What future for school business leadership? Recent change and looming possibilities

Abstract

Fundamental widespread changes affecting education’s purposes, policies and practices have had transformational repercussions for school business across the developed world. Subsequently, school business demands and accountabilities continue to escalate in scope and complexity and governments, education authorities and school communities are acknowledging the primacy and imperative of proficient school business leadership. International research chronicling the subsequent rapid professionalisation of school business leaders demonstrates pervasive policy moves that have re-focused school business priorities. Drawing on research conducted in Australia, USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand this article describes recent widespread changes before discussing issues and trends portending future professional adaptation for school business leaders whose work lies at the cross hairs of macro pressures and micro necessities.

Keywords

education business education business leadership education leadership education management and administration education policy

Introduction

A global neoliberal policy hegemony has heralded broad-sweeping changes in education policy and practice to complement market values, incurring policy similarities across nations (Starr, 2019; Ball, 2014, 2018; Rizvi and Lingard, 2000; Whitty et al., 1997). One effect is that education authorities across the developed world are increasingly aware of the need for competent, efficient school business leadership and management in the context of increasing school autonomy, institutional accountability and rising expectations for higher student achievement outcomes. An intensified focus on school leadership to deliver continual improvement and tangible learning outputs coincides with the keener eye of governments and education authorities on extracting greater value of money, enhancing productivity and accountability, and reducing systemic risk (NCLS&CS and TDA, 2010; O’Sullivan et al., 2000). Now considered indispensable members of school leadership teams, school business leaders direct and manage myriad responsibilities emanating from within and outside schools.

Given such rapid and extensive transformation, it is surprising, therefore, to find a paucity of research focusing on school business or the school business profession, with many education leadership texts paying scant attention or eliding mention of these topics altogether.

First, this article distils some of the major recent widespread professional changes that have significantly changed the remit and positioning of school business leaders in schools. Secondly, emerging themes are discussed that portend future developments – some quite probable since they are already on the horizon, and others that are probable given recent changes amongst other areas of education policy and leadership. The chapter concludes with statements that underpin some of the major beliefs about education business from within the profession. The discussion throughout has been derived from over a decade of longitudinal research conducted across developed, anglophone countries.

Research currently underway perhaps makes the discussion here all the more pertinent, since school business leaders are currently working above and beyond their usual remit to instigate and navigate a host of new but essential changes to school general operations, daily practices, budgets, compliance regimes, governance and critical communications amongst many other new considerations due to the Covid-19 epidemic (Starr, 2022a; 2022b). School business leadership is already in the midst of a rapidly changing future. Hence this chapter is based on what is currently known that what appears very likely to be impactful in the near future. Concluding statements sum up common, underpinning sentiments about school business from within the profession that point to keystones of possible future developments. The purpose of the chapter is to further stimulate scholarly discussion and debate within the profession so as to inform future policy and practice in the field.

The research

To arrive at its discussion and conclusions, this chapter is informed by and draws from many previous education leadership and policy research projects and publications (Starr, 2008, 2012a, 2012b, 2014, 2015, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019, forthcoming(a) and (b)). Findings from Australia, USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand are summarised to chronicle what has happened and what is happening on a broad scale in school business leadership. The chapter is, therefore, a generalised overview of key themes and trends derived from a longitudinal record of widespread past and current developments and many nascent but clear trends and activities.

All these researches aimed to generate explanatory theory substantiated through the data gathered, hence the projects referred to above have mostly been exercises in grounded theory building (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In grounded theory building, theory emerges inductively through data as they are gathered, with emerging research themes and unexpected ideas being analysed and continually tested to produce further evidence and / or new theoretical insights (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Grounded theory privileges the standpoints, perspectives and experiences of individuals in their daily lives to demonstrate how large-scale macro structures affect tangible local realities in complex, contextualised, historical practice. In other words, analyses have explored the inextricable links between the macro, meso and micro contexts that connect individuals corporeally and emotionally to structural political, economic and social realities. In grounded theory building, data are validated when common themes recur such that no new insights emerge: data are ‘saturated’, with succeeding data validating information from previous respondents.

