What do schools really think about their HR systems and processes in 2024?
Inaugural analysis of 933 HR system users in schools
Schools now have to juggle a range of HR-related challenges, including recruiting and retaining teachers, handling an array of queries from their staff, and keeping on top of regulatory compliance. Traditional management information systems (MIS) are often used for handling HR tasks, but are not always designed for that as their primary purpose. This gap has led to the emergence of human resources information systems (HRIS), offering targeted solutions that address the unique needs within the sector.
Each year, we run a survey to learn the latest from the sector on what schools feel about their MIS. This year, we asked some additional questions regarding schools’ awareness, usage and opinions of HRIS and how they feel about their HR systems and processes.
As we delved into the results, we were mindful of the impact of high workloads on recruitment and retention in the sector, and the potential of an effective HRIS to reduce workload across the school ecosystem. And so we were especially keen to see what the latest data might show on how HRIS can help schools to become more efficient, and ultimately improve the working lives of those in the sector.
933 people answered this latest survey in June and July 2024 (see our survey methodology and sample breakdown at the end of this blog post).
A note for transparency: The Key, which ran this survey, and 2 of the HR technology providers used by schools in this survey (SAMpeople and Face-Ed), are part of The Key Group. As a group, The Key Group prioritises listening to schools and their needs, and believes in the ability of best-in-class tech products to transform schools for the better. Our aim is that the findings of this survey will help those leading on HR technology decisions in schools to make informed decisions. In this blog post, we endeavour to present an objective summary of the survey results without additional commentary, to avoid risk of bias.
How do schools manage their HR tasks?
Nearly 1 in 2 (46%) respondents said their school uses its MIS (among other systems) to manage HR tasks (graph 1). Payroll systems and single central record tracking systems were the next most commonly used systems for managing HR tasks, with 42% and 39% of respondents using them respectively. A relatively low proportion of respondents said their school uses an HRIS (8%) and/or a comprehensive HR system (9%).
When looking at different respondent profiles:
Respondents from maintained schools were more likely to state that they use their MIS to manage HR tasks than those from academies (51% vs 41%)
Schools with a pupil population of 101 to 200 were most likely to state that they use manual processes to manage their HR tasks compared to the total sample (30% vs 25%)
Schools with a pupil population of 901 to 1,500 were least likely to state that they use manual processes to manage HR tasks compared to the total sample (18% vs 25%)
The number of respondents from schools with 1 to 50 pupils, and 2,000+ pupils, was too low for the data to be meaningful, so we have not included these responses in our calculations here.
Graph 1: “What does your school use to manage HR tasks? HR tasks may include staff absence management, performance management, applicant tracking, and HR case management. (Select all that apply)”, base = 933 respondents
Awareness of HR technology systems and providers
Awareness of the HR technology systems and providers listed in the survey was relatively low, with no product achieving more than a 40% awareness rate (graph 2). Sage HR had the highest awareness rate at 38%, followed by iTrent (MHR) at 26%, Eteach at 24%, EduPay (Tes) also at 24%, Single Central Record at 23% and BlueSky Education also at 23%.
Just over 1 in 10 (12%) respondents stated that they were not aware of any of the 26 brands we asked them about.
Graph 2: “Which, if any, of the following HR technology systems and providers have you heard of? (Select all that apply)”, base = 911 respondents
Usage of HR technology systems and providers
iTrent (MHR) was the most-used system among respondents. But MyNewTerm had the highest usage (43%) relative to the number of respondents aware of it. iTrent (MHR) had the second-highest usage rate (39%) relative to its awareness rate (graph 3).
Sage HR had the lowest usage rate (3%) relative to those who were aware of the brand (among brands which had at least 1 person aware of it). Nearly 3 in 10 (29%) of respondents stated that they don’t use any of the HR technology systems that we showed them on the survey.
