The question of representation is one that consistently emerges in relation to the role of the Institute of School Business Leadership (ISBL). Reflecting on the current discourse amongst school business leaders, this piece aims to unpack what is meant by representation.
In the broadest sense, to represent means to reflect and advocate for the issues that a community is facing. However, in the context of our education system, representation is shared across numerous national bodies with their own unique focus.
- The National Education Union and NASUWT look after the employment interests of their teacher members
- The Association of School and College Leaders and NAHT look after the employment interests of education leaders including school business professionals (SBPs)
- Unison looks after the employment interests of support staff
- The Confederation of School Trusts advocates on behalf of trusts
- The Chartered College of Teaching is the professional body for teachers
- The National Governance Association is a membership body representing the views of governors, trustees and clerks
- Regional groups support local colleagues facing similar contextual issues and provide local peer-to-peer support
- Social media networks provide an open platform for groups of practitioners with similar views and concerns to share opinions
- Education Support is a charity dedicated to mental health and wellbeing for teachers and education staff
- The Institute of School Business Leadership supports and advocates for practice improvement, professional recognition and operational excellence. This includes creating the conditions for this to be realised (sufficient funding, a proportionate regulatory environment, clear professional expectations via standards, a range of continuing professional development (CPD) pathways and research into practice).
At ISBL, our job in terms of representation is to understand the complexity of school operations and the challenges faced by any version of school business leadership and then work with key stakeholders including training providers, professional bodies, sector bodies and the Department for Education (DfE) to develop a range of professional development opportunities that responds to any identified need.
Additionally, in the policy areas of funding and the regulatory environment, it is important that we listen carefully to our members and feed back to the Government the concerns being raised. We do this as key long-standing members of various committees, through our engagement in formal consultations, and through special interest groups and regular surveys.
Perhaps seeing us occupying the space the National College vacated some years ago might offer some additional clarity about our role, but in addition, we do exert influence in some policy areas in a way that the National College as a government quango was unable to do.
No one can dispute the unrelenting pressure on many school business professionals, often in isolated roles and with little support or recognition from their senior leadership team peers. The post-pandemic ripple effect and increase in workload have led to 75% of the education workforce suffering from stress (Education Support).
Whilst we have done considerable work to improve the status and recognition of SBPs, it is not our role, and neither are we equipped, to offer important expert advice in the areas of employment terms and conditions or employee welfare. It's not that we don’t care – it's simply that we don’t want to offer support and advice in an area where we are not qualified to do so. We will, however, continue to create a safe space for colleagues to network and share concerns. We believe that this work sits firmly with the unions and other organisations dedicated to staff wellbeing.
Caught in the crossfire of opposing views about how we should run our education system, ISBL is sometimes misrepresented. I think the problem is exacerbated by our fragmented system, leading to a potential crisis of identity for SBPs working across the system.
Prior to the Academies Act 2010, most SBPs knew where they stood. With the exception of a limited number of type-one academies (Ark, Harris, etc.), there was no expectation or requirement for statutory accounts to be produced in-house. All schools, including voluntary-aided and foundation schools, were only required to record transactions in accordance with local authority finance policies. Technical accounting was performed by local education authorities.
It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that the emphasis on the National College programmes was one of generic leadership skills, good resource management, and some human resource content. The programmes offered very little by way of a deep dive into the technical disciplines of finance, HR or procurement. The role of technology was barely mentioned. Whilst leadership is an important skill, it is not the thing that is lacking in our system – it is deep technical skills where the deficits exist. We should not hide behind leadership as a reason not to acquire more knowledge.
Twelve years have passed since the Academies Act 2010. Whilst numerically there are still more primary maintained schools than any other type, academies dominate the landscape and policy discourse and have led to the erosion of local education services. The complexity involved in managing a trust means that central teams have emerged, including the introduction of more specialist roles. Larger trusts split out more complex functions (usually performed by the central team) and more generalist support functions at a local level.
SBPs now operate in one of three categories: generalist, specialist, or executive. Generalists are most commonly seen in the maintained sector but also in multi-academy trusts (MATs) at a local level. Executive roles and specialist roles are very rarely seen outside MATs.
The undeniable truth is that what we once understood to be School Business Management is changing immeasurably.
I think much of the tension we are seeing within our community is related to the very fact that things are now very different. Many loyal practitioners feel a sense that a career built on being agile and operating across a range of disciplines is now the poor relation of those with a specialism or operating at an executive level. Generalists operating at a local level within a MAT structure will inevitably report into a senior management level, be it head of operations, COO or CFO. Even colleagues with high levels of autonomy in their maintained settings feel that some MAT CFOs and COOs look down on them as professionally inferior. I can say this with confidence because it emerged from my research findings (Morales 2022). But actually, our system needs all three flavours.