Data in the above cited research projects was drawn primarily from qualitative interviews with representative samples of respondents – primarily conducted face-to-face, but via technology where geographical distance dictated. However, two of the above cited research programmes (Starr, 2012a, 2015a) integrated grounded theory with a mixed methods approach – the amalgamated collection and analysis of quantitative data gathered via survey and qualitative data gathered through recorded interviews. This qualitative / quantitative blend or mixed methods grounded theory was chosen to best answer the research questions, to enable a larger representative sampling and to identify broad trends in a timely manner, while still generating meaning and sensitivity to issues of context and lived experience (Johnson et al., 2010; see also discussion of the benefits of fusing qualitative and quantitative data in Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Data were sorted and analysed through processes of open, axial and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Tesch, 1990).

Lastly, extant empirical, peer-reviewed articles were reviewed to ascertain findings of research conducted in the field.

It is important to recognise, however, that this chapter presents common or emerging themes from many data sets across a decade and across countries, jurisdictions and a huge array of local contexts. It is impossible to present a summary account that could apply to every school business leader in every school in every country – for example, there is significant variance in the scope and nature of work of a school business manager in a small primary school and a business leader in multi-academy trust in UK. This is an important qualification – this chapter presents a broad and general view, although many policy similarities across the contexts in purview, and as such, the discussion below would be familiar or emergent in many or most contexts.

Recent professional change

Major recent shifts in school business can be traced to pervasive provocations in education policy that have fundamentally changed education’s purposes, practices and priorities (see for example, Apple et al., 2005; Starr, 2019; Ball, 2019; Whitty et al., 1997). Over the past three decades, globalised free market and neoliberalism has irrevocably changed education, its leadership and administration through economic structural reforms at international, national and local levels (see for example, Ball, 2016; Gleeson and O Donnabhain, 2009). Dominant discourses and the philosophical, organisational, and economic bases of the public sector and its agencies have been reconfigured fundamentally along market lines, transforming the nature and scope of government and reforming government policy and procedure in line with free market and neo-liberal axioms (for an extensive explanation and critical analysis see Starr, 2019; Ball, 2014, 2018; Marginson, 1997; Rizvi and Lingard, 2000).

Education has not escaped the impact of these structural reforms, motivated primarily by concerns for nations’ international competitiveness in trade, workforce capability and productivity, innovation, and education outcomes – sometimes referred to as the global education reform movement (GERM) (see for example, Murgatroyd and Sahlberg, 2016). The values currently underpinning education policy, therefore, support global free market liberalism with a focus on individualism, autonomy, competition, privatisation, choice, efficiency, productivity, improvement, innovation, entrepreneurialism and emphasising accountability and performativity. These neoliberal tenets are inherent in reforms impacting directly on school business and its leadership (Starr, 2019). Some major influences on school business are described below.

A leadership remit

School business leaders advise principals and governing councils and take a leading role in education business decisions – they are education leaders (see for example, Starr, 2012; Grieve, 2014; Marchant, 2018; Woods, 2014). They manage and lead ‘the other side of the school’ – the business, administrative, compliance, governance-information side – aspects that exist to support, enhance and facilitate education and its leadership (Armstrong, 2018; Moorcroft and Summerson, 2006; Newton and da Costa, 2016; Odden and Busch, 1998). Education would not exist without a host of business activities that are essential to support it. School business leadership, therefore, includes leading school support staff – building capacity, developing teams, and fulfilling expectations for innovation and improvement.

The positioning of school business leaders has evolved progressively and quickly, particularly as schools have become more autonomous and accountable, as governing councillors play a greater decision-making role, and as one-line budgeting processes transfer resource management responsibilities to the local level (see for example, Keating and Moorcroft, 2006; Woods, 2014). Australia’s rising Independent Public Schools and ‘default autonomy’ policies, England’s academy schools and multi-academy trusts, USA’s empowered district governance model and charter school movement, Canada’s provincial-specific variations of site-based management, New Zealand’s school restructuring since the late 1980s Tomorrow’s Schools reforms – are all forms of school autonomy with the rationale of driving up school and national performances standards. (While state funded, school autonomy also mandates varying accountabilities including, for example, adhering to various policy measures or authorised curricula.)

