Top-slice charges are about to reach a wider audience. Can your trust stand behind its numbers?

A new requirement in the Academy Trust Handbook 2026 asks multi-academy trusts to publish how funding is distributed across their schools. What has changed, what is required, and what boards should be ready to show.

What has changed?

On 15 July 2026 the Department for Education published the Academy Trust Handbook 2026, alongside two pieces of guidance on how multi-academy trusts distribute money between their schools.

The handbook, in force from 1 October 2026, adds a new requirement at paragraph 5.32. Every multi-academy trust must publish a summary statement on its website by 31 January, accompanying its annual accounts, outlining how funds are distributed across its schools. DfE’s guidance says the statement must explain how funding flows across the trust, how central services are funded, and how much is spent on each academy.

The second piece of guidance is a good practice guide to financial operating models. It sets out what DfE expects of the policies behind those figures, including the top slice.

Central charges are already disclosed in the notes to the audited accounts, which trusts must publish on their website by 31 January. What changes is the audience. The new statement should be clear and accessible to parents, carers and the local community, and its figures should match the accounts. If they don’t, a much wider audience is now in a position to notice, and to ask why.

What do the rules require?

DfE defines a top slice as a charge each academy pays the trust for shared services and central support. It may be a percentage of each academy’s General Annual Grant, or a recharge for central services. Trustees decide the level, with the accounting officer and CFO, according to the services the centre provides. Neither the handbook nor DfE’s guidance sets a percentage.

Both documents distinguish between “must”, a requirement, and “should”, good practice. Each requirement below shows where it comes from.

MustAcademy Trust Handbook 2026, para 5.32

A published summary statement

On the trust’s website by 31 January, accompanying the annual accounts. Its information should match the accounts notes on central services and funds.

MustAcademies Accounts Direction

Disclosure in the accounts

A note on central services: the services provided, the policy for charging for them, and the actual charge made to each academy during the year.

MustDfE financial operating models guide

A route for raising concerns

A policy that lets academy leaders raise concerns if they believe their academy is being treated unfairly, for example if they think the top slice is set too high.

ShouldDfE financial operating models guide

A clear top-slice policy

Setting out the amount charged and the method used, the services provided centrally, and how academies can raise concerns or questions about the charge.

Where a trust pools GAG, the handbook adds requirements of its own. The trust must consider the funding needs and allocations of each academy, and must have an appeals mechanism, with unresolved appeals escalated to DfE (paragraph 5.31).

Not all income can be charged. Some restricted funds, such as PFI income, cannot be included in the top slice, and grants with their own conditions must still be used as those conditions require.

Where do the risks sit?

The calculation itself is usually straightforward. The risks sit in the gap between what the board approved and what happens month to month. Each of these maps to a requirement above.

  • Policy and practice drift apart

    The rate, or the income it is applied to, no longer matches the approved policy, or academies are treated differently without a documented reason.DfE’s guide expects the policy to set out the amount charged and the method used.

  • Excluded income is charged

    Funding the policy places outside the charge, or that cannot be charged at all, is included in the calculation.Some restricted funds cannot be top-sliced, and conditions of grant still apply.

  • Estimates reach the accounts

    A full-year figure projected early in the year is carried into the accounts in place of the charges actually made.The accounts note discloses the actual charge made to each academy during the year.

  • Disclosures do not agree

    The charge per academy in the accounts does not reconcile to the ledger, or the published statement does not match the accounts.Handbook paragraph 5.32: the statement should match the accounts notes.

  • Review is not evidenced

    A signature confirms that a review took place, but not what was checked or when.Handbook paragraph 2.7: the control framework must maintain segregation of duties and deliver independent checking of controls.

What should boards be able to show before year end?

  • PolicyIs our top-slice policy approved, current, and clear about the amount, the method, the income it covers and the services it pays for?
  • ConsistencyIs the charge applied as the policy says, for every academy, every month?
  • ConcernsDo academy leaders know how to raise a concern about the charge, and is that route written down?
  • DisclosureWill the central charges in our accounts agree to the ledger, and to the summary statement we publish?
  • ReviewCan we show who reviewed each month’s charge, what they checked, and when?

A trust that can answer each of these with evidence, rather than assurance, is well placed for both its audit and its first published statement.

Reviewing your financial model?

DfE’s guidance asks trusts revising their financial model whether their auditors have been consulted on its regulatory compliance. If you would like to discuss how these requirements apply to your trust, our academies team is happy to help.

Email our academies team

Sources

All Department for Education. Paragraph references are to the Academy Trust Handbook 2026.