A market-led approach to education means that stronger, larger trusts will be able to attract the most highly qualified and experienced practitioners because they can afford to pay more and offer better career progression. In this context, the only way SBPs can compete is to build their experience incrementally by exposing themselves to new, more challenging and more complex environments and by strengthening their portfolio of credentials.
Many SBP colleagues doing remarkable work in maintained schools or local schools within a MAT may feel very fulfilled and are undoubtedly adding tremendous value to their settings. If those colleagues can block out the noise related to MAT growth and the ambitions of a now potentially vulnerable White Paper, they should continue in situ with no imperative to retrain or radically upskill via costly and often time-consuming programmes.
If, however, the overbearing (local politics) encouragement to join a family of schools (academy trust) means that the destiny of a school is uncertain, then SBPs in this situation will need to prepare for that eventuality, and, of course, ISBL stands ready to support them. The ultimate arbiter of SBP suitability for any role will not be ISBL, but employers.
We [ISBL] didn’t design our current system, and a marketised education system is not necessarily our preferred approach. However, here at ISBL, we are trying to work within the policy constraints of our sector. Even a Labour government, once in power, will not put into reverse the academy juggernaut. They have said so very publicly; they are, however, more comfortable with a mixed-economy system.
What we at ISBL are trying to do is give SBPs a fighting chance to succeed and thrive in any environment, irrespective of the machinations of new ministers or indeed a different political party in power. We also aim to facilitate the sharing of best practice. A CFO qualified in accountancy undoubtedly has knowledge they can share with those less qualified in their particular area of expertise, but they can also learn so much from colleagues who have operated in schools for years and know how they work.
Reading around the subject of organisational or system dynamics, it is apparent that there will always be those resistant to change, particularly where the status quo is more comfortable or indeed desirable. It is also unsurprising that those with the most diverse experience and those highly qualified are better equipped to manage change.
However, reflecting on recent conversations with ISBL partners who have supported the sector for many years and have a close association with SBPs, there are clearly some polarised views. Some feel that the pursuit of practice excellence is alienating to certain groups of members of the SBP community and that some do not aspire to occupy executive roles and are happy doing a good job in their own setting. Whilst many feel they have benefited tremendously as a result of the new profile, status and recognition promoted by ISBL, some also argue that many SBPs still reject the need to professionalise and continue to personally invest in significant CPD.
This is a legitimate view, but in the end, those who don’t see value in professional status and ongoing formal training shouldn’t begrudge those who do.
Across our system, we have individuals with incredibly deep knowledge and experience in areas such as HR, technology and infrastructure, estates, change management, and project management. Some of this knowledge comes from industry, some from local authority roles, and some from a significant personal investment in training. Just like any other sector, we should be prepared to learn from each other, from other sectors, and indeed from other education systems. It’s worth reading Matthew Syed’s book Rebel Ideas, where he talks about echo chambers, the danger of groupthink, and our reluctance to pursue a new approach. So, whilst seeking support from trusted colleagues is helpful, it is important to be brave enough to go beyond seeking validation of an existing approach by having the professional curiosity to explore an alternative solution.
Listening to someone new talk about the way they do things does not represent a knowledge deficit, even if they are more qualified or more senior. It’s just an opportunity to learn – take the bits that are helpful and leave the bits that aren’t. The biggest mistake is not to listen at all.
There is a narrative out in the system that improvement, particularly through the lens of finance and resource management, is a dirty word and that all of the problems are the fault of policy and policymakers. Many of the problems we are facing today are indeed attributable to the decisions made by our political masters; of course, more funding would certainly help.
However, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that every school in the country is operating optimally with future-proofed integrated technology and systems, no duplication, highly efficient workflows, easily accessible management and performance data, robust staff development and succession plans, and, perhaps most importantly, the best possible deployment of teaching talent. No doubt some will challenge this view and say this utopian world is not possible in the current financial climate and this level of change is unnecessary.
My response takes me back to what I said earlier in this piece, which is that some are already making improvements in all these areas, granted that smaller schools are taking a more proportionate incremental approach. We should be prepared to listen to those who have embraced innovation, even if they operate in structures that we don’t like.
But in the end, no sector stands still – healthcare, banking, and construction, along with many other sectors, are all always striving for improvement. I have visited schools in every corner of the country, in every phase and of every school type. I have had the privilege of visiting and working with other global regions. I have seen the best and worst of education systems and witnessed both excellent and poor practice here in the UK. I have worked with the University of Leicester, the University of Chester, Northumbria University, and the National College to better understand education leadership in the UK. My thinking is informed by my many experiences, thousands of conversations with practitioners, education leaders, government officials and scholars, and my own research.
I therefore cannot unsee what I have witnessed, both good and bad.
As an institute, our primary purpose is to create the conditions for practice improvement (see our Blueprint for school business leadership practice).
We must leave lobbying activity in the capable hands of the unions or other campaign groups, alongside which we will happily coexist.
Stephen Morales