Within this context, expectations for school business leaders to be involved in strategic governance decisions, and to play a more visible role within the education system are heightened (Watterson and Caldwell, 2011). School business leaders are expected to demonstrate initiative to benefit schools – for example, seeking new funding sources, collaborating with other schools or institutions to secure mutual benefits, and saving time and money to focus finite resources on learning and teaching (Starr, 2012; O’Sullivan et al., 2000; see also Suggett, 2015).

Increasingly, school business leaders report taking it on themselves to know and understand education, pedagogy, education policy and the exigencies of education leadership (Woods, 2014). School business leaders’ explanations about their roles, extant professional standards and recent job descriptions indicate that expected requisites include:

delineated technical knowledge, skills and competencies (relating to school administration, finance, human resource management, marketing, plant and facilities, asset and ICT management, for example)

essential dispositions required for working in an education environment – effective communication skills, risk aversion, ability to work effectively with others and a commitment to equity and inclusion

leadership skills: capabilities to lead and develop staff, report to and work with governing councillors, work in a distributed school leadership environment, taking a broader outlook on education and the school business profession beyond the school – including actively participating in debates and actions for improvement, and committing to continuous professional learning

entrepreneurship, professional initiative, seeing where improvements are needed and ensuring these are addressed

working outside and beyond usual hours of employment to get work done

non-negotiables: trust worthiness, integrity, honesty, reliability, respect, courtesy and time-management skills (Starr, 2012a; Stevenson and Tharpe, 1999).

Moving a profession from one formed initially around notions of ‘management’ to one expecting ‘leadership’ requires cultural change. School business ‘managers’ were largely hidden, their role considered to be mostly technical, perfunctory and ‘behind-the-scenes’. School business ‘leaders’ have come into prominence through necessity. The business and governance work of any school is extensive and complex and requires a specific range of leadership knowledge, skills, dispositions and competencies – which Suggett (2015) suggests requires greater systemic support for leadership development.

While leadership is identified as an area for continued development and school business leaders are necessarily strategic players, however, commonly there is slippage evidenced in systemic messages. Without recognition of school business concerns in systemic strategic plans and with little or no reference of school business leadership evidenced systemic documentation, many see the clear need for a cultural shift to move school business from its traditional ‘technical’ focus to its current ‘leadership’ reality.

Leadership in its fullest sense involves a focus beyond the school gate. It entails a concern about education in the region/state, country and around the globe. It encapsulates involvement in the profession with colleagues and professional associations. Further, it means having opinions about policy, practice and future initiatives. School business leaders are inextricably involved in all these facets of leadership and are increasingly influencing these agendas and demonstrating they are not passive when it comes to having a view (see for example, Armstrong, 2018; Starr, 2017a, 2017b).

Impact and recognition

The work of school business leaders has been shown to be increasingly impactful. The profession:

enables principals to save between 35%–45% of their time through their being able to delegate business, administrative, governance and compliance work to a school business leader (see also Moorcroft and Summerson, 2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010; Southwood, 2010)

supports the work of school leaders and teachers, enabling them to focus on learning and teaching improvement.

provides ideas and advice aiding astute strategic decision making and resources allocation

sources and secures resources making a return on investment for school business employment costs of more than 80% (National College, 2010; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010)

recuperate most costs associated with school business salaries (Oakleigh Consulting, 2010), with the National College and the Training and Development Agency asserting salary recuperation within 3 years (NCLS&CS and TDA, 2010).

Oakleigh Consulting (2010) argues that in the UK the return on the investment of school business leader salaries is 575%. Further, the more qualified and experienced the school business leader, the more cost effective the position becomes.

