would expect some kind of break-even position following the additional funding for the pay awards announced after the General elections, but the next three years look very challenging. The core funding through the National Funding Formula is increasing by about 0.5% on average in the sector while teacher pay has settled at 4%, and support staff pay was recently agreed at 3.2%. Thankfully in May the government announced additional funding but it’s not covering the full differential between income and expenditure, and the government is expecting Trusts to find efficiencies, as for the rest of the public sector. Difficult trade-offs had to be made between affordability and increasing the pay to a sufficient level to address the recruitment crisis. The financial outlook is unlikely to improve with the June spending review projecting a flat real term settlement for schools over the next three years after taking into account what has already been committed. At the same time, pupil numbers continue to decline. After a gradual fall in primary since 2019, the trend is now starting in secondary with variations depending on where you are in the country. The SEND crisis is also putting enormous pressure on schools and local authorities. So, while pupil numbers are declining, if the government was to maintain the funding per pupil, this could mean reducing the education budget, but the Institute of Fiscal Studies is projecting that this reduction would be completely swallowed by the rising SEND costs, leaving very little margin for the government.

Another big issue in our sector has been uncertainty. We often had pay settlement agreed after the budget was submitted but we are pleased to note a real effort this year. For the first time, we can submit the budget with a certainty on pay for the following year. There is a willingness to work on a three-year pay settlement which would be very helpful, but on the other hand, if we are told that there is flat funding, that doesn’t sound very realistic. So, we will need to see the details of that.

As well as experiencing significant financial pressures, shortfall on SEND budgets and declining rolls, schools also have to do more with less picking up the pieces of a broken system upstream. There is a crisis of vulnerable children with a lot of the root causes outside the school gate including rising poverty and mental health issues
So, to answer your question, in this very challenging context, what can schools do to find efficiencies?

When 80% of the expenditure is staffing, one of the biggest impact is achieved by optimising staffing deployment. For a few years, MATs have been using tools like Integrated Curriculum Financial Planning looking at group sizes, contact times, options, etc. We tend to focus first on what can be reversed first for example group sizes, in case the funding landscape improves. Then, most of us have been looking at rationalising procurement. There is a big effort from the Department for Education to support the sector with framework and at the same time procurement is becoming a lot more complex and regulated. Cash flow management has also been a very successful strategy over the last two years with high interest rates and schools benefiting from a good level of reserves post pandemic. This gave rise to substantial investment income in some Trusts.

We try to preserve as much as possible the educational offer. So now trusts are looking at operational efficiencies, largely through shared services and digitalisation. Others are merging, but I think we must be careful here that this is done for the right reasons. We need to avoid, some call it Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, where mergers are done purely for financial reasons rather than culture, values and outcomes. Growth is not an end but a means to an end. Reaching a certain size helps build expertise in some areas and have the scale to operate efficiently, but there is a subtitle balance to be found, some kind of optimum size. Being too big could at times lead to operational inefficiencies with costly intermediary layers, lose in agility or detach you from your communities. Schools remain a local service, and I do really believe in the importance of place and Trusts as anchor institutions. In my view, it is important to ensure geographical coherence in the way that schools are allocated to Multi-Academy Trusts.

Q: There’s a growing concern about the fairness of school funding. Do you think a more pooled or needs based model is required?

A: There are different elements of funding. The core funding based on the National Funding Formula for mainstream schools is using transparent proxies around deprivation, prior attainment, additional language, mobility, sparsity, etc. But with low funding settlements, an increasing number of schools are falling under the minimum guarantee, and therefore those criteria are becoming flawed. So, I think it’s time to review those. There is also an issue around small schools and rurality. If we want to preserve small rural schools, we may need to think about increasing the lump sum to help them cover their fixed costs as pupil numbers are declining.

The other important source of funding is through the high needs block funding specialist provision, some support services and high needs top ups, where there is no National Funding Formula and a huge post code lottery. A significant proportion remains allocated based on historical factors which is not incentivising areas where there is more inclusion in mainstream or where funding is managed more efficiently and may also depend on the number of specialist settings in each local authority.

