Ever since the introduction of the Academies Act in 2010, the role of school business professionals (SBPs) has evolved massively.

Until 2010, the sector was full of loyal, generalist practitioners who built a career on being agile and operating across a range of disciplines in-house, while leaving more technical areas of school management to the local authority.

For example, 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, HR and procurement were also all performed by local education authorities.

Three flavours of business professional

Since 2010, though, these requirements have gone in-house. For most schools in a trust, the complexity involved in managing these areas means central teams have emerged to handle these requirements - leading to the introduction of more specialist roles in-house.

This means that SBPs now operate in one of three categories: generalists, found in maintained sector schools or operating in a single school in a MAT; and specialist and executive-level SBPs, found in trusts and usually operating from the “centre”.

For many years, these roles rubbed alongside one another fairly well - but there appears now to be tension in the sector as the push for a fully academised education sector continues to be discussed.

This was something I heard many people talk about during two conferences I recently attended - the Schools and Academies Show and our own Institute of School Business Leadership National Conference - with concerns about how these roles will co-exist in an increasingly academised system.

For example, many generalist practitioners feel they are seen as the poor relation of those with a specialism or operating at an executive level, not least as they inevitably report to 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 multi-academy trust CFOs and COOs look down on them as professionally inferior - something some of my own recent research revealed, too.

With the government’s aim for all schools to be in trusts - ideally by 2030 - that means many SBPs wonder what the future holds for them and their jobs.

We need to co-exist

This tension is unhealthy. Our system needs all three flavours and each has a role to play.

After all, if a market-led approach to education means stronger, larger trusts emerge, it is inevitable they will require specialists and so offer job titles (and pay) that attract those with specialist skills.

Yet, there will likely remain a place for SBPs, too - either in schools that do not join trusts or where MATs retain the services of in-school SBPs.

Indeed, many SBP colleagues are doing remarkable work in maintained schools or local schools and adding tremendous value to their settings.

If those SBPs can block out the noise related to MAT growth, and the ambitions of a now-vulnerable White Paper, they should continue in situ with no imperative to retrain or radically upskill via costly and often time-consuming programmes.

However, it is unsurprising that many fear this situation cannot last given the current government’s policy plans.  

What’s more, even a change to a Labour government will be unlikely to stop the academy juggernaut, which they have said they have no intention of stopping.

They are, however, more comfortable with a mixed-economy system - which may at least leave some SBPs breathing a sigh of relief - although there are still two years before we get to that, of course.  

Don’t fear change

Whatever happens, though it is important those in SBP roles, at any level, do not fear the future but recognise change can be for the better, too.

Indeed, that is what we at ISBL are trying to do by giving 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.

This is done by providing the right access to training, qualifications, courses and engagement with others in the sector to understand and learn from each other.

For example, a CFO qualified in accountancy undoubtedly has the 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.

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.

This is important. No sector stands still - healthcare, banking and construction, along with many other sectors, are all always striving for improvement.

Yet, sadly, there exists in some areas of the sector a narrative that improvement, particularly through the lens of finance and resource management, is a dirty word.

Many of the problems we are facing today are indeed attributable to the decisions made by our political masters.

But it is unreasonable to suggest that every school in the country is operating optimally, that every school has future-proofed integrated technology and systems, highly efficient workflows, robust staff development and succession plans, smooth accounting processes and, perhaps most importantly, the best possible deployment of teaching talent.

Striving for this may sound utopian - and many may say not possible in the current financial climate.

Yet, if the past 12 years have taught us anything, it should be that schools are capable of amazing changes and can progress in all areas - and a skilled SBP workforce is a key part of that progress.

Stephen Morales is the CEO of the Institute of School Business Leaders