School business leaders also ensure greater levels of job satisfaction and less stress and anxiety for school principals, especially in matters relating to finance, strategic and operational management (Starr, 2012a; McKinsey & Co., 2007; National College, 2010; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010; see also Bergman et al., 2009 and Phillips et al., 2007).

Professionalisation

Various jurisdictions have invested in the rapid professionalisation of school business personnel (see for example, Woods, 2014; see also Starr, 2012a). A range of school business related qualifications/certifications, professional standards and codes of ethics have been developed, recognising that school business professionals are responsible for retaining current relevant skills and knowledge and are able to demonstrate their expertise and value in schools. The Institute of School Business Leadership (ISBL) (2018) refers to the UK’s Civil Service Learning’s Professions Best Practice Framework (2016) in demonstrating how school business has increasingly become a profession – a process which is still evolving and which involves:

self-governance and self-regulation

delineated professional stages of career development

defined work competencies and standards

bespoke professional qualifications

‘talent management’ and succession practices, and

well-established professional networks and leadership within the professional community.

Standards and competency frameworks

Where they exist, competency frameworks and the standards they comprise form a blueprint for school business leadership practice and serve as a benchmark for a mature profession (see for example, ASBO International, 2005; ISBL, 2018; Western Australian Department of Education, 2015). Competency frameworks delineate core areas of expertise, guide levels of proficiency at relevant classification / career development levels, form the basis for continual professional learning, and aid career planning and job design, while scaffolding individual performance management.

Qualifications

It is still possible in some contexts that those responsible for huge amounts of public money in education need hold no formal qualifications. Increasing emphasis through professionalisation processes has been placed on raising qualification levels, including the development of bespoke courses and professional learning programmes with many being at tertiary level, including post-graduate programmes (see for example, Deakin University, 2020). While such programmes have a long history in some countries, in others they are new or emerging. What is common in all countries is a new emphasis on credentialism.

Expanding work expectations

Along with the above developments, school business leaders report their work now requires a higher investment in time. New work tasks accrete such that average working hours have increased as they have for principals and systemic leaders (Armstrong, 2018; Starr, 2012a, 2017b, 2018; Grieve, 2014; Marchant, 2018). The expectation is that school business leaders will invest the hours necessary to see their work completed, meaning most incumbents work many unpaid hours.

New work activities include attracting additional funding (through sponsorship, donations, fund-raising and grant applications), overseeing mandatory audits, surveys and record-keeping, involvement in education more broadly (for example, chairing school reviews and consultations, overseeing timetabling and staff deployment, attending ‘walk-throughs’ with principals to see first-hand what is happening and what needs to be done). School business personnel prepare and deliver independent monthly reports for school boards/councils and share responsibility for the development of major documents such as annual reports and minor ones like school newsletters.

Common in research findings were commentaries about time-consuming activities including externally imposed ‘administrivia’, risk management imperatives (which often appear to take precedence over education interests), dealing with difficult people, pursuing major improvements amidst change resistant school cultures, a lack of business-related knowledge amongst educators (with ‘business’ often perceived as a dirty word), and increasing demands for greater sustainability in education. School business leaders constantly have their attention diverted from one task/situation/meeting/phone call to another – the work spans an enormous range of responsibilities and activities and is continually interrupted. Current job descriptions – where they exist – do not represent the full range of tasks undertaken by school business leaders (Armstrong, 2018; Starr, 2012a).

These recent common changes are a backdrop to current trends and looming issues that portend further change expectations for the school business profession.

Future probabilities and possibilities

Within the school business profession there are oft raised issues, emerging ideas and new considerations that highlight new possibilities and indications of where the profession is seeking or expecting reform. Common themes are discussed below.

Renewal

An urgent imperative is the school business profession’s renewal. Demographic data around the globe presents a similar picture – ageing incumbents, too few young appointees (see for example, ASBO International, 2018) and difficulties attracting newcomers to what has been a ‘hidden’ group of employees within education (Moorcroft and Summerson, 2006; Southworth, 2010). Further, the profession at large is considered too homogenous and requires diversification.