The other important source of funding is through the high needs block funding specialist provision, some support services and high needs top ups, where there is no National Funding Formula and a huge post code lottery. A significant proportion remains allocated based on historical factors which is not incentivising areas where there is more inclusion in mainstream or where funding is managed more efficiently and may also depend on the number of specialist settings in each local authority.

In a context where funding isn’t always targeting those who need it the most, pooling sounds like an attractive option to ensure greater equity. The proponents of GAG pooling would argue that it allows to offer the same education to all regardless of where they live. I have a slightly more nuanced view on how this is achieved though. In my experience, pooling can sometimes be too focused on how the pie is cut rather than trying to improve the pie recipe and increase the size of the pie overall. So, it’s a bit like moving deck chairs rather than tackling the root cause of the underperformance.

While I respect all views, I personally tend to prefer top slicing in terms of how the decision is reached. It depends where you position the relationship. You can still achieve equity by top slicing. Your top slice could for example fund central costs, include another element of internal insurance to redistribute resources when some schools are experiencing exceptional circumstances and a third layer could be to fund strategic priorities. But then you would divide that and top slice through consultation with your schools. It’s not just a group of people in the centre deciding. I see myself more as a service provider and I like the idea of agreeing the price of our service with our schools which I consider our customers. Whilst it is important to have a collective culture, leaving some agency to schools on the allocation of their resources has in my experience proven more impactful in giving them a sense of ownership and problem solving. For example, we use our financial expertise in the centre to suggest a whole range of financial options; but then schools leaders and governors decide which ones they feel would be more relevant. But again, we must be very respectful of different approaches, and it very much depends on the context of those schools, and pooling absolutely makes sense in some cases, especially in the specialist sector where there is such a significant post code lottery.

Q: All right. Thank you. So, balancing a short-term financial need with long term sustainability is always challenging. How do you ensure that your trust remains financially resilient while planning for short term needs?

A: It’s always very difficult when there isn’t enough money. This is where having a financial strategy linked to your strategic plan is really important. Long term planning helps ensure sustainability. The more you anticipate, the more you can avoid or mitigate difficult decisions down the line, but also there are certain things that require different investment horizons. This can be in relation to the curriculum where investments are needed in some skills to prepare young people for the future. Digital strategy is another good example where planning for the right infrastructure & equipment will enable it to happen. Estates management is probably the most obvious one. Sometimes when you don’t have enough money, you could be tempted to cut on maintenance but it’s not sustainable, and we’re also moving towards the net zero agenda. People management also require longer term thinking about succession planning or career pathways. And finally in terms of pupil place planning, you constantly need to look ahead to adjust admissions numbers or perhaps in some extreme cases plan schools’ closure. So, I think we constantly need to manage this tension between immediate and longer term needs but it ensures a more strategic deployment of resources in the long run.

Q: As we know, SEND funding is one of the most urgent issues, with a £5bn deficit looming. From your perspective, what systemic financial or structural reforms are most critical to avoid further strain on MATs and local authorities?

A: Pressures on SEND funding and services has been the number one issue for our headteachers since I joined. I have just released a briefing paper for the Institute of School Business Leadership. There have been many reports on the topic analysing the issues but often turning in circles on the problems rather than putting forward sensible solutions, but I am hopeful that we start to see some positive options emerging/

The system is completely overwhelmed, despite the investment doubling since 2014. The high needs budget is reaching 12 billion next year while outcomes for children with SEND haven’t improved and the system is on the brink of bankruptcy. You mentioned the 5 billion deficit in local authorities – we can’t continue like this.

