With school budgets under sustained pressure, leaders are increasingly examining every area of spend to ensure it delivers genuine value. Now, the new Government White Paper adds fresh momentum to this scrutiny, directing schools to adopt the forthcoming Crown Commercial Service supply framework from 2026—unless they can clearly demonstrate better value for money elsewhere.

In Hertfordshire, schools are already ahead of the national curve. The established HFL Supply Framework has been designed precisely with this challenge in mind, offering a proven, transparent and value‑driven approach to managing supply agency provision.

Over the past year, the HFL Education Supply Framework has supported schools across Hertfordshire to bring greater cost control, transparency and quality assurance to their staffing arrangements.

As we move into the next financial year, it is a good time to ask:

• Do you know your average daily supply cost?
• Are you confident you are paying a consistent, preferential rate?
• Can you easily compare agency charges and mark-ups?
• Are you receiving the quality and compliance you expect for the price you pay?

If the answer to any of these questions is “not sure”, it may be time to review your current approach.

Why frameworks matter in a challenging financial climate

Unplanned supply spend can quickly escalate. Different agencies may charge different rates for similar roles, and without a clear benchmark it can be difficult to assess value for money.

The HFL Supply Framework was established in response to this challenge, giving schools:

• Fixed, preferential rates for Hertfordshire schools
• Full transparency of agency charges in one place
• Pre-vetted agencies meeting strict compliance and safeguarding standards
• Clear service expectations through KPIs on fill rates, quality and response times

All rates are published and easily accessible via the HR Services Portal, Teach in Herts employer dashboard, and the Herts Grid for Learning, allowing business leaders to plan, monitor and forecast supply spend more effectively.

Four routes to meet different staffing needs

The framework is structured to provide cost-effective solutions across a range of scenarios:

• Lot 1 - Emergency short-term supply (up to 12 weeks)
• Lot 2 - Medium to longer-term cover (12+ weeks, including planning responsibilities in line with AWR)
• Lot 3 - Permanent recruitment support
• Lot 4 - Executive search for senior leadership roles

Quality and performance you can measure

All partner agencies — Axis, Choice, Engage, Randstad, Moore Teachers, Step and 4myschools — work to strict KPIs, including:

• REC accreditation and full legislative compliance
• High fill rates for both emergency and planned cover
• Candidates matched appropriately to roles with full background information
• Very high levels of customer satisfaction and minimal complaints

This means schools are not only controlling costs but also reducing the hidden workload associated with poor placements, repeat bookings and compliance checks.

A prompt for financial planning

As you set budgets for the coming year, now is an ideal opportunity to:

✔ Review your current supply providers and average costs
✔ Compare your existing rates with the published framework rates
✔ Consider the administrative time spent managing multiple agencies
✔ Factor supply trends into your staffing and curriculum planning

Even small efficiencies in daily supply rates or improved fill quality can deliver meaningful savings over the course of a year.

Next steps

If you have not yet reviewed the framework, or if your school is currently using a range of agencies without a clear cost comparison, we encourage you to explore the published rates and consider how a more transparent, strategic approach could support your financial planning. 

New rates available to view from April 2026

For further details about the Supply Framework, the new rates for April 2026 and how to access partner agencies, visit the HFL HR Services Portal, your Teach in Herts employer dashboard, or the Herts Grid for Learning.

Alternatively, contact the HFL team at teachinherts@hfleducation.org or on 01438 544468.

This is not the fault of the teams. In fact, it is often the opposite: capable, dedicated in‑house staff doing everything they can within the limits of capacity and time. But the environment around them has changed faster than any one‑ or two‑person team can realistically keep pace with.

1. The single point of failure problem

For many trusts, the biggest operational risk sits in plain sight: staffing levels that create unavoidable single points of failure.

A technician responsible for multiple primary schools may provide excellent support—right up until the day they are on leave, unwell, or pulled into an urgent issue elsewhere. Unlike other functions, IT incidents often can’t wait. A failed server, a wireless outage, a compromised account—any of these can halt learning, disrupt safeguarding processes or take key systems offline.