With structural change and various reform measures being forefront of education policy, it is suggested that school business succession has been a ‘back burner’ issue, although everywhere the need for urgent renewal is recognised. Renewal embraces supply, succession, equity (in the broadest sense of the word), professional learning, qualifications and career pathways. Current professionalisation projects are grappling with some of these latter issues, along with the support structures required to facilitate professional learning, career development and progression, and apposite reward structures (Starr, 2019; Woods, 2014). Ideas to address other urgent and pronounced renewal problems include:

proactive campaigns to highlight the school business role and its importance in schools

internships

coaching and mentoring schemes

work shadowing opportunities

more comprehensive and visible induction programmes

wide-ranging support networks and programmes

developing relationships with universities to acquire graduates for work placements

scholarships for qualification programmes that are proven to have impact

keeping principals informed about developments in school business so they can be involved themselves (via joint professional learning) or can support continuous professional learning and other enhancement activities for school business leaders.

Since school business is diverse, interesting, creative, important and rewarding, it is considered by incumbents as worthy of promotion as a fulfilling career.

Education-focused business

An emerging view is that education business is moving to be more closely tied to education activities and outcomes, with both positive and negative comments received along these lines. In the positive sense, education business is viewed as one means by which schools can improve education outcomes – that is, with school business activities being aligned with strategic education goals such that budgets and other finite resources can be more readily targeted to the school’s specific curriculum, pedagogical or pastoral care needs. The purposeful targeting and use of resources has the effect of heightening awareness of the school’s education goals and the strategies being pursued to attain them. Concerns were raised, however, indicating that increasing external pressures for improvement data and measurement can be used deleteriously for unauthentic purposes (those that are not aligned with education) to tie school business efforts to student attainment outcomes (see Apple et al., 2005). For example, some respondents were concerned about the political use of comparative student achievement statistics to unfairly reward or punish schools, with funding implications ranging from reduced funding or qualifying access to certain services, to school closures and staff sackings (see Starr, 2019).

Performance expectations

The school autonomy movement and a focus on school leadership are perceived as having ‘raised the bar’ for school performance and have enhanced schools’ standing and profile in communities (Starr, 2019). Business leaders are aware that success is expected and failure is not an option with school autonomy encouraging them to be more strategic and future-thinking, innovative and entrepreneurial.

Beliefs about heightened performance expectations lead many to expect that in future this will be an individual as well as an institutional issue, with formal professional appraisal schemes being required of school business and support personnel. Currently, not all school business leaders experience performance appraisal as part of their usual work in schools – in many places, formal appraisal appears the exception rather than the rule. And, as a result of school autonomy regimes, some education departments do not currently know the extent of active performance appraisal schemes for school business leaders or what form appraisal processes take (Starr, 2019).

The strong sense that performance appraisal will be a future requirement emanates from the fact that such schemes are longstanding expectations of principals and teachers. Further, with many new accountabilities targeting school business, and as professionalisation moves the emphasis from management to leadership, so incumbents see appraisal schemes as imminent.

There are fears within the profession, however, that appraisal processes could be punitive and judgmental, rather than constructive and developmental; conducted by people possessing limited understandings of school business; and could be ‘top down’, encompassing hierarchical power differentials. The strong preference, therefore, is for such developments to be closely tied to career stages, and to be led and conducted from within the profession itself – that is, with school business leaders collaborating to provide colleagues with constructive, developmental feedback. Most importantly, incumbents see appraisal schemes as necessarily separate from procedures concerning ‘poor performance’. Conceived and promoted in a positive, constructive, developmental light, and conducted with peer involvement, school business leaders suggest they would be less concerned about appraisal processes. Documents such as competency frameworks and professional standards would serve as a basis and guide in appraisal exercises to be constructive and supportive of professional growth and career progression.

Effective performance appraisal is seen as a means of providing greater recognition of the contribution of school business leaders’ work – acknowledging high-performing incumbents and signalling the support and praise for this essential segment of the school workforce.

