It’s a selling-to-schools strategy we’re seeing more and more.

An education supplier looks at the market and comes to a very logical conclusion:

“If we can just win one multi-academy trust, we can win dozens of schools at once.”

So they shift their approach: less focus on individual schools, more focus on trust leaders, and more time spent trying to unlock those larger multi-school deals.

On paper, that makes complete sense.

The UK’s largest MAT, United Learning, currently runs 96 primary and secondary schools, and is due to complete a merger which would make it the first trust to run over 100 academies.

So our education supplier could, in theory, unlock the equivalent of 96 individual school sales with just one strong conversation with the trust.

It’s no surprise that many suppliers are shifting their focus in that direction. But in doing so, a common assumption has started to take hold: that trusts are now the only audience that really matters.

The reality is more complex - and more commercially important to get right.

Because while trusts often approve decisions, they are rarely where those decisions begin.

Strategies that focus exclusively on trust-level engagement often struggle, not because there isn’t demand, but because they miss the earlier stages where that demand is created.

Trusts unlock scale - but they don’t always create demand

There’s no question that the central trusts play a critical role in the buying process.

They’re responsible for:

• Overseeing budgets across multiple schools.
• Ensuring consistency in systems and approaches.
• Driving efficiencies at scale.

As we’ll dig into a bit later, this naturally means some categories of spending usually are much more centralised - usually high-value, long-term investments where standardisation matters, and real cost savings can be made by buying at scale.

However, when you look beyond these categories, the picture changes significantly.

For many of the products and services suppliers offer - particularly those linked to teaching, learning, and pupil outcomes - decisions are far less centralised.

More importantly, they are often shaped at school level long before a trust becomes involved.

How much autonomy do schools actually have?

A common assumption behind trust-first strategies is that decision-making has become largely centralised; that academisation has shifted control away from individual schools and into trust leadership teams.

Our data suggests that isn’t the full picture.

We recently surveyed academies and central trusts as part of The School Budget Breakdown 2026/27. Surprisingly, over a third reported having full autonomy over purchasing decisions, with 63% saying they retain at least some level of control, even where trust approval is required. Just 6% of respondents said purchasing is mostly or completely managed by the trust.

While trusts are playing a more visible role in approval and oversight, academies haven’t become passive participants in the process. In many cases, they are still responsible for identifying needs, evaluating options, and making decisions within defined thresholds.

This is particularly true for lower- and mid-value spend, but it also extends into areas where schools are expected to build a case or demonstrate impact before something is considered more widely.

In other words, decision-making has not moved entirely “upwards”, even if it has become more layered

This means that even in trust-led environments, schools are often still shaping what gets explored, trialled, and recommended in the first place. And over a third of academies still get complete control over their purchases.

Where decisions actually start

Understanding where decisions begin is just as important as understanding who signs them off.

One of the most common mistakes when selling to schools is focusing too heavily on the point of approval, rather than the earlier stages where needs are identified and preferences are formed.

Even within academy trusts, it’s easy to assume that buying decisions originate centrally. But when we asked schools how they actually discover and evaluate new suppliers, a different picture emerged.

The most common routes to discovery are independent research, peer recommendations, existing supplier relationships, and sector events - all of which are fundamentally shaped at school level.

This tells us that supplier discovery is still overwhelmingly driven by school-led activity (through research, networks, and prior experience) rather than centrally directed processes.

That has a direct impact on how decisions develop.

In many cases, schools are identifying needs, exploring options, and forming early preferences well before their trust becomes involved. By the time a conversation reaches trust level, much of the groundwork has already been done - and in some cases, a shortlist has already taken shape.

This is where trust-only strategies tend to fall short. They focus on the point of approval, but miss the earlier stage where awareness is built and preferences are shaped.

The implication is simple, but commercially significant:

If you’re not visible at school level, you’re far less likely to be considered by the time a decision reaches trust level.

Influencers vs decision-makers - and why both matter

To understand how this plays out, it helps to separate two roles in the buying process:

Influencers: those who identify needs, research options, and shape early preferences.

Decision-makers: those who approve and sign off spend.

Schools most often act as the former. They're closest to the day-to-day challenges, and typically the ones asking:

• Does this work in practice?
• Will this make a difference?
• Is this worth trying?

Trusts, on the other hand, often act as the latter. They're more likely to ask:

• Does this align with our wider strategy?
• Can this be rolled out consistently?
• Is this a justifiable use of our budget across multiple schools?

Both perspectives are valid, both are necessary, and both happen at different stages of the process.

This is where many suppliers fall down.

Focusing only on trusts assumes that decisions are made centrally from the outset. In reality, trusts are often responding to demand that has already been shaped at school level.

At the same time, focusing only on schools can lead to strong early engagement that ultimately stalls when wider approval is required. The result is a fragmented approach that struggles to convert.

What gets decided where

The level at which decisions sit varies significantly depending on the type of product or service.

