The problem

Users relying on ESFA platforms for financial planning struggle with complex, inconsistent language, and technical terminology.

This makes it difficult for finance teams in schools, academies and other education and training providers to interpret allocation statements, understand funding breakdowns, and make informed decisions.

Research and findings

Our heuristic content analysis gathered and mapped the language used across a range of ESFA communications and compared it to the language used in our user research sessions.

This revealed several key issues that hinder usability:

  1. Complex and technical language
  • many uses of jargon require a high level of financial literacy
  • terms like allocation history, remittance, and tranches are used inconsistently across platforms
  • legal and policy-driven language is sometimes difficult for users to interpret

Example from analysis: the term “tranche” is used in some documents but “instalment” in others. This inconsistency confuses users who rely on funding schedules.

  1. Readability issues
  • current content exceeds the Hemingway grade 7 readability guideline, making them difficult to scan and understand.
  • long paragraphs and passive voice make critical financial information harder to digest
  • users struggle with dense text blocks without clear visual hierarchy
  1. Inconsistent terminology and formatting
  • different platforms use different terms for the same concept, creating confusion
  • users struggle to compare funding data across documents due to inconsistent formatting
  • acronyms and initialisms (for example, UKPRN, R14, GAG) are often used without definitions, making them inaccessible to new users

Example from analysis: the term “final allocation” is used in one document, while another refers to it as “final payment”.

  1. Accessibility and navigation challenges
  • users find it difficult to locate historical allocation data
  • lack of tables, bullet points, and clear sections, making financial planning difficult
  • some documents assume prior knowledge of funding processes, excluding new users

Example from analysis: some users struggled to find historic allocation statements, leading to incorrect assumptions about their funding.

Proposed solutions

To improve the usability of ESFA communications, we recommend the following:

  1. Standardise language and terminology
  • create a terminology guide to ensure consistent use of key financial terms
  • use plain English and define complex terms on first use
  • align terminology across GOV.UK and DfE platforms to avoid discrepancies
  1. Improve readability
  • ensure all content follows Hemingway Grade 7 readability guidelines
  • use shorter sentences, active voice, and clear subheadings
  • break down information using bullet points, and summaries
  1. Enhance structure and navigation
  • provide consistent document structures for all allocation statements
  • use visual indicators (e.g.for example, “What’s changed since last year?” sections)
  • implement search-friendly content to help users find relevant information quickly
  1. Make content more accessible
  • clearly define acronyms and abbreviations at first mention
  • use accessible tables and structured data formats
  • improve document tagging to help users find relevant historical funding data

Next steps

  • conduct testing sessions with service users to validate these improvements
  • work with content designers to rewrite guidance documents following the new standards
  • measure improvements in user comprehension and efficiency over time

By addressing these language and terminology issues, we aim to make ESFA more accessible, consistent, and user-friendly.

Share this page