The government’s Schools White Paper on Education proposed to make every maintained school in the UK a member of a multi-academy trust (MAT) within the next eight years.

“By 2030, all children will benefit from being taught in a family of schools, with their school in a strong multi-academy trust or with plans to join or form one,” it said.

However, for many schools happy with their local authority setup, and yet to join a MAT, the idea this is the best way forward comes with some questions that need answering.

1. Does joining a MAT improve all schools?

Perhaps the first question is to ask why the government believes MATs truly are best for schools?

For example, earlier this year, findings from the Local Government Association (LGA) showed that 92 per cent of local education authority (LEA) schools had been rated “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted since 31 January, compared with 85 per cent of academy schools since they converted.

Between August 2018 and January this year, only 45 per cent of academy schools had improved their rating from “inadequate” or “requires improvement” to “good” or “outstanding”, compared with 56 per cent of council-maintained schools.

Meanwhile, in 2018, researchers at University College London’s Institute of Education found there was no positive impact on the attainment and progress scores of pupils in MATs when compared to equivalent non-MAT schools.

Pupils in larger MATs (those with 16 plus schools) did worse, particularly in secondary schools. MATs are academies writ bigger and larger.

This is not to suggest MATs do not have a positive influence on many schools they work with, but this data seems to suggest that success can be achieved in other ways.

As such, for many of us, we need to see more evidence that they increase the quality of education for all.

2. Does joining a MAT really bring more freedom?

A second issue is the way joining a MAT is sold as giving schools more freedom.

Specifically, the Department for Education continually says that academies are, “free from the constraints of local authority control” and that this means schools have more freedom.

However, plenty of principals in larger MATs have noted they actually lose freedom on joining as they are subsumed into a common curriculum, common behaviour policies, recruitment (particularly of the senior leadership team) or uniform.

In freeing schools from local authority control, do MATs simply substitute one form of control for another?

In successful schools, decisions are taken in the headteacher’s office, not in head office.

Of course, MATs bring economies of scale and have the potential to be hubs of excellence, capable of generating and transmitting positive educational power to schools on their grid.

But what safeguards are in place to ensure the ability of each individual school to spend its money on what it defines as its most pressing local and individual needs?

Assurances that leaders will still retain a meaningful level of autonomy would be a welcome step.

3. Can large-scale MAT governance really know a school?

One of the positives of local governance is that it’s formed of local people on the ground who know the school and its setting with parents, business people, neighbours and others all getting involved.

With MATs, this could be replaced by those who are not representative of the area but sit far away from where the school is sited and so lack on the ground insights.

We need to clarify exactly how governance will be operated and who will play a part because this could be a big change.

4. What if the MAT we join doesn’t work out?

Of course, joining a MAT may indeed bring many benefits for a school compared to their