When is a cut not a cut? When it’s an efficiency saving.

After a week of headlines claiming that schools are wasting “colossal” sums, and bets over champagne flying around, you could be forgiven for confusing the two.

Funding will be in the spotlight again on Thursday, when former education secretary Estelle Morris will lead a Lords debate on how the government’s approach is impacting on schools.

With opinions swirling, Tes tells you what you need to know about one increasingly fashionable approach to trimming budgets: Integrated Curriculum Financial Planning (ICFP).

What is ICFP?

ICFP is, in essence, a flexible way of trying to work out what staffing schools need to deliver the best curriculum for pupils.

In May, the Department for Education published guidance for governors on staff deployment asking them to consider, among other things:

• The pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) and how this varies across different key stages;
• Class sizes;
• The contact ratio, meaning the percentage of a teacher’s time spent teaching.
   

Schools are expected to benchmark themselves against others in comparable circumstances when deciding the first two figures.

The Association of School and College Leaders has suggested a contact ratio of 0.78 - 78 per cent contact time, 10 per cent of time on planning and preparation, 10 per cent on management activity, and a 2 per cent margin.

The main advantage, argue advocates, is that staffing is adjusted according to subject and class size, and can be easily re-evaluated every year.

Why is it gaining traction?

As austerity continues to bite and growing numbers of schools fall into the red, many are looking for more efficient ways to save money.

Because staff costs account for an average of around two-thirds of school revenue expenditure - and up to three-quarters in some schools - finding new ways to make the most of teachers’ time has been a priority.

In a 2016 the DfE estimated that schools could save £1.7 billion by using staff more efficiently - although the National Audit Office said it was unclear whether this would work.

The pressures from salary costs increased in September when schools were expected to find the first 1 per cent of a teacher pay rise of between 1.5 and 3.5 per cent.

The Education Policy Institute (EPI) thinktank says schools in disadvantaged areas will struggle the most to cover the increase, despite an extra £508 million of funding promised by the DfE.

Who backs it?

The government has championed the approach and in April made it a condition for MATs to apply for Multi-Academy Trust Development Improvement Fund grants.

In June, academies minister Lord Agnew wrote to MATs saying that the DfE has been “supporting weaker trusts” using this “fundamental tool in teacher deployment”.

In an advertisement for an event planned for December, Lord Agnew lavished further praise on ICFP, calling it “the bedrock of sustainable growth”.

“I believe this is a simple but powerful approach to planning because it combines the planning of the curriculum with the planning of the budget as a joint exercise. When done well, it produces a curriculum that meets pupils’ needs and is affordable,” he said.

Delta Academies Trust will lead the event, drawing on its experience using ICFP “to bring about rapid school improvement” in its 51 academies.

Sir Michael Wilkins, founder of Outwood Grange Academies Trust, has also been a vocal supporter.

What are the downsides?

ICFP may work well in large-scale MATs but the EPI warns that controlling variables like class size is far more difficult in small schools, primaries and special schools.

The thinktank also notes that the formula focuses largely on teachers, without factoring in the wider pastoral workforce such as teaching assistants and other support staff.

Given that they account for about a fifth of school expenditure in primaries and a tenth of secondaries, that is a significant proportion of staff.

Last but not least, some may take umbrage with its methods: Delta’s revamp included cutting more than 10 per cent of its staff last year and spending over £1 million on redundancy payouts.