When teams are this lean, even minor absences can reduce reactive capacity to zero. Central teams are then forced to shuffle priorities, often abandoning longer-term digital improvements to address immediate firefighting. Over time, this creates an organisational pattern where important but invisible work—patching, monitoring, testing backups, reviewing logs—simply cannot happen.

This is where the risk lies: not in the tasks you see, but in the ones that aren’t being done because there is no time or additional capacity to do them.

2. The automation gap

Modern IT environments in private sector rely heavily on automation—particularly Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) tools—to keep devices secure, patched and compliant. These platforms are widely used in other sectors, yet remain inaccessible or unaffordable for many trusts operating with small teams.

Without automation, core maintenance becomes a manual process:

• Patching hundreds of devices
• Checking system health
• Monitoring alerts
• Ensuring antivirus and firmware are current
• Tracking backup status

When these tasks depend on someone being physically available, the workload quickly exceeds the hours available. This leads to what many experts refer to as “security debt”—a silent but growing backlog of updates and maintenance that weakens resilience over time.

In an era of rising cyberattacks on schools, this is an exposure MAT leaders cannot ignore.

3. The skill-level treadmill

Technology now evolves monthly. Cloud platforms, cybersecurity standards, safeguarding requirements, data protection obligations—each demands a level of ongoing professional development that is increasingly difficult for small internal teams to maintain.

The expectation on an in-house technician today is vast:

• Deep understanding of Google Workspace or Microsoft 365 administration
• Networking and firewall configuration
• Cybersecurity and threat detection
• Device management at scale
• Backup and disaster recovery
• Support for curriculum technology
• Compliance and data protection

But small teams rarely have the time or headroom to step away from day‑to‑day tasks of reactively resolving IT issues for long enough to develop this breadth of expertise. The result is often role fatigue, burnout and the risk of high turnover—leaving trusts even more exposed.

The issue isn’t capability. It’s capacity.

4. A shifting risk profile for trust leaders

Understaffing IT is no longer just a technical issue—it is a governance and strategic risk.

Reports such as the Kreston UK Academies Benchmark Report highlight a continued move toward trust‑wide digital centralisation as MATs grow. But centralisation without investment in resilience, tooling and specialist support can unintentionally amplify risk rather than reduce it.

What was manageable five years ago is no longer sufficient today. The shift from on‑premise servers to cloud identity, the rise in cyber threats, and the need for automation mean that the traditional “one technician per 2-3 schools” model cannot keep pace with the complexity of modern digital estates.

Trust leaders increasingly recognise that resilience now requires:

• A team larger than one technician per 2 primary schools or two technicians per secondary school
• Access to wider pools of technical expertise
• Automation platforms that reduce manual workload
• Specialist escalation paths when complex issues arise

This doesn’t replace internal staff—far from it. It strengthens them.

5. Building a more resilient model by partnering with external MSPs to minimise cost while also reducing risks of failure

Many trusts are now adopting hybrid models that combine strong internal teams with access to external specialist support, additional capacity and enterprise‑grade tools. This approach helps address the challenges of:

• Cover for sickness and holiday
• Access to niche expertise that doesn’t justify a full-time post
• Reducing the manual burden on internal staff
• Improving strategic planning and governance oversight
• Ensuring resilience during growth or digital change programmes

For Trust executives, this is fundamentally a risk‑reduction strategy—one that aligns operational capability with the increasing demands of a modern digital education environment.

Support can be brokered through partnerships with IT Managed Service Providers (MSP) such as HfL’s own Technology in Schools. MSPs can bring bespoke wrap-around support and capacity through access to helpdesk facilities, cover for sickness and holidays, reduced cost of Automation, RMM and other tools and support for specialist projects and maintenance. Having an MSP on a retainer can add resilience to your trust and mitigate the ever growing risk that the skeleton crew is carrying.

Conclusion

Lean IT teams have served trusts well for many years. But the digital environment in which Trusts now operate has changed dramatically over the last 5 years. Complexity has increased, cyber risk has risen and many essential tasks now depend on expertise and tooling that a small in‑house team simply cannot sustain alone.

For CEOs and COOs, the question is no longer whether the current team is capable—they often are. The question is whether the environment around them has become too complex, too high‑risk and too fast‑moving for a small team, however talented, to manage in isolation.