Educating others

School business leaders reveal that as the main business authority on site often means having to ‘educate’ or explain business matters to school leaders and governing councillors.

There is significant disquiet amongst school business incumbents about the lack of knowledge of some principals and governors which is a significant risk for education authorities. Complaints include principals’ power to instigate profligate or unwise spending, a failure to plan for longer term financial needs and a lack of understanding of important financial considerations such as budget planning or cash-flow, a failure to see the connection between budgeting and strategic planning, and being unable to read financial statements. And some board members fail to appreciate the extent or seriousness of their responsibilities or the difference between governance and management. A commonly raised central issue is that school business leaders must be active members of executive school leadership teams (which is still not the case in all situations) (Marchant, 2018; Moorcroft and Summerson, 2006).

School governing bodies, like those in other organisations, draw on many skill sets to operate effectively, but in schools, requisite skills and knowledge are perceived as often lacking. This view resonates with research suggesting a ‘stakeholder’ model of governance is commonly found in schools with boards mostly comprising willing parents rather than a ‘skills-based’ model which is essential for councils to have the requisite capacity for comprehensive governance oversight (see also AICD, 2019; Connolly et al., 2017). Hence, the strong belief is that school governing bodies should be more purposefully constituted to ensure they embody essential skillsets and understandings. In the context of new accountabilities and heightened expectations, the rapid professionalisation of school boards is viewed as essential – an issue that different jurisdictions have taken up to varying degrees.

A separate consideration concerns school business leaders’ responsibilities for school support staff. This is also an educative role encapsulating skills in developing people, leading effective teams and requiring proficient ‘people’ skills (communication and negotiation skills, emotional intelligence). The school business leadership role is both educative and developmental which, according to incumbents, often fails to be acknowledged.

Registration

A system of registration or licence to practice incorporating requirements for continuous professional learning is seen as another looming possibility. Already a requirement of educators, as school business personnel have assumed leadership responsibilities, so other forms of professionalism are expected to follow. Registration would ensure reliable systemic data relating to business leaders’ qualifications, career stages, professional learning activities, support services required, geographical networks and demographic information to support renewal, induction, career development, retention and succession activities.

Remuneration

Given current leadership expectations and the critical nature of school business accountabilities, current remuneration levels are considered inadequate. Some respondents believe the role to be at least the equivalent of a Deputy Principal and in certain circumstances, higher – for example, job descriptions for business leaders in complex settings were seen as being more extensive and covering equally important aspects of school leadership – yet in some situations pay scales do not reflect such equivalence. Further, in schooling systems where most school business leaders are women, incumbents argue that salaries reflect the current gender profile of the profession – the inference being that a feminised profession attracts lower remuneration, creating a gender pay gap. Respondents also note significant remuneration differentials been business leaders in government and independent schools. Almost unanimously, school business leaders believe they pay should be commensurate with their level of leadership responsibility.

Whistleblowing

Emerging commentary suggests the necessity of whistleblowing policies and procedures pertaining specifically to school business – especially in situations of increasing school autonomy. Many business personnel express a wish to communicate directly with higher authorities beyond with school if they suspect illegal, non-conformant or unwise activities with grievous consequences, and to do so without fear of personal or professional reprisal. Citing well-publicised instances of illicit activity, the view is that systemic risk management should ere on the side of caution with school business leaders being mandated to report suspicions in much the same way as educators must compulsorily report worries about child abuse directly to authorities. Some school business leaders feel vulnerable and silenced by current hierarchical reporting channels and want means by which to act on hunches with guarantees of personal and professional protection.

Concluding contentions

It is clear that school business is very different from other forms of business: it is business for good, business with a social purpose. Expectations are mounting that see education business as producing tangible outcomes, such that education resources are targeted to enhancing students’ learning and school experience. It is also clear that education business leadership requires specific knowledge about the education sector, the policies to which schools must adhere, and skills in working with both colleagues and the community amidst constant interruption and daily uncertainty – in addition to general business expertise. Understanding teaching and learning has become foundational to the work of education business leaders.

