Positioning school business practitioners in the English school system

Introduction

The 1988 Education Reform Act brought about new accountabilities and activities for schools to manage and administrate through the introduction of ‘site-based management’ (Gunter, 2016: 30). As the school system in England has increasingly diversified over the last two decades, a new cohort of practitioners has emerged and evolved. Often referred to as ‘school business managers’ or ‘school business leaders’, the activity of these practitioners has continued to grow with ‘school business leadership’ increasingly positioned by education policy makers and professional bodies as a distinct field of practice within the system. However, despite the evolution of this practitioner cohort and increasing recognition of their value within the school system, there is a paucity of scholarly research exploring this field of activity and the increasing professionalisation of school business practitioners. To contribute to this gap and stimulate debate on this underexplored cohort of the school workforce, this article begins by drawing on a Bourdieusian lens to consider the position of school business leadership as a distinct field of activity situated within the wider education field. It then draws on the work of Gunter and Ribbins’ (2002) and Ribbins and Gunter’s (2002) to outline the rationale and approach taken in tracing the evolution of this practitioner group. It then moves to trace over two decades of work by policy makers and professional bodies to position school business practitioners alongside their teaching colleagues. In doing so, it illuminates evidence of continued tensions around the inclusion of such practitioners in matters of school leadership. The article concludes by considering future directions and the need for further research to more deeply understand the positioning of such practitioners in the wider field. Further, it argues for knowledge exchange with other education contexts that share local management characteristics to develop further insights into this field of practitioner activity and its potential for future development.

Positioning school business leadership in the field of education

The education landscape in England has become increasingly diverse. In this paradoxical self-improving school-led system, a rhetoric of school autonomy grows in the midst of increasing central accountabilities (Simkins et al., 2019; Woods et al., 2020). Indeed, uncertainty and complex expectations continue, a performativity agenda increases, local authority control is declining, and new school structures have emerged (Courtney, 2015a; Coldron et al., 2014; Hargreaves, 2012; Rayner, 2018; Woods, 2014, 2017).

As Gunter (2016: 30) highlights, the 1988 Education Reform Act accelerated a shift away from ‘autonomous educational professionals’ via the introduction of ‘site-based management’. This brought about ‘a system whereby educational professionals managed income generation and the budget, hired and fired staff, and had to market provision within a quasi-competitive system’ (Gunter, 2016: 30). As a result, a new type of practitioner has increasingly entered the field of education traditionally populated by teaching practitioners. Southworth (2010: 1) reflected on this as ‘a quiet revolution’ stemming from the wake of these rapid reforms as he explored the increasing professionalisation of this evolving practitioner role; the school business manager (SBM). As Woods et al. (2013: 752) suggest

…the case of the SBM can be viewed as part of an international movement of professionalization of the public sector workforce…Reforms to school business management nationally have been rapid and far-reaching and SBMs are often now key players in schools.

Over a decade ago, Southworth (2010) suggested that it was perhaps time to start thinking of ‘school business management’ as a profession due the prevalence of SBM roles and the distinct activity undertaken that separated them from the teaching workforce. As the last decade progressed, references to ‘the school business profession’ and the practice of ‘school business leadership’ – and to practitioners as ‘school business leaders’ or ‘school business professionals’ – have increasingly appeared in practitioner and policy language (e.g. Cirin and Bourne, 2019; ESFA, 2019; ISBL, 2020a). As Gunter (2001: 143) suggests, a profession can be understood as an identifiable group that is ‘…connected to both the abstracting of behaviours, which is what makes one profession distinctive from or similar to another, and the power systems that control membership inclusion and exclusion…’ However, as Gunter (2001: 143) further highlights, ‘[d]ebating the meaning of profession and professional behaviour has a long and contested history in relation to education…’ Instead, what appears helpful for understanding the activity of school business practitioners is how Gunter and Ribbins (2002: 412) – stemming from Gunter (2001) – use the term ‘professional’ to mean ‘professionality’. The meaning of ‘professionality’ is taken by Gunter and Ribbins (2002: 412) to differ from traditional approaches that frame a profession as an ‘elite group’ or ‘as being a professional possessing particular attributes’. Their notion of professionality instead focuses on what practitioners do, how they do it and why they do it. As this article later traces, within the English context, considerable effort has been undertaken by professional bodies to underpin a level of requirement for those undertaking school business practitioner roles in the changing policy context. Indeed, as Starr (2020) highlights within this special issue, professionalisation has continued at pace through evidence of self-governance and self-regulation, and the development of professional standards, qualifications, career pathways, and practitioner networks. However, ‘the process of professionalisation is not a linear and smooth path…’ (Gunter, 2001: 143).

