Now that schools have autonomy to make their own purchasing decisions there is much greater variety in the procurement process. BESA has conducted a detailed survey of 600 schools to discover: who is responsible for decision-making; the importance of ‘brand’; how orders are placed; and the importance, or otherwise, of ‘trusted advisor status’.
At the time when responsibility for school budgets were de-centralised, the move was welcomed by the AV channel as providing sales opportunities for independent resellers in a sector that was previously regarded as something of a closed shop. Those pursuing these opportunities were faced with unravelling the decision-making procedure, the ultimate decision maker and the identity of the key influencers.
While the figure is down a few percentage points from last year’s 58%, a recent survey – conducted by C3 Education, and commissioned by BESA (the British Education Suppliers Association) – reports that 49% of schools operate de-centralised budgets for 90% or more of specific products.
The BESA survey, ‘Procurement in authority schools and academies’, provides answers to many of these questions. The survey sample is comprised of 310 primary schools (210 authority controlled, 100 academy) and 298 secondary schools (142 secondary authority controlled and 156 academy). In addition to contacting schools, a questionnaire was issued to educational suppliers to assess their views on a range of factors relating to procurement with schools.
How is the budget set?
One of the initial concerns when de-centralisation was announced was that the classroom technology budget, ring-fenced at one time, could be absorbed into other priorities. The research investigated whether schools set a formal Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) budget at the beginning of the financial year for learning resources and ICT.
The majority of schools report that they set a formal CFR-based budget for learning resources and ICT. Some 85% of primary schools set formal budgets, along with 60% of secondary schools for classroom ICT. The majority of schools create a more informal budget for teaching materials, equipment and general school items.
Primary academies are less likely to disseminate all of their teaching materials and equipment budgets to teachers than non-academies. Furniture and storage budgets are more likely to remain centralised than classroom ICT. The overall change in 2012/13 was a shift to re-centralise budgets, but 49% of schools indicate that 90 per cent or more of specific product resource budgets are de-centralised.
What is the purchasing ‘season’?
With the peak of the school installation period falling in the mid to late summer, both primary and secondary academies restrict their purchasing in the month of July. Interestingly, non-academies restrict purchasing as early as March, which means that there are year-round opportunities to pitch new solutions.
Who chooses the supplier?
In two-thirds of cases, classroom teachers, subject leaders or heads of department decide on the supplier to use for classroom equipment. In previous BESA assessments, head teachers were more likely to have been involved in selecting the supplier of classroom ICT than classroom teachers. There has been a recent shift towards subject leaders being involved in the selection process in primary schools, while the resource manager is most likely to be involved in secondary schools. In contrast, 20% of head teachers actively choose the supplier of classroom ICT. This is a reduction on 2012 findings which reported that 23% of head teachers chose the supplier.
Selling to schools: the conclusions
- Some 85% of primary schools set formal budgets, along with 60% of secondary schools for classroom ICT.
- Primary and secondary academies restrict their purchasing in the month of July. Interestingly, non-academies restrict purchasing as early as March.
- In two-thirds of cases, classroom teachers, subject leaders or heads of department decide on the supplier to use for classroom equipment. 20% of head teachers actively choose the supplier of classroom ICT. This is a reduction on 2012.
- Just 29%of academy schools and 32% of non-academies purchase in a chain or cluster.
- Some 30% of all schools state that it is ‘of key importance’ to select their own brands of equipment, rising to 42% in authority secondary schools.
- Non-academies generally consider suppliers being current and trusted as being of more importance than academies.