There have been positive initiatives pushing for more mainstream inclusion and early intervention and various strategic frameworks over the last few years, but many efforts have had limited impact. They have been a little patchy or piece meal without a coherent strategy and haven’t always been informed by evidence or tackling the drivers of demand and costs. So, for me this needs to start with a very clear vision of what we want to achieve, a clear statement of values and move from bolt-on to a built-in inclusion. We need to define inclusion, clarifying expectations and thresholds for Education Health and care Plans with associated accountability. Once you’ve clarified what is expected through the “ordinarily available” or universal offer and once you have built the capacity and capability of the workforce to deliver those expectations with earlier access to specialist support services, then you can hold people to account.

The curriculum can also be a barrier. It needs to be designed with all learners in mind, offering diverse pathways and allowing for different rates of learning, ensuring all children see themselves portrayed in educational resources and feel that sense of belonging. The curriculum review whose findings are expected in the autumn is assessing those difficult trade-offs. We also need to make sure the system is more integrated, not working in silo with clear roles and responsibility across education, health and social care and improving data as well to better plan and monitor the provision. One of the most important drivers is going to be to redesign the funding model. A major bottleneck of the current system is really too much reliance on EHCPs as the primary gateway to funding. The system is not effective, and it is completely overwhelmed by demand. It creates significant bureaucracy and legal battles diverting specialists ‘time from frontline support.

Research carried out by the European Agency for special needs and inclusive education shows that where funding is linked to individual pupils it can paradoxically lead to less inclusion and more labelling, rising costs and segregation, creating disincentives to inclusive practices. So there would be options to have a different funding model where you have less individualised funding, but you fund schools better to deliver what we call the universal offer for the vast majority of the needs. The second layer would be devolving additional funding to groups of schools or clusters for children with more complex needs, but again not necessarily dependent on EHCPs. This allows more collective decisions based on professional judgement with a focus on problem-solving . And the third layer would always retain individualised funding for those children with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties. This approach would be a lot more dynamic and proactive as needs change over time with no need to label to intervene. It’s also encouraging professional collaboration. That would instantly release significant resources to the front line and ensure greater budget stability because you would fund the institution upfront allowing investment in the workforce rather than relying on uncertain top up afterwards.

What will also be crucial is to sequence those reforms strategically. Providing resources to building capacity in mainstream and support services needs to be a priority. There is a promising model with school clusters which would help with this more collective responsibility. It is important to allow a more bottom-up approach at locality level. We can’t afford to get this reform wrong, and it will require strong collaboration between all political parties, parents and professional organisations. We need to restore parental confidence. There has been a lot of anxiety recently around the possibility to scale back or withdraw HCPs. I think we need to reassure parents that while this transition is happening, there won’t be any changes and always give them the possibility to use EHCPs as a backstop in case of disagreement.

Q: Great. Thank you. So, while the reform is being implemented, what can schools do to manage SEND pressures, and could you share an example of how your trust has implemented inclusive practices that are both financially sustainable and impactful for learners with SEND?

A: In our trust, we have a brilliant director of inclusion, and the focus has really been to train people at all levels of the organisation to be inclusive by design. So, it’s not the job of specific people or a teaching assistant. It really starts with all the leaders and working with parents and teachers. We also need probably to use a graduated approach more strategically. We’ve done a lot of work on strategic workforce redesign where we are we are looking at the cost and the impact of interventions. Sometimes we can group the children differently when we feel it is more beneficial for them to be with a teacher in a small group rather than a having one-to-one teaching assistant. In some places, we also have very effective resource provision within the school, allowing some children to be closer to home but also to move back and forth between mainstream and the specialist provision in a much smaller environment. So, these are all sorts of suggestions you can immediately do in your trust, and I think there is a lot of sharing of all these positive practices.

Q: So, looking ahead, amidst financial uncertainty and reform, what gives you hope that we can build a more inclusive and financially sustainable education system for all students?

