How it's all worked out...

Every primary school in the country attracts a basic allocation of £2,006.14 per pupil, per year.

There are two ways of increasing this figure, the first of which is "deprivation funding".

Schools with pupils from certain ethnic minorities, whose parents receive Income Support or whose parents receive Working Families Tax Credit, attract extra money.

But it's more complicated than that. Each of the three groups attracts different additional weighting - roughly 0.35, 0.4 and 0.25 respectively.

Each of these three figures is multiplied by £1,300, and the totals added together, to work out the LEA's deprivation funding.

Worcestershire's total through this procedure is an additional £1.196m.

Clearly however, other LEAs with larger ethnic minority populations or greater unemployment, will access more funds through this formula.

The second way of increasing basic cash is through "sparsity" funding, which reflects the higher costs of maintaining schools in rural locations.

It is far easier, and based on areas within the LEA with a low population per hectare.

Worcestershire receives £1.894m through this system - lower than areas such as Devon and Cornwall but higher than inner cities, which receive nothing for this section.

Secondary school funding, which has a basic cash allocation of £2,659.16 per pupil, also has deprivation funding but no sparsity cash, and is worked out in basically the same way.

The whole system is offset by scores of other top-up possibilities, such as educational excellence schemes, and this is why is it so difficult to get to the heart of the debate.

The only certainty is that, whatever system is found and whoever is bottom of the pile, politicians will continue to make the policy and those in the most poorly funded areas will continue to mistrust them.

The system is complicated but the effects are simple enough.

Whether by discrimination or not, Worcestershire's headteachers are managing on a shoestring and are rightfully proud of the county's education on the cheap.

ON Saturday, the 40 worst funded local education authorities met in Worcester to discuss an alternative - and in their eyes fairer - method of dividing government cash.

Claims of educational discrimination have rung in the ears of ministers for the past five years as headteachers, parents, school governors and MPs have lobbied Parliament.

Schools Minister David Miliband says the formula to divide money between LEAs is the same for everyone and therefore fair, campaigners argue the figures don't add up.

So what are the facts?

In 2003/4, Worcestershire's LEA received £238.364m in education funding from Central Government.

The money is broken down between

Pre-school children - £25.283m

Primary schools - £78.707m

Secondary schools - £87.328m

General funds (transport, administration, etc) - £23.048m

High cost pupils (special schools) - £20.116m

Youth and community projects - £3.882m

One of the key reasons why the current funding formula is so unpopular is because it is so difficult to understand - transparency is not high on its list of priorities.

Every single pupil in every LEA across the country attracts the same basic funding.

The weakest students - according to their social background - then attract more money to fund their education while schools with the highest running costs, in sparsely populated areas, attract more too.

Worcestershire misses out because of relatively low unemployment, a low number of children with special needs, few of the ethnic minority students that attract funding - such as Bangladeshi or Pakistani pupils - and limited sparsity.

Whether that is right or wrong, it is the same criteria the Government uses to assess the funding for every county.

It is certainly valid to question whether these are should be the top priorities for handing out extra money, but calls of discrimination at this point seem unfair.

Where the debate becomes more complex is the area of top-up money. Worcestershire really misses out because it fails to attract Area Cost Adjustment - cash handed to LEAs in high cost areas where it is more expensive to retain teachers.

An independent economic study has thrown its weight squarely behind Worcestershire, claiming that the LEA should receive around £4.5m in ACA cash.

Recent figures also show that Worcestershire would qualify if flaws in the New Earnings Survey - which is used to calculate which areas receive ACA - were ironed out.

The money would take the LEA from 33rd out of 34 shire counties to 28th.

However, after promising he would re-evaluate the situation if campaigners produced the necessary evidence, Mr Miliband has refused to stump up any cash.

This is where genuine claims of discrimination come in and where the fair-funding campaign - which includes cross-party support from MPs - will focus in the coming months.