As Armstrong (2018: 1266) highlights, school business practitioners in England appear as a rather ‘nascent’ group seeking to carve out their own space or territory within a system traditionally managed and led by trained educationalists. Bourdieu’s (1990) theory of practice is then a helpful lens through which to view school business practitioner activity as part of the wider education field and consider its positioning. In Bourdieusian terms, field relates to a social space where players – social actors – are positioned and legitimatised. As Gunter and Ribbins (2002) articulate, from Bourdieu’s theory of practice comes the notion of habitus which can be understood as the disposition to act which reveals activity within a defined field, for example how one goes about being a ‘teacher’ or ‘school business leader’. Bourdieu’s (1990) theory of practice also presents the notion of capital – material or symbolic – which is valued within a specific field. When forms of capital are mobilised in particular ways, an individual can claim (or is afforded) a certain position of rank or status within the social hierarchy of the field. Bourdieu’s forms of capital relate to economic capital, such as wealth and financial resources, and social capital in relation to access to relationships, networks and groups. Cultural capital can involve the embodied (such as work experience), the institutional (such as academic qualifications), and the objectified (such as artefacts, dress, and other material assets). Through a Bourdieusian lens, a field is occupied by dominant members who define and perpetuate the implicit rules of the field (doxa), the legitimate habitus, and what capital is deemed valuable within the field, with the latter tending reflect the habitus of the most dominant cohort of members. In applying the notions of capital and habitus, Gunter’s (2016: 29–30) observations of ‘leaders, leading and leadership’ is helpful in positioning school business practitioners as a cohort of members undertaking leadership activity in the wider field of education:

Educational leadership: leadership is directly linked to educational practices and purpose, developing pedagogy and curriculum, and is focussed on learning

As Gunter observes, each of these three activities are seen within schools in England as a ‘complex layering’, but with a movement away from a more traditional focus on educational leadership ‘towards a hybridized version of school leadership and the leadership of schools’ (2016: 30). The activity/habitus of educationalists, such as teachers and headteachers, can be understood as traditionally linked to educational leadership, with a more hybridized form coming into play due to the influence of policy reform. Whereas school business practitioner activity/habitus appears to firmly occupy a space within with this hybridized version of leadership as part of policy reform. Such practitioners undertake forms of leadership directly linked to organisational management functions (e.g. finance, operations and human resources), but also tactically implement externally regulated change (e.g. efficiency policies, health and safety).

As Southworth (2010: 15) observed, despite ‘proof of concept’ of the SBM role and the value it can bring to schools, there is an evident history of scepticism by headteachers whereby school business practitioners have been perceived as not involved in educational leadership and therefore not a relevant addition to senior leadership teams. In the decade passing since Southworth’s (2010) observations, there is evidence that this perception is changing as this article will trace. However, participation in senior leadership activity in schools is still a continuing challenge for many practitioners based on surveys and reports from professional bodies (e.g. ASCL, 2019a; Creaby, 2018; ISBL, 2020a). Therefore, for school business practitioners as emergent field members, in exhibiting a different habitus and possessing different forms of capital from dominant field members (teachers and educational leaders), legitimacy appears to be an on-going struggle. As Woods et al. (2013: 763) argue ‘…the complexities of what business management can involve, and what a business manager’s role might legitimately include, can be understood very differently by members of the school community’. Indeed, the definition of ‘profession’ in Gunter’s (2001) terms is problematic for school business practitioners to claim within a field where the legitimate profession is ‘teaching’ and status for inclusion into leadership activity is a teacher habitus and certain forms of capital, e.g. qualified teacher status (QTS). In addition, paradoxically, as part of the shift away from autonomous educational professionals towards a hybridized school-led system, school business practitioners appear as having been increasingly professionalised within a context of de-professionalisation. This could appear contentious to educationalists experiencing de-professionalisation and could result in their resistance to these new field members who have evolved out of such policy reform. Indeed, as this article will later trace, school business leadership has a legacy of government influence. However, this has receded in the last decade as professional bodies have become more active in the professionalisation of school business practitioners, including those historically focussed on educationalists. Thus, exploring the way in which such evolving roles are perceived by educational leaders, and how the intention of leaders, leading, and leadership is understood in local settings would appear necessary. However, as Woods et al. (2013: 763) observe ‘…such matters have excited little attention among education scholars, a state of affairs that we believe should be addressed’.