A: We are not there yet. The English Education system is very fragmented. There are many barriers starting from admissions rules to many different forms of provisions with their own funding and governance regimes. Attendance is also a big issue. One in five is persistently absent. We’ve got 300,000 missing out on their education. Poverty remains a very important barrier to education. The disadvantage gap is not closing. Disadvantaged children can be nearly two years behind at the end of their secondary education. This is not acceptable. Inclusion is a basic human right. It means creating the conditions where every learner can thrive and adapting the systems to meet those diverse needs. And again, it needs to start by defining what inclusion means and go beyond special needs and embrace diversity in its broadest sense.

There’s been a lot of progress internationally. We are 30 years after the Salamanca statement. The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development clearly articulates the importance of inclusion and its benefits. There is an educational rationale: by educating all children together means that we have to develop ways of teaching that respond to individual differences which benefit all children; a social justification: inclusive schools are able to change attitudes to difference, and form the basis for a just and non-discriminatory society; and an economic justification as a more inclusive and unified system is more efficient as everybody’s learning together.

Even though we are not there yet, I’m very hopeful, there are a lot of bottom-up, very positive initiatives and we need to systematically evaluate those and find ways to scale these up. The role of the government should really be to set the vision, principles and very clear expectations with associated resources and accountability but leaving some freedom in the implementation because research shows that inclusion works better in a more decentralised model. As Michael Fullan puts it, for reform to succeed, you need to move the system on its head.

Q: Great, thank you. So, events like MATPN South West bring together leaders from across the sector. Why are these gatherings important for MAT leaders at this time?

A: I think the role of trusts is key in terms of having the size and the resilience to organise collaboration. But I also think we need to support maintained schools. For me it’s all about community, and it’s important particularly during tough times not to stay isolated and share good ideas, learn from each other and really work together. I do believe in Trusts as anchor institutions in their communities driving this collaboration. Schools and Trusts have an important role to play because we have one of the longest relationships with the families locally. We can see some brilliant work with Reach around cradle to career models etc.

Q: Thank you. So, if you could give one piece of advice to MAT leaders navigating these current challenges, what would it be?

A: So, I think you need to be very clear about what you want your trust to achieve especially when you don’t have enough resources, you need to be very strategic about how you allocate your resources. So, you need to use data to inform your decisions. You need to identify the bad cost, the waste. For example, through more optimised procurement you can get the same thing at a cheaper price. You need to minimise the necessary cost which doesn’t directly drive your outcome. For example, operational efficiencies can help with digitalisation. So, this allows you to reallocate funding to maximise your good costs. They are the costs to invest in what you really want to achieve to improve your outcomes.

You can also maximise your income when you can, but maximising the income can be a little bit unfair sometimes because it depends on your facilities. You can generate lettings if you have facilities. Investment income also depends on your level of reserves.

The very important message here is to develop your people. At the end of the day, you can have the best systems and processes, but it’s all about people, and about leadership. In our schools, where we were able to turn things around is really when we had strong leadership and alignment at all levels.
And finally, it is important to carefully pick how success is measured, not be obsessed by input measures or what gets easily measured but really try to measure what the organisation values. For me, I am a bit of an idealist and what drives me in this sector is this sense of purpose and the power that education can have to foster mutual understanding and respect to build a better world.

Q: Thank you. Anything you’d like to add?

A: I look forward to joining MATPN South West on 23rd September. The autumn is going to be very interesting time because we are expecting a lot of regulatory reforms such as the findings of the curriculum and assessment review, a new inspection framework, the child poverty strategy and the White Paper, so it will be great to get together to debate and share ideas on how we can best mitigate all those risks and challenges.

Join our future discussions

Want to hear more from Benedicte? Don’t miss her upcoming sessions on 23 September at MATPN South West:

Fire-side interview – Balancing the books: navigating funding challenges

• Main room
• 2:10 pm – 2:30 pm
• 23 September 2025

Roundtable discussions – Strategic leadership

• Main room
• 3:45 pm – 4:45 pm
• 23 September 2025

Closing Keynote Panel – Inclusion in Action: How MATs Can Transform SEND

• Main room
• 5:25 pm – 6:10 pm
• 23 September 2025

Secure your spot at MATPN South West and join the conversation.