Report: Insights on ICFP from school finance leaders - October 2024

The two focus groups brought together a diverse range of participants, including those with varying levels of ICFP experience. Of the 11 participants, eight had used ICFP to varying extents, while three were new to the approach. The sessions allowed participants to network and exchange insights on the practical application of ICFP. While some viewed it as a strategic tool, others expressed concerns regarding its complexity, the reliability of data sources, and challenges related to its integration into existing financial systems.

Participants preferred simplified models and local benchmarking for easier application. There was a consensus that while School Resource Management Advisor (SRMA) visits were useful, more robust integration tools and updates were needed to streamline ICFP processes.

General findings

Tools and resources

Many participants rely heavily on Excel spreadsheets, often sourced from Department for Education (DfE) ICFP toolkits. These tools are typically adapted to fit the specific needs of each school or trust, but there was general agreement that no single tool fully met their needs. Participants acknowledged the lack of a "perfect tool"—one that could seamlessly integrate data, be flexible, and cater to various financial planning needs.

Application of ICFP

Participants identified a spectrum of ICFP application, ranging from reactive use - addressing specific financial issues - to embedding ICFP into regular financial planning processes. Some viewed ICFP as primarily a budget-balancing tool, while others emphasised its potential to drive educational improvements by linking financial planning with educational outcomes. Engaging educators, particularly headteachers and deputy headteachers, in the ICFP process was seen as essential for success.

Forecasting and review

Continuous forecasting and monthly budget reviews were highlighted as essential practices for managing shifting priorities and financial impacts. Regular check-ins with finance business partners also proved critical, as early identification of common issues across schools allowed for more effective problem-solving.

SRMA visits

Although participants found SRMA visits to be valuable, providing high-level benchmarking and identifying areas for efficiency improvements, they emphasised that these visits should be viewed as supportive exercises rather than prescriptive mandates.

Benefits of ICFP

Participants outlined several key benefits of ICFP:

• Transparency and communication: ICFP improves transparency in staffing and financial decisions, enabling better communication among stakeholders.
• Standardisation: Schools and trusts using ICFP benefit from more standardised approaches to budgeting and performance monitoring.
• Cost savings: ICFP helps identify cost-saving opportunities by comparing staffing costs across different schools or against standardised models.
• Equitable resource distribution: Increased clarity on resource allocation supports more equitable distribution of funds within trusts.
• Strategic conversations: Even in contexts where educators were initially skeptical, ICFP was found to foster strategic conversations that improved overall decision-making.

Challenges of ICFP

However, several challenges were identified:

• Adaptability for special schools and high-deprivation areas: The ICFP model is often difficult to apply in special schools or high-deprivation areas where unique challenges require more tailored approaches.
• Time-consuming data entry: Keeping spreadsheets up to date is labour-intensive, requiring significant manual input.
• Complexity of stakeholder engagement: Gaining buy-in from educators and other stakeholders remains difficult, especially when onboarding new schools that are unfamiliar with ICFP.
• Lack of integration: The lack of integration between different financial systems and ICFP tools creates inefficiencies.

Top Tips for effective ICFP implementation

The focus group participants shared several practical tips for schools and trusts implementing ICFP:

1.  Effective communication: Maintain open and regular communication within finance teams and with educators, especially those involved in timetabling and decision-making.
2. Inclusive process: Involve a diverse range of stakeholders in the ICFP process to ensure broad perspectives and ownership.
3. Shared mission: Align stakeholders around a shared goal of improving educational outcomes, focusing on the core mission of getting teachers into classrooms.
4. Leverage SRMA visits: Treat SRMA visits as opportunities for constructive feedback and benchmarking, rather than as exercises in comparison that may unfairly reflect on your trust’s/school’s performance.
5. Focus on key financial indicators: Use straightforward financial metrics like average teacher cost and staff cost percentage of income to guide decision-making.
6. Simplification: Avoid over-complicating ICFP models. Simple, easy-to-understand metrics are often more effective, especially when securing educator buy-in.
7. Responsive application: Be flexible in applying ICFP both proactively in regular planning and reactively to address specific challenges as they arise.

Conclusion

The ICFP focus groups highlighted both the advantages and challenges of implementing Integrated Curriculum and Financial Planning. While the process offers significant benefits in terms of transparency, cost savings, and resource allocation, many participants noted the complexities involved, particularly with manual data entry and stakeholder engagement.

To make the ICFP process easier and more effective, schools and trusts need tools that are simple, flexible, and work well with their current systems. With Access Education ICFP, you can automatically fill in resource plans with budget details for finances and staffing. This tool, available through Access Education Budgets, is built to follow the Department for Education's ICFP framework and will launch in January 2025.