Why MAT Finance Teams Are Cautious About Teachers Raising Requisitions

Finance teams in Multi-Academy Trusts know the pressure they're under. Every pound of public funding carries a governance obligation, and maintaining the integrity of procurement processes is non-negotiable. So when the question of opening up purchase requisitions to teaching staff arises, the hesitation is understandable — and worth taking seriously.

This isn't about resisting technology or mistrusting colleagues. It's about accountability. Here's a clear-eyed look at the real concerns, and why thoughtful implementation can address them without compromising control.

1. Protecting Budget Oversight

Budget control sits at the heart of this debate. MAT finance teams are directly accountable for keeping spend on track across multiple academies, and centralising purchase requests has historically been the most reliable way to ensure every order is checked against available budget before it moves forward.

The concern isn't that teachers would be reckless — it's that they're working without the full financial picture. A department head focused on delivering a curriculum outcome may not be weighing the same trade-offs a finance director is. And if teachers can see remaining budget allocations, there's a reasonable worry that it becomes an invitation to spend rather than a planning tool.

Finance teams aren't gatekeeping for its own sake. They're protecting the trust's financial position — and that responsibility doesn't diminish just because a system can automate an approval workflow.

2. Ensuring Audit Trails and Compliance

Academy Trusts operate in a demanding compliance environment. Trust boards, external auditors, and DfE oversight all require clear evidence that money was spent appropriately and in accordance with the scheme of delegation. When a small team of trained finance professionals handles procurement, consistency is easier to maintain.

Extending requisition access to a much larger user base introduces variability. Will every teacher attach the required quotes for higher-value orders? Select the correct budget code? Follow the right approval path? These aren't hypothetical concerns — they're the kind of gaps that surface in audits and create additional work for finance teams to resolve.

Modern platforms like Sage Intacct for Education are built to enforce these rules automatically. But the human factor remains. Finance leaders want to be confident that the system — and the people using it — are genuinely ready before broadening access.

3. Training and Change Management

Granting teachers access to a finance system isn't a technical switch — it's an organisational change programme. And the scale is significant. A trust with dozens of schools might have hundreds of staff who would need access, yet use the system only occasionally. That combination — large numbers, infrequent use — is where errors tend to creep in.

Finance teams are rightly concerned about the training burden this creates. Who delivers it? How is proficiency maintained? And when things go wrong — as they inevitably will during any transition — who fields the queries? In practice, the finance team becomes the first line of support for a much larger user base, at least initially.

Some trusts have navigated this well. One large MAT planning a rollout to 300+ end-users invested in webinars, e-learning modules, and quick-reference guides to support adoption. That's a substantial commitment — and it needs to be built into the project plan from the outset, not treated as an afterthought.

4. Managing System Complexity and Costs

Finance systems have historically been built for finance professionals. Even well-designed platforms can feel unfamiliar to users who don't work in them daily. The risk isn't that teachers are incapable — it's that occasional users in complex systems tend to make more errors, and those errors create downstream work.

There are also practical considerations around licensing and access management. A larger user base means more accounts to maintain, more permissions to review, and potentially higher software costs. For a finance team already stretched, that overhead matters.

It's no surprise that many trusts currently operate a workaround: teachers submit requests by email or paper form, and a finance officer enters them into the system. It's not efficient, but it feels manageable. Moving to a self-service model is a meaningful operational shift — and finance teams need to be confident it's the right one before committing.

5. The Importance of Collaboration and Balance

Despite these concerns, there's a clear case for bringing finance and teaching staff closer together in the procurement process. When purchasing workflows are too slow or cumbersome, teachers find their own solutions — personal spending, informal agreements — which ultimately undermines the visibility and control finance teams are trying to protect.

Digital requisition tools, configured thoughtfully, can strengthen both control and experience simultaneously. Sage Intacct for Education allows trusts to build custom approval workflows and automated budget checks directly into the requisition process. A teacher's request can be routed to a Head of Department, then to finance for sign-off above a defined threshold — mirroring existing policy, but with a full digital audit trail and real-time visibility across the trust.

Finance teams don't lose oversight. In many cases, they gain more of it.

6. Bridging the Gap: A Thoughtful Approach

A phased rollout tends to work well. Starting with a smaller group — department heads or budget holders with higher digital confidence — allows the finance team to validate that controls hold before expanding access. Early wins build the internal case for broader adoption.

Equally important is the interface itself. If teachers encounter a straightforward dashboard with a small number of clearly labelled fields, the risk of error drops considerably. The simpler the experience, the stronger the adoption — and the fewer queries land back with finance. According to CFO Perspectives on IT Ecosystems in UK Education (September 2025), K-12 financial leaders are willing to pay a premium for genuinely simple solutions — measuring ROI in reduced staff workload and fewer support calls, not just licensing cost.

Investing in short, targeted training sessions and clear reference guides makes a real difference. When teachers understand why certain information is required — not just that it is — compliance tends to improve as a result.

7. Empathy and a Shared Goal

The finance team's caution comes from a place of accountability. They are responsible for every pound of trust funding, and their instinct to protect that is well-founded. At the same time, teachers need processes that work for them — not around them.

These goals aren't in conflict. MATs that have adopted digital purchase workflows consistently report the same outcome: finance retains full visibility and control, and teachers gain a faster, more transparent process. The friction that once sat between those two priorities largely disappears.

The transition to electronic requisitioning isn't just a system upgrade. When it's handled well — with clear communication, proper training, and the right controls configured from day one — it becomes a meaningful improvement in how the trust manages its resources. Finance and teaching staff working in partnership, with technology supporting both.

Getting The Balance Right

MAT finance teams are right to take procurement governance seriously. Their caution around teacher-raised requisitions isn’t a barrier to progress — it’s a reflection of genuine accountability. Every concern raised in this article is legitimate: budget control, audit readiness, training demands, and system complexity are all real considerations that deserve proper answers before any rollout begins.

The evidence, however, points in a clear direction. Tightly controlled, manual procurement processes create their own risks — slow turnaround, informal workarounds, reduced visibility across the trust. Digital requisitioning, built on a platform configured to enforce the right rules from the outset, doesn’t weaken governance. It strengthens it.

The trusts that get this right don’t treat it as a technology project. They treat it as a change programme — one that brings finance and teaching staff into the same conversation, sets clear expectations on both sides, and builds the controls in before access is granted. That foundation makes the difference between a rollout that erodes confidence and one that builds it.

If your trust is weighing up whether to extend requisition access to teaching staff, the right starting point isn’t the technology — it’s the conversation. What controls need to be in place? What does the approval workflow actually look like? Who needs training, and how will it be delivered? Answer those questions first, and the system becomes the easy part.