Despite several years passing since Woods et al.’s (2013) observations, exploration of school business practitioners, and the activity of school business leadership, remains largely absent from education management and leadership debate in the English context beyond the academic publications of Woods et al. (2013, 2012), Wood (2017) and Armstrong (2018). As a crucial cohort of the school workforce (Armstrong, 2018), this paucity of exploration compared with their teaching colleagues and senior leadership counterparts is in stark contrast given the journey of professionalisation evident for these practitioners, which further problematises their legitimacy in the field of education. Therefore, to begin to address this apparent gap, the purpose of this article is to illuminate historical (and present) dimensions of the increasing professionalisation of school business practitioners as a ‘committed commentator’ (Gunter and Ribbins, 2002: 387). The purpose of doing so is to capture and share this evolution with education management and leadership scholars to stimulate debate, which has been persistently lacking in the English context. This is in addition to furthering global knowledge exchange around the positioning of practitioners in education systems given that similar business management functions and practitioner roles appear established in similar education contexts; for example, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States of America and Canada (Armstrong, 2018; ASBO, 2020; ASBOI, 2020; Keating and Moorcroft, 2006; Smith and Riley, 2010; Starr, 2015, 2012; Woods, 2014; Woods et al., 2013).

Tracing a history as a ‘committed commentator’

In tracing the evolution of school business practitioners, and their increasing professionalisation, I follow Gunter and Ribbins (2002) – who draw on Bolam’s (1999) work – as a helpful starting point. Hence, this article can be understood in two ways. Firstly, as a ‘knowledge for understanding’ project as I seek to describe, explain and analyse the increasing professionalisation of school business practitioners (Bolam, 1999: 195). Secondly, it can be understood as a ‘knowledge for action’ project as I seek to inform others (education scholars and stakeholders) about the nature of this distinct field of activity to stimulate debate (Bolam, 1999: 195). In doing so, I position myself as a knowledge worker and this article in the role of what Gunter and Ribbins (2002: 387) suggest as a ‘mediator’. By this, I argue that I am not seeking to provide a solution to a defined problem, and this article does not seek to claim an ‘absolute truth’ about school business practitioners. Rather, I seek to stimulate dialogue about what is known and what might not be known about the evolution of school business leadership and the practitioners that undertake its activity. I recognise that this is problematic in the way Gunter and Ribbins (2002: 287) suggest, in that I am not a ‘neutral conduit through which the data flow’ but instead, I am a ‘committed commentator’ stressing ‘the importance of recognizing the field [of school business leadership] as a contested space where dialogue is central to the generation of ideas’. As Gunter and Ribbins remind, this is not without bias as such tracing activities offer ‘a selective view of reality and do not show the world as it actually is’ (2002: 390). Furthermore, as Gunter and Ribbins (2002: 388) highlight, it is also important to note that

…knowledge production is a demanding task as it requires description, understanding and explanation of what is done, how it is done, who does it, where it is done and why it is done. Furthermore, it has a historical dimension of what was done, a dimension to the present of what is being done, and a future orientation of what might be done.

In drawing on Ribbins and Gunter’s (2002: 374–375) knowledge domains, the framing of this article can be understood as informed by a ‘humanistic’ knowledge domain as it is concerned with gathering – or rather tracing the history of – the evolution of school business practitioners in England. In doing so, this article therefore has a ‘substantial concern for historiography’ and draws on ‘literary and other non-empirical sources’ to articulate what is known (2002: 374). As Gunter (2016: 46) reflects, a humanistic approach is therefore focused on ‘capturing the experience of change and how it might be understood’. Further, I argue that this article is a ‘non-rational’ way of understanding and expressing knowledge, which can be descriptive and normative, framed in the way Greenfield and Ribbins (1993: 254, in Ribbins and Gunter, 2002: 375) suggest as ‘powerful, satisfying and important…’ drawing on methods ‘…that are essentially cast within an artistic, literary, historical, philosophical even journalistic mode. A mode that is descriptive, with-holding judgement, though moving towards it, moving to insight’.

In framing this article predominantly through Ribbins and Gunter’s (2002: 377–379) humanistic knowledge domain, it’s rationale can therefore be further understood through their seven groupings of work. Firstly, its purpose is to describe and analyse ‘what is’ to offer a contribution to knowledge. Secondly, the focus is concerned with leaders, leadership, leading (in this case school business practitioners) and their agency. Thirdly, the context is the inter-relationship of meso-micro. Fourthly, the method is qualitative and is developmental-reflective in that ‘the findings of empirical research carried out by others, are the starting point for critical review and logical argument’ (Bassey, 1995: 5, in Ribbins and Gunter, 2002: 380). As noted, given that research is limited in this area, I defer to other literary and non-empirical sources (as outlined below). Fifth, the targeted audience is professional researchers and researching professionals, however, it may also useful for school business leadership stakeholders (e.g. policy makers, professional bodies, practitioners). Sixth, communication is undertaken via reporting to the research community (this article) and to policy makers and practitioners via established networks and conference presentation. Seventh, and finally, the impact sought is an observable change in research interest in this area (via an increase in outputs).