Graph 3: “Which, if any, of the following HR technology systems does your school use?”, base (among those aware of brand) = Access PeopleXD/Access SelectHR: 56, BlueSkyEducation: 211, Catalyst Payroll (Juniper Education)*: 30, CEFM*: 21, Civica: 168, Dataplan (IRIS): 89, EduPay (Tes): 221, EduPeople (Strictly Education): 183, EPM: 92, Eteach: 221, Every HR (IRIS): 121, FACE-Ed*: 21, GoHire*: 7, iTrent (MHR): 241, Jane Systems (Juniper Education)*: 31, Jobtrain*: 11, MyNewTerm: 95, Neo People*: 28, Sage HR: 348, SAMpeople: 118, SAP: 180, School CPD Tracker: 52, Services 4 Schools: 85, Sign-in Central Record (formerly SCR Tracker): 118, Single Central Record (onlinescr.co.uk): 213, Tes Applicant Tracking System: 148
Brand satisfaction
Among the brands with over 30 respondents stating their school used it, MyNewTerm and Single Central Record had the highest proportion of satisfied respondents (graph 4). In each case, 83% of respondents using the brand stated that they were ‘extremely satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with it, although MyNewTerm had a higher percentage of ‘extremely satisfied’ respondents (44% MyNewTerm vs 24% Single Central Record).
EPM, iTrent (MHR) and BlueSkyEducation had the highest proportion of users who were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘extremely dissatisfied’ (14%, 13% and 11% respectively).
Graph 4: “How satisfied are you with …?”, base (among those who used the brand) = iTrent (MHR): 94, Single Central Record*: 46, BlueSkyEducation*: 44, MyNewTerm*: 41, SAP*: 37, EPM*: 35, Eteach*: 32
*Low base size (50 and below). We have only displayed the satisfaction results for brands with a base size over 30.
Likelihood of buying a comprehensive HR system in the next 24 months
Around 3 in 5 (61%) of respondents thought their school was either ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’ to buy a comprehensive HR system in the next 24 months (graph 5). Respondents from secondary schools were less likely than those from primary schools to think this (47% vs 68%). This did not translate into secondary school respondents thinking their school was more likely to purchase a comprehensive HR system; they were more likely to be unsure about this than their primary counterparts (31% vs 12% selected ‘I don’t know’).
Similarly, respondents from academies were less likely than those from maintained schools to think their school was ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’ to buy a comprehensive HR system in the next 24 months (51% vs 69% respectively). We also saw a higher rate of uncertainty about this purchasing decision among academy respondents than maintained school respondents (27% vs 11% selected ‘I don’t know’).
Graph 5: “How likely is your school to buy a comprehensive HR system in the next 24 months?”, base = 688 respondents
Likelihood of changing the school’s comprehensive HR system in the next 24 months
Among those respondents who said their school already had a comprehensive HR system, 53% thought it was ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’ the school would change this in the next 24 months (graph 6).
A relatively small proportion – 8% – thought their school was ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to change its comprehensive HR system in this period.
Note: this is from a small base size (51), so the numbers are small.
Graph 6: “How likely is your school to change your comprehensive HR system in the next 24 months?”, base = 51 respondents
Likelihood of buying an applicant tracking system in the next 24 months
Only 3% of respondents who were not using an applicant tracking system at the time of the survey thought their school was ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to buy one in the next 24 months (graph 7). Nearly two-thirds (65%) of this sample of respondents thought it was ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’ that their school would buy this type of system in the same period.
Secondary school respondents were more likely than their primary school counterparts to think their school would buy an applicant tracking system in the next 24 months, although the proportions were still relatively low in each case (6% vs 2%).
Respondents from academies were less likely than those in maintained schools to rule out their school buying this type of system in the next 2 years (56% vs 72%); but much of this variance was due to the higher proportion of academy respondents (27%) than maintained school respondents (14%) who selected ‘I don’t know’.