Strengthening resilience is no longer about scale for its own sake.
It’s about protecting learning, safeguarding, data and operational continuity in a world where digital stability is now essential.

If you are interested to find out more or how HfL can help your Trust, reduce cost of licenses, provide holiday and sickness cover and elevate your internal IT Teams with expertise or RMM and Automation tools, please send us an email to itsales@hfleducation.org

As digital expectations for schools continue to evolve, we have undertaken a major transformation of our Technology in Schools service to ensure we can provide a value for money offer that fully aligns with the DfE’s Digital and Technology Standards. These standards set clear expectations for secure, resilient, well‑governed and future‑proofed IT systems, covering broadband, cyber security, wireless networks, monitoring, cloud solutions and, more recently IT support provision. They also emphasise that IT support must be proactive, strategic and capable of maintaining reliable, secure digital environments rather than simply responding to issues reactively. 

For many years, schools have operated under intense financial pressure, and with staff costs at typically 80% unlike commercial organisations, they are often unable to refresh equipment at the pace required to keep technology efficient and affordable. As a dedicated education provider, we recognised that this “perfect storm” of rising technical demand and declining investment was creating an unsustainable model where technology was becoming more expensive to maintain. Schools simply could not pay more for support—yet the risks associated with outdated infrastructure, particularly in areas such as cyber security, were increasing year on year.

In response, we redesigned our entire operating model. We moved away from the traditional scheduled on-site engineer for break‑fix approach—where support was triggered only after something went wrong often waiting for scheduled engineer to come to site thus delaying resolution—and replaced it with unlimited escalation visits and a service focused on prevention, resilience and security. This shift directly aligns with the DfE’s emphasis on proactive IT support that maintains systems, prevents disruption and supports ongoing improvements. 

A cornerstone of this transformation has been significant investment in an advanced remote monitoring and management (RMM) platform, now enhanced with AI‑driven automation to reduce costs. This technology allows us to detect and resolve issues before they impact learning, automate essential maintenance, strengthen cyber security and ensure systems remain aligned with DfE expectations for safe, reliable digital learning environments. The DfE’s guidance highlights the importance of stable networks, resilient infrastructure and actively maintained systems—principles directly supported by our new IT Support model for Schools.  

We also restructured our team to ensure deeper expertise and more efficient support. By shifting from a larger Tier 1 workforce needed for scheduled on-site visits to more efficient and significantly higher skilled Tier 2 and Tier 3 technicians, we’ve created a team capable of handling complex environments, navigating cyber security requirements and supporting strategic digital development. This aligns with the DfE’s expectation that IT support must have the expertise and qualifications to help schools meet the digital standards. 

Through these changes, we have created a flexible support model that is affordable for schools, fit for the future and fully aligned with national expectations—ensuring that schools’ digital learning estate remains safe, secure and functional in an increasingly challenging digital landscape. The offer incorporates all aspects of IT Support that can wrap around in-house IT provision and a fully managed service applicable to Schools and Academies both maintained and independent and even more importantly Multi Academy Trusts as a complimentary service to address their specific requirements for holiday cover for MAT employed IT support staff, Automation, Cybersecurity as well as Training. We also offer flexible projects service whereby schools and MATs can commission HFL to work alongside in-house teams on specific projects requiring broader skillsets.

If you are interested to find out more and how HfL can help you align your school with DfE Digital Standards and with your IT Support provision and Cybersecurity, please send an email to ITsales@hfleducation.org or visit our web site and let us know what area is of most interest to you. 

Across our schools, pupils of all ages are increasingly expressing worry, anger and despair about the climate crisis. This is not a passing trend. It is a safeguarding, wellbeing and educational concern and therefore one that boards must understand and support their schools to address at a strategic level.

Understanding some contributors to climate anxiety

From a governance perspective, climate anxiety is best understood as a convergence of factors, some conventional and others unrestrained in their influence.