Through research with school business leaders and their professional associations over a long period of time, the following contentions sum up some of the current major beliefs held by the profession at large. These highlight both the significance of education business to education processes and outcomes, and the important role school business leaders play:

Every education decision has a business implication

‘Business’ is not a dirty word in education: it enables education aspirations and objectives to be reached and enhances the school experience for students and educators

Education business focuses on strategic education goals – it is not an end in and of itself

The more education business leaders understand and are familiar with education, education policy, pedagogy and the aims of educators, the better able they are to lead and manage the business of education

While it is imperative that school leaders and governing councillors understand school business, they do not have to conduct it

Education business supports and thrives on a ‘leadership at all levels’ leadership stance with school business personnel working alongside educators in senior leadership teams.

Propitious education business leadership pervades every aspect of education and is essential to every school’s success. Schools are fundamentally important community assets and the public expects them to operate as smoothly, efficiently and effectively as possible. School business leaders and their teams are integral to this essential community-building pursuit and current trends suggest their role will be more prominent in future.

There is a need, therefore, for more debate and research that rightly accedes that business leadership is an essential component of school leadership in order to shape policy, practice, and future developments in this important field.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karen Starr

References

Apple

Kenway

Singh

(2005) Globalizing Education: Policies, Pedagogies, and Politics. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Armstrong

(2018) School business managers in England: negotiating identity. International Journal of Educational Management 32(7):1266–1277.

ASBO International (2005) International School Business Management Professional Standards and Code of Ethics. Reston, VA: Association of School Business Officials International. Available at: https://asbointl.org/asbo/media/documents/Resources/ASBO-Professional-Standards.pdf (accessed 1 September 2019).

ASBO International (2018) 2018 Membership Survey Results. Reston, VA: Association of School Business Officials International.

Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) (2019) Not-for-Profit Governance Principles, Second Edition, January 2019. Sydney, NSW: AICD. Available at: https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/-/media/cd2/resources/director-resources/not-for-profit-resources/nfp-principles/pdf/06911-4-adv-nfp-governance-principles-report-a4-v11.ashx (accessed 1 September 2019).

Ball

(2016) Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education 14(8):1046–1059.

Ball

(2018) Commercialising education: profiting from reform! Journal of Education Policy 33(5):587–589.

Ball

(2014) Globalised, commodified and privatised: current international trends in education and education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives 22: 41. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v22n41.2014.

Bergman

Corabian

Harstall

(2009) Effectiveness of Organisational Interventions for the Prevention of Occupational Stress. Alberta, MN: Institute of Health Economics.

10.

Civil Service Learning (2016) Professions Best Practice Framework. London: UK Government, May 2016. Available at: https://civilservicelearning.civilservice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/professions_best_practice_framework_2016_final_v1.0_2016_07_05.pdf (accessed 1 September 2019).

11.

Connolly

Farrell

James

(2017) An analysis of the stakeholder model of public boards and the case of school governing bodies in England and Wales. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 45(1):5–19.

12.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Deakin University (2020) Graduate Certificate, Education Business Leadership. Available at: https://www.deakin.edu.au/course/graduate-certificate-education-business-leadership (accessed 5 January 2020).

14.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

15.

Gleeson

O Donnabhain

(2009) Strategic planning and accountability in Irish education. Irish Educational Studies 28(1):27–46.

16.

Grieve

(2014) School administration at a glance: why we should look at school administration . Unpublished paper, NZ, March 2014.

17.

Institute of School Business Leadership (2018) Professional Standards for School Business Leaders. Coventry: ISBL.

18.

Johnson

McGowan

Turner

(2010) Grounded theory in practice: is it inherently mixed methods? Research in the Schools 17:65–78.

19.

Keating

Moorcroft

(eds) (2006) Managing the Business of Schools. London: Paul Chapman.

20.

McKinsey & Co. (2007) A New Frontier for School Business Management. Unpublished report.

