Who Makes Buying Decisions in Schools?

Selling to schools? Learn who really makes buying decisions and how to reach the right people.

Author

Kat Ricketts

Published: 28^th April 2026

One of the easiest ways to slow down a sale into schools is to assume there’s a single decision-maker.

In reality, most purchases sit somewhere between a recommendation and a shared decision. Someone identifies the need, someone else checks the budget, someone else looks at how it would work in practice, and only then does it move forward. That process isn’t always formal, although it’s nearly always happening in some form behind the scenes.

That’s why campaigns that focus too heavily on one role can feel like they start well but struggle to progress. You might get interest from the person who sees the value first, although the wider decision still needs to come together.

Understanding who is involved, and how that changes depending on what you’re selling, makes a noticeable difference to how you position both your marketing and your follow-up.

Different products bring in different decision-makers

The starting point for any school purchase is usually the person closest to the problem.

If you’re selling a subject-specific resource, that’s often a head of department or subject lead. They’re the ones dealing with outcomes, planning, and delivery day to day, so they’re in the best position to recognise whether something is useful.

If you’re selling something operational, like finance software, MIS integrations, or procurement tools, the conversation tends to begin with a business manager or bursar, because they’re responsible for budgets, systems, and efficiency.

For something like safeguarding, SEND provision, or pastoral support, the SENCO, DSL, or pastoral lead is usually the first point of contact, as they already own that area and understand the pressures around it.

Where it becomes more complex is when the product crosses multiple areas. A wellbeing platform, for example, might involve senior leadership, HR, and pastoral teams. A piece of technology might involve IT, teaching staff, and leadership. In those cases, the initial interest often comes from one role, although the decision develops across several.

The key point is that the “entry point” into the school isn’t always the same as the “decision point”, and campaigns work best when they recognise that from the start.

Senior leadership often sets direction, not detail

Headteachers and deputy heads are involved in many decisions, although not always in the way people expect.

They tend to focus on priorities, outcomes, and whether something aligns with the school’s wider direction. They’re less likely to be reviewing product detail line by line, especially in the early stages, because their time is split across multiple areas of the school.

For example, a headteacher might support an investment in improving attendance, behaviour, or attainment, although the detail of which product is chosen is often shaped by the relevant lead. The same applies at deputy level, where responsibilities are often split across curriculum, pastoral, or operations.

This is why going directly to senior leadership with detailed product messaging doesn’t always generate strong engagement. The interest may be there, although the message doesn’t match how they interact with decisions at that stage.

Campaigns tend to land better when they reflect this. Senior leaders are more likely to engage with messages that connect to outcomes, priorities, and strategic direction, while more detailed conversations can develop with the roles responsible for delivery.

Business managers and bursars influence viability

Almost every purchase in a school has a financial dimension, which is where business managers and bursars come in.

They’re not always the first to identify the need, although they play a significant role in whether something can actually go ahead. Budget availability, procurement processes, contract terms, and value for money all sit within their remit.

This means a product can generate strong interest from a subject lead or senior leader, although still stall if it doesn’t hold up commercially. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s too expensive, it may simply not be positioned in a way that makes the value clear in financial terms.

For example, a time-saving tool might resonate more strongly when the impact is framed in terms of staff hours saved or operational efficiency, rather than just features. A platform that improves outcomes might need to show how that connects to inspection readiness or long-term performance.

Involving this perspective earlier in the conversation often helps things move more smoothly, because it reduces the gap between interest and approval.

Multi-academy trusts add another layer

When schools sit within a multi-academy trust, the decision-making structure often changes again.

Some decisions are still made at individual school level, particularly where the product affects day-to-day teaching or local delivery. Others are handled centrally, especially when consistency, reporting, or economies of scale are involved.

For example, a trust-wide data platform, safeguarding system, or CPD programme is more likely to be reviewed at central level, often involving executive leaders, directors of education, or trust-wide operations teams. In contrast, a classroom resource or subject-specific tool may still be led by individual schools, even within the same trust.

This can create confusion if campaigns are only targeting one layer. You might be speaking to a school about something that is decided centrally, or approaching a trust about something that is handled locally.

Understanding where that decision sits helps shape both targeting and messaging, because it changes who needs to be involved and what matters to them.

Most decisions are built over time

One of the biggest misconceptions about selling to schools is that there’s a single moment where a decision is made.

In practice, most decisions develop over time. Someone identifies a need, explores options, shares it internally, gathers feedback, checks budget, and gradually builds enough confidence to move forward.

That process isn’t always visible from the outside. You might receive a reply, have an initial conversation, and then hear nothing for a while, even though the discussion is still happening internally.

This is where a lot of opportunities are lost. If the focus is only on the first response, it’s easy to assume interest has dropped when the reality is that the decision is still developing.

Campaigns that stay visible over time, and support multiple roles within the school, tend to align better with how this process actually works.

How to target multiple stakeholders effectively

If decisions involve more than one person, your marketing needs to reflect that without becoming overly complicated.

Target the role closest to the problem first, so the initial message lands with someone who can recognise the relevance straight away.
Support that with messaging for senior leadership that focuses on outcomes and alignment with school priorities.
Include angles that speak to operational or financial considerations, so the value holds up when budgets are reviewed.
Stay visible over time with follow-up campaigns, so the conversation can develop as it moves between stakeholders.

This doesn’t mean sending completely different campaigns to every role every time. It means being aware that different people are looking at the same decision from different angles, and your messaging needs to support that.

Where Sprint IQ fits into this

Because decisions are shared, relying on a single campaign or a single message rarely reflects how schools actually buy.

Sprint IQ is built around that idea. Instead of sending one-off campaigns and waiting for a response, it uses more frequent, personalised sales enablement emails to stay visible with the people involved in the decision over time.

Those emails can be shaped around different roles, different angles, and different stages of the conversation, which makes it easier to support how the decision develops internally. Rather than trying to land everything in one message, you’re building familiarity and reinforcing relevance as the conversation moves forward.

That tends to lead to more consistent engagement, because you’re aligned with how schools make decisions rather than working against it.

What this means for your school marketing

Understanding who makes buying decisions in schools changes how you approach everything else.

Targeting becomes more precise, messaging becomes more relevant, and follow-up becomes more purposeful, because you’re not treating the school as a single audience. You’re recognising the different roles involved and how they contribute to the final outcome.

If you want to improve how your campaigns convert into real opportunities, book an education strategy call with our team and we’ll show you how to align your targeting, messaging, and outreach with the people who actually influence decisions in schools.

FAQs

Who makes purchasing decisions in schools?
Purchasing decisions in schools are usually shared across multiple roles, including senior leadership, subject leads, and operational staff, depending on the type of product.

Do headteachers make all buying decisions?
Headteachers are often involved in setting direction and approving decisions, although many purchases are shaped by other roles within the school.

Who controls budgets in schools?
Business managers and bursars typically oversee budgets, procurement, and financial approval processes.

How do buying decisions work in multi-academy trusts?
Some decisions are made at individual school level, while others are handled centrally by trust leadership or operations teams.

How can I sell more effectively to schools?
Target the right roles, align messaging with their priorities, and stay visible over time so you can support how decisions develop.