Young people are exposed to a constant stream of climate-related messaging, often amplified by mainstream and social media and shaped using alarming language. As an example, mainstream weather forecasting often talks about weather ‘bombs’, approaching storms and almost continuous weather warnings. Unlike previous generations, pupils are witnessing environmental disruption more frequently, alongside predictions that frame their adult lives with warnings about impending climate catastrophe. Governors should recognise that this information landscape is largely unfiltered and often emotionally charged resulting in pupils sensing that ‘no one is doing anything about it’ and feeling powerless. So, it’s hardly surprising, with this drumbeat of climate news, that for many pupils’ questions around fairness and future safety concerns lead to anxiety, frustration and ultimately, as pupils mature, outright anger or helplessness.

As pupils progress through school, they will be increasingly aware that the power to change the course of climate change rests far beyond their influence and, with the impact of climate change both nationally and internationally all too clear to see, it’s understandable that anxiety will be one manifestation of this.

Why this matters to governors

For governors, this raises an important question: does our school’s approach to climate education and sustainability support pupils’ wellbeing as well as increasing understanding? There is a strategic risk that if schools only address climate change by way of ‘dramatic’ curriculum content, or avoid it entirely to avoid unnecessary distress, they risk disengaging pupils or eroding trust with what we know should be a ‘trusted source’. Schools that model a constructive approach, who acknowledge the concerns that are raised, will help build understanding, resilience and the critical thinking to give pupils hope rather than despair.

The governor’s role

Clearly, we are not here to be directive in how climate change challenges are addressed via the curriculum, enrichment activities or other related sources of information. However, we are responsible for ensuring that the school’s vision, policies and culture are fit for purpose for an age where climate (and geo-political) challenges are front and centre in people’s lives. Climate anxiety should therefore be considered within strategic discussions around curriculum intent, pupil wellbeing, school premises and grounds and how the school wishes to engage with parents and the wider community on this challenge.

Boards should ask:

• How is climate change addressed across/ woven through the curriculum, and how is pupil wellbeing considered?
• Are staff confident in responding to climate-related concerns, are there any training resources to support staff?
• Do pupils contribute to sustainability ideas and decisions within the school?
• Does the school have a sustainability lead and have a climate action plan in place (both are a ‘clear expectation’ from the DfE Sustainability leadership and climate action plans in education - GOV.UK and whilst not statutory are embedded within the DfE’s Estate Management Standards School estate management standards - GOV.UK)
• Is the school’s operational approach consistent with its climate change ambitions?
• How is climate anxiety considered through the lenses of safeguarding, pupil wellbeing and pupil voice?

Here are some suggestions on positive action

Governors can support leaders to prioritise positive approaches where pupils feel invested and are able to both influence thinking and realise the benefits:

• Taking a whole-school approach to sustainability and climate change through the appointment of a sustainability lead, putting in place a climate action plan and maybe have a link governor to monitor. A great starting point is the online tool ‘Count Your Carbon’ which can help shape your initial plan Home - Count Your Carbon
• Ensuring there are nature-based activities and areas in the school grounds to encourage engagement with the natural world. Examples of support can be found  in the excellent work of the National Education Nature Park programme (Home | Education Nature Park) and the Forest School programme Forest School Association | What is Forest School? | Forest Schools | Nature Premium)
• Embedding in the curriculum not only the causes/ challenges of climate change but also emphasising the positive solutions, adaptations and changes that are being made both at home and abroad
• Consider  setting up a climate working party with staff, pupil, governor & senior leader representation to coordinate progress and monitor implementation and impact of any actions taken
• That pupil voice is front and centre – pupils must be heard and see that their concerns are respected, answered or addressed through positive action

A combination of the above (but not limited to this list!) will help reframe concerns and anxiety into a shared challenge involving the whole school community to resolve collectively.

The worries and concerns of the pupils in our care are multitude and manifest and, as with so many of these concerns, they are rooted in the pupil’s perceptions about what their future holds. Clearly an approach of offering false reassurance or minimising the seriousness of climate risk would serve no purpose whereas acknowledging the challenges, taking action at a school level and advocating more widely for change will model courage, belief and resilience which can only help with pupil anxiety.

As governors we oversee our school’s role in preparing pupils as best we can for the future they will embark upon. If we get it right, then maybe climate anxiety will morph into climate hope, with pupils equipped with the knowledge and tools to gain agency in not only their own futures, but also the future of the planet.