As noted, seeking to trace the history of school business leadership in the English context is problematic given the dearth of scholarly empirical research and debate beyond the academic publications of Woods et al. (2013, 2012), Wood (2017) and Armstrong (2018). However, there are key literary and non-empirical sources available. This includes reports stemming from the National College ¹ and the Department for Education (DfE), a small number of co-edited practitioner-focused books on school business management (e.g. Keating and Moorcroft, 2006), and non-peer reviewed empirical research and reports by professional bodies (e.g. ASCL, 2019a; Creaby, 2018; ISBL, 2020a). Much of this literature stretches over two decades and contains evidence of activity influencing the professionalisation of school business practitioners and is available on open government licence via The National Archives (TNA, 2020), the Department for Education, and via professional bodies or other forms of open publication.

Tracing the history of school business practitioners and their evolution

I now move on to trace the evolution of school business practitioners, via two key sections: the emergence of school business management (1990s/2000s); the evolution of school business leadership (2010–2019).

Conclusions

In tracing over two decades of school business practitioner evolution, there is evidence of a shift in status within the education field; senior positions on leadership teams are more common place than ever before and recognition for the value of their activity in schools is increasingly evident. However, this evolution from bursar to school business manager to school business leader is not without its complexities as the position of such practitioners within the system appears contentious as the policy landscape continues to create a complex layering of leadership intent (Gunter, 2016). As leadership legitimacy within the field remains predominantly aligned to the expectation of a teacher habitus, and forms of capital associated with this habitus, claiming a status equivalent to educational leaders remains problematic. Indeed, practitioners continue to report inconsistent inclusion in matters of strategic leadership and the constraint of their voice in key decision-making activity where their input would be valuable, which has, in some cases, influenced practitioner retention (Creaby, 2018).

As this legacy of contention around school business activity appears to remain embedded within the field, efforts are clearly being made by a range of professional bodies to challenge perceptions at the local level and influence the position of practitioners within the wider field. As Gunter (2001: 143) reminds, the path of professionalisation is neither linear nor smooth, and the two-decade journey so far has seen peaks and troughs, with much of this linked to policy reform. Hence, further evolution is expected as the policy context continues to shift, with sustained work by professional bodies likely to continue to influence practitioner status within the field. Indeed, as school business practitioners increasingly take the lead in managing and administrating site-based management functions, this arguably positions them as key actors in the operational realities schools face. Given the further complexity that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to school operations, along with the budgetary pressures this creates (DfE, 2020a; NAHT, 2020b), it would appear even more crucial to create diverse school leadership teams that can work together and support each other in navigating all areas of educational leadership, school leadership and the leadership of schools. Further, research that has engaged with school business practitioners (e.g. Armstrong, 2018; Creaby, 2018; Woods, 2014) has illuminated over two decades of evidence of the value and commitment of such practitioners to the purpose of education and to improving outcomes for children. Hence, it is argued here that school business practitioners can offer a valuable voice in school leadership and the leadership of their schools that is of crucial support to educational leadership and aligns with aspects of the dominant field habitus. Therefore, exploration of field relations would appear necessary to more deeply understand how school business leadership activity is understood and positioned within the English school system, particularly around matters of inclusion in local leadership teams. Indeed, engagement with educational leaders, teachers and school business leaders appears necessary to better understand how capital and habitus are perceived, legitimised and reconceived as reform continues. Hence is the necessity and timeliness of this topic as a special issue in Management in Education in generating debate in this area. Furthermore, it is argued that stimulating global knowledge exchange with contexts where similar systems of education exist can be further helpful (e.g. as noted earlier, including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, The United States of America). Indeed, further work to develop a global academic conversation that shares scholarly research and debate on site-based management functions in compulsory education systems is arguably helpful. Firstly, this could serve to provide an authoritative and rigorous method to aid the exploration and critique of good business leadership in schools and the potential impact that the consistent inclusion of such practitioners can have to education outcomes. Secondly, it could act as a vehicle to facilitate the sharing of innovation and development in school leadership across different contexts where similar roles, functions and devolution of education management and administration exist.

Overall, as a practitioner cohort that has seen considerable evolution during the last two decades, the wide and varied school business practitioner community is understood to have an evidenced positive impact in schools. This is despite longstanding tensions around the inclusion and status of such practitioners alongside teaching colleagues and educational leaders within the wider education field. These issues appear to persist, alongside a lack of scholarly research and knowledge exchange exploring the contribution of this practitioner activity to matters of school leadership. In supporting the sustainability and growth of the school system, it is important to continue to explore, recognise and encourage a wider diversity of voices in decision-making within leadership teams to navigate the contextual realities they face. With more exploration and robust research, there is the potential for greater inclusion of school business practitioner voice into these vital functions of school operations which can in turn support positive educational outcomes.