Trust-led decision-making

Some categories are clearly centralised:

Finance or operational systems — 64% trust / 24% both / 12% school

Estates and facilities — 58% trust / 27% both / 15% school

Energy or sustainability — 39% trust / 30% both / 30% school

These tend to be high-value, infrastructure-heavy, or long-term commitments, and the trust-level oversight ensures consistency and efficiency across multiple schools.

School-led decision-making

Other categories remain firmly within the academy’s control:

Classroom resources — 88% school / 9% both / 3% trust

Trips and enrichment — 88% school / 9% both / 3% trust

Behaviour and pastoral — 70% school / 21% both / 9% trust

These purchases are often lower-value, will have an immediate impact, and are closely tied to classroom and curriculum delivery and outcomes.

Shared decision-making

Crucially, many categories fall somewhere in between:

Staff CPD — 45% both / 42% school / 12% trust

Edtech — 36% both / 36% school / 27% trust

Safeguarding — 39% trust / 33% school / 27% both

Assessment — 52% school / 36% both / 12% trust

It’s not surprising these categories sometimes fall on either side; they both involve day-to-day classroom impact and wider strategic considerations. For example, edtech plays a direct role in teaching and learning, so schools often want to choose solutions that work for their staff and pupils. At the same time, trusts may want to take the lead to standardise platforms, streamline reporting, or secure better value through multi-school purchasing. As a result, ownership can shift depending on whether the priority is local fit or wider consistency and scale.

These categories represents a fair share of the supplier market, and also where the greatest confusion tends to arise, because decisions require alignment across both sides.

Why trust-only strategies fall short

Given all of this, it becomes clear why trust-only strategies often struggle.

They assume:

• All or most decisions originate centrally.
• Trust-level relationships are sufficient.
• School-level engagement is optional.

In reality, this leads to three common issues:

1. Lack of awareness

If schools aren’t familiar with your solution, they’re unlikely to recommend or advocate for it internally. This makes trust-level conversations harder, as there’s little or no recognition.

2. Limited internal demand

Trusts rarely adopt solutions in isolation. In many cases, they are responding to needs or requests from schools. Without that internal demand, decisions are less likely to progress.

3. Slower or stalled decisions

Even where there is interest, a lack of school-level validation can slow down approval. Trusts need confidence that a solution will work across their specific schools, and will likely be well-received by the teaching staff and senior leadership.

What effective MAT marketing looks like instead.

The most effective suppliers recognise that there is no single route to market.

Instead, they build strategies that reflect how decisions actually happen…

Schools create momentum

In many cases, schools are the starting point for supplier engagement. They are closest to the problem, and therefore the first to begin exploring potential solutions.

Schools are typically responsible for:

• Identifying needs based on day-to-day challenges in teaching, operations, or pupil support.
• Exploring and comparing options, often through independent research or peer recommendations.
• Building early confidence in a solution, whether through trials, demos, or informal validation within the school.

Given that 36.7% of schools chose independent research as their top method for discovering new suppliers, and 29.1% peer recommendation, visibility and credibility at this stage are critical.

Trusts enable scale

While schools often create initial momentum, trusts play a critical role in determining whether that momentum translates into wider adoption. Trusts are typically responsible for:

• Evaluating cost and value, particularly in the context of stretched budgets and the need to justify spend across multiple schools.
• Assessing scalability, ensuring that a solution can be implemented consistently and effectively across different settings.
• Enabling or approving wider rollout, particularly where a solution is being adopted beyond a single school or requires central coordination.

This is where clarity of proposition becomes essential, particularly given that 87% of schools cite value for money as the most important factor in supplier selection.

At this stage, it’s not just about whether something works in one school, but whether it can deliver consistent value across many.

Both need to be aligned

Successful strategies recognise that schools and trusts are working towards different, but connected, outcomes - and that both need to be addressed.

This means ensuring that:

• Schools recognise and trust the solution, understanding how it works in practice and why it’s relevant to their specific context.
• Trusts can clearly justify and support the decision, with confidence that it aligns with wider priorities, delivers value, and can be implemented consistently across multiple schools.

Without that alignment, progress becomes difficult.

Strong school-level engagement without trust-level clarity can lead to stalled approvals, while trust-level interest without school-level buy-in often results in a lack of momentum or adoption.

Back to basics

The growth of multi-academy trusts has fundamentally changed the structure of the education market, but it hasn’t simplified it. If anything, it’s introduced a more layered decision-making process, where influence and authority sit in different places.

The opportunity at trust level is real, and it’s significant - but the path to winning those opportunities doesn’t often start there, but back down at the school level.

That’s why, despite everything that’s changed in the structure of the system, the fundamentals haven’t.

And that means we stay right where it all began: selling to schools.

Download The School Budget Breakdown 2026/27 to explore all of this data and more in detail. Or, book a call with one of our education strategists to start your next marketing campaign to MATs and academies.

Tags
How to Sell to Schools Marketing to Schools Selling to Schools

Similar Articles

Marketing Universities to Schools

Learn 10 game-changing insights to make your university a student's first choice by enhancing your education marketing campaigns when emailing schools.

Read Post

Marketing School Management Services to Schools

Learn 10 game-changing insights especially for school management service providers to enhance your education marketing campaigns when emailing schools.

Read Post