As leaders in school trusts, we are constantly juggling competing priorities — from school improvement and governance to compliance, staffing, pupil outcomes and strategic growth. The systems we build and the culture we nurture make all the difference. And yet, one of the things I hear most often from trust leaders is that data and information flows are still too slow, fragmented, or labour-intensive.
We all collect data; attendance, behaviour, assessment, safeguarding, staffing, finance, interventions, pupil voice. All too often it sits in silos or gets updated only after the urgency has passed. That’s where the power of workflow thinking comes in.
For trusts, a well thought through workflow is more than a tech feature: it can become a way of working that allows the right people to notice what matters, record it efficiently, connect it across systems and settings, and act on it meaningfully.
This isn’t abstract – far from it, as I’ve gathered from my recent collaboration with trusts. It’s a tangible and realistic way of making our work less reactive, more proactive, and fundamentally more productive across the trust.
From fragments to flow: why workflows matter in trusts
Most of the trusts we’ve worked with are multi-layered organisations with distributed responsibilities. A central team might oversee policy and compliance, while school leaders are closer to students and staff. Recent experience has shown us that the absence of intentional workflows often means:
- information gets duplicated
- responses are delayed
- and leaders spend more time compiling data than using it
This will of course inevitably lead to late insight and lost opportunities. Consider attendance: if patterns are only analysed at milestone points eg. half-term or termly meetings, we miss early signs that a pupil or group needs support, or that practice varies widely between schools. A good workflow would flag anomalies sooner, enabling targeted action before issues escalate. One practical example of how to achieve this is to incorporate a 20 day moving average into your view of attendance across and within the trust.
Designing workflows around trust priorities
The key question I ask myself when designing a workflow is: “What is the priority this workflow is meant to serve, and who needs to know what and when?”
Once we are confident in our trust priorities we can then build strong workflows to facilitate them. Done properly, this will reduce duplication, connect datasets that previously lived apart, and create predictable triggers for action rather than retrospective checks.
That’s enormously valuable in a trust context because it supports consistency while respecting school autonomy. In other words, the workflow outlines what happens and when, not how every school works.
Modern technology, whether data platforms, automated integrations, dashboards or AI-assisted tools, has transformed what’s possible. But technology alone is not enough in order to meet our trust needs. The discipline is in how we configure our systems around a common purpose, not tools around tasks.
Good workflows will create a balance between automation (so that low-value administrative work is reduced), human judgment (professional insight where nuance matters), and shared understanding (common expectations across schools and central teams).
This means central teams don’t spend every Monday consolidating spreadsheets; school leaders aren’t chasing manual returns; and trustees and boards see live evidence of strategic priorities rather than static reports.
Culture and capability: the human side of workflows
We can build a technically perfect workflow, but if it’s not owned by the people doing the work, it won’t have the desired impact. I’ve found a few basic principles really helpful when supporting trusts with their bespoke workflows. Co-design is always a good idea ie involving school leaders in shaping the workflow so it reflects real practice. Valuing clarity over complexity is also something I’d recommend - workflows should simplify, not add layers of admin. Finally, pausing regularly to review whether workflows are delivering the insight and actions you intended.
- Steve Howse is CEO at SMID
We welcome perspectives from a diverse range of guest contributors. The opinions expressed in blogs are the views of the author(s), and should not be read as CST guidance or CST’s position.
