Why “good” school finance systems need to change

For a long time, “good” in school finance systems was defined by one thing: familiarity.

If a system processed transactions, produced reports, and passed audit, it was considered good enough. And for many years, that definition held.

But the context schools and trusts operate in today has fundamentally changed and the systems many rely on haven’t always kept up. Not because schools want shiny technology, but because governance, accountability, and pressure on resources demand better.

The bar has moved, whether finance systems have or not.

The bar has moved: governance is no longer “implied”

Financial governance and control requirements aren’t vague anymore. They’re explicit.

The Academy Trust Handbook sets clear expectations around approvals, segregation of duties, audit trails and evidence. At the same time, scrutiny from auditors, regulators and boards has increased, while finance teams are often more stretched and more distributed than ever.

Add to that the reality many trusts now face:

• Central finance teams working alongside staff on school sites
• Tighter budgets, where time spent on admin becomes a real cost
• Greater cyber risk and a growing need for resilience
• More frequent requests for up-to-date reporting and clarity

In this environment, finance systems should be reducing friction and risk. Too often, they do the opposite.

What “common good” still looks like in practice

Many schools are still working with systems that would have been considered perfectly reasonable a decade ago:

• Server-based, installed finance software
• Access via VPN or remote desktop
• Manual patching and disruptive upgrade cycles
• Limited integrations that rely on re-keying data
• Per-user licensing and unexpected add-ons
• Long contracts with hard exits

None of these features are necessarily catastrophic on their own.

But together, they shape how finance works day to day and usually not in a way that helps schools, MATs or leadership teams move faster with confidence.

The hidden impact on schools and trusts

When finance systems are built like this, finance becomes a place you have to go to, a specific machine, a room, a connection, rather than something that supports the organisation wherever decisions are being made.

Over time, that leads to predictable workarounds:

• Approvals happening over email
• Evidence living in screenshots and spreadsheets
• Reporting lagging behind reality
• Key knowledge concentrating in “the one person who knows the system”
• Vendor lock-in making improvement slow or impossible

Ironically, systems designed to provide control can end up increasing risk, because the “real process” happens outside the system.

A simple resilience test

Here’s an easy way to pressure-test whether a finance system is fit for today’s world:

• If access requires a specific device or location, it isn’t resilient
• If integrations are “extra projects”, manual work will persist
• If accessibility is an afterthought, users will work around the system
• If contracts lock you in, improvement stops for years at a time

These aren’t edge cases - they’re everyday realities in many schools.

What “good” should mean now

Modern “good” isn’t about chasing trends. It’s about systems being designed around how schools actually operate today.

That means being:

Cloud-native by design

Browser-first access with sensible mobile support - no VPN as the norm.

Built-in controls

Approvals, segregation of duties, role-based permissions and clear audit trails.

Connected

Open APIs, bank feeds, and integrations that reduce re-keying and duplication.

Insight-driven

Real-time dashboards with drill-down from budget to transaction.

Commercially fair

Predictable pricing, shorter renewal cycles, and a clear exit plan if needed.

When systems are designed this way, finance teams spend less time explaining the numbers and more time supporting decisions. Leaders and trustees gain trust-wide visibility without waiting for packs. Controls are evidenced by design, not retrofitted through manual process.

Raising expectations isn’t optional

The definition of “good” for school finance systems hasn’t changed just because technology has advanced.

It’s changed because expectations have.

Accepting “good enough” systems made sense when governance demands were lower and teams were less stretched. It makes far less sense now - especially when finance systems are meant to support stewardship, stronger decision-making and sustainable use of public funds.

The shift starts by redefining what “good” really looks like today.