Graph 7: “How likely is your school to buy an applicant tracking system in the next 24 months?”, base = 711 respondents
Likelihood of changing applicant tracking system in the next 24 months
We also asked respondents who said they used an applicant tracking system at the time of the survey about their school’s likelihood of changing its system, but the respondent base size was too low (27) to analyse.
Likelihood of buying a payroll system in the next 24 months
More than two-thirds (70%) of respondents thought their school was ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’ to buy a payroll system in the next 2 years (graph 8).
Academy respondents were more likely than their maintained school counterparts to think their school was at all likely to buy a payroll system in the next 24 months, although the figures were still relatively low (4% vs 1%). As per the trend with the other types of HR technology systems, academy respondents were less likely than their maintained school counterparts to think their school was ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’ to buy a payroll system (58% academy vs 77% maintained) and more likely to be unsure about this (31% academy vs 14% maintained school respondents selected ’I don’t know’).
Secondary and primary schools displayed a similar dynamic, with secondary school respondents being less likely to rule out their school buying a payroll system in the next 24 months (57% secondary vs 76% primary). Secondary school respondents were also more likely to be unsure about whether their school would be at all likely to buy this type of system in the next 24 months (34% secondary vs 15% primary school respondents selected ‘I don’t know’).
Graph 8: “How likely is your school to buy a payroll system in the next 24 months?”, base = 458 respondents
Likelihood of changing the school’s payroll system in the next 24 months
Among respondents from schools that already had payroll systems, 12% said they thought their school was ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to change its system in the next 24 months (graph 9). Respondents from schools with payroll systems showed the highest propensity to buy a new system, compared with those with or without comprehensive HR systems and/or applicant tracking systems.
Secondary school respondents were slightly more likely than primary school respondents to think their school was at all likely to change its payroll system in the next 24 months. Secondary school respondents also had a lower likelihood of ruling out changing the payroll system (59% of secondary respondents vs 70% of primary respondents said it was ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’); they were also more likely to be unsure, with 16% of secondary school respondents and 8% of primary respondents selecting ‘I don’t know’.
Respondents from academies and maintained schools showed similar levels of propensity to think their school was at all likely to change its payroll system. Maintained school respondents were slightly more likely to think their school may do this (13% said it was ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ compared with 10% of academy respondents). But they were also slightly more likely to think that their school was not planning to change its payroll system, with 68% of maintained school respondents saying it was ‘very unlikely’ or ‘unlikely’, compared with 65% of academy respondents.
Graph 9: “How likely is your school to change your payroll system in the next 24 months?”, base = 280 respondents
Views on important features for a comprehensive HR system to have
The features respondents most-commonly identified as important to have in a comprehensive HR system, if they were considering purchasing a new one, were: staff absence management (72%), safer recruitment and vetting management (65%) and single central record management (64%) (graph 10).
Staff absence management was the ‘important feature’ most commonly selected among all profiles of respondents, regardless of school phase, school size, school role or school status (academy or maintained).
Looking at role breakdowns in more detail:
Headteachers were more likely than the total sample to think that HR case management (59% headteachers vs 45% total sample) and compliance tracking (59% headteachers vs 45% total sample) were important features for an HR system to have
School business managers were more likely than the total sample to think that each feature on the list we provided was important to have
Graph 10: “Imagine you were getting a new comprehensive HR system for your school. What features would be important for it to have? (Select all that apply)”, base = 873 respondents
A note on our methodology
The Key sent this survey to all primary, secondary and special schools in England, via email. The survey ran from 17 June to 17 July 2024 and included all the questions relayed above.
933 people responded to the survey.
Our sample included 564 respondents working in primary schools, 243 in secondary schools, 68 in all-through schools and 56 in special schools. 343 of these respondents told us they worked in an academy, and 482 said they were in a maintained school.
In terms of roles, where known, our survey received responses from:
135 headteachers (including principals, heads of school and executive headteachers)
179 assistant/deputy headteachers
320 school business managers
241 admin staff, including PAs
The data has not been weighted by provider, and has not attempted to be representative by role, region or school phase/type.