21.

Marchant

(2018) An exploration into the current opportunities and constraints for career progression into leadership roles for school business managers in England. MA Leadership Dissertation . Henley-on-Thames: Henley Business School, University of Reading.

22.

Marginson

(1997) Markets and education. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

23.

Moorcroft

Summerson

(2006) Leaders backing leaders: a programme of school business management. Journal of In-Service Education 32(2):255–274.

24.

Murgatroyd

Sahlberg

(2016) The two solitudes of educational policy and the challenge of development. Journal of Learning for Development 3(3):9–21.

25.

National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services (NCLS&CS) and the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) (2010) Discover the Benefits of School Business Managers: Develop the Bigger Picture. Manchester: Training and Development Agency for Schools.

26.

Newton

da Costa

(2016) School autonomy and 21st century learning: the Canadian context. International Journal of Educational Management 30(7): 1279–1292.

27.

Oakleigh Consulting (2010) Final Impact Assessment of the National College’s School Business Manager Demonstration Projects. Nottingham: National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services.

28.

Odden

Busch

(1998) Financing Schools for High Performance: Strategies for Improving the Use of Educational Resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

29.

O’Sullivan

Thody

Wood

(2000) From Bursar to School Business Managers: Reengineering Leadership for Resource Management. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

30.

Phillips

Sen

McNamee

(2007) Prevalence and causes of self-reported work-related stress in head teachers. Occupational Medicine 57(5):367–376.

31.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010) Cost Benefit Analysis of the School Business Management Program. Nottingham: National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services.

32.

Rizvi

Lingard

(2000) Globalization and education: complexities and contingencies. Educational Theory 50(4):419–426.

33.

Starr

(2008) Increased demands on principals. Directions in Education 17(4): 1.

34.

Starr

(2012a) Above and Beyond the Bottom Line: The Extraordinary Evolution of Education Business Manager. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press.

35.

Starr

(2012b) Worth their weight in gold: the boon of having a school business official. School Business Affairs 78(6): 29–30.

36.

Starr

(2014) Interrogating conceptions of leadership: school principals, policy and paradox. School Leadership and Management 34(3): 224–236.

37.

Starr

(2015) Education Game Changers: Leadership and the Consequence of Policy Paradox. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

38.

Starr

(2017a) The downsides of increasing school accountabilities. School Business Affairs 83(10): 21–24.

39.

Starr

(2017b) The effects of school autonomy on education business. School Business Affairs 83(11): 27–30.

40.

Starr

(2018) Education business leadership for Australia’s autonomous schools. In: Refereed paper presented at the 2018 American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual Meeting, New York, NY, 13–17 April 2018.

41.

Starr

(2019) Education Policy, Neoliberalism and Leadership Practice: A Critical Analysis. New York: Routledge.

42.

Starr

(forthcoming(a)) Re-thinking school business leadership and its purposes. In: Fenwick

(ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.

43.

Starr

(forthcoming(b)) Neoliberal education policy and leadership consequences: A retrospective. In: Fenwick

(ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.

44.

Southworth

(2010) School Business Management – A Quiet Revolution. Nottingham: National College of School Leadership.

45.

Stevenson

Tharpe

(1999) The School Business Administrator. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

46.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

47.

Suggett

(2015) School autonomy: necessary but not sufficient. Evidence Base 2015(1):1–26.

48.

Tesch

(1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. Basingstoke: The Falmer Press.

49.

Watterston

Caldwell

(2011) System alignment as a key strategy in building capacity for school transformation. Journal of Educational Administration 49(6):637–652.

50.

Western Australian Department of Education (2015) Competency Framework for School Corporate Service Staff. Perth, WA: Department of Education, WA.

51.

Whitty

Power

Halpin

(1997) Devolution and Choice In Education: The School, the State and the Market. Buckingham: Open University Press.

52.

Woods

(2014) Anatomy of a Professionalization Project: The Making of the Modern School Business Manager. London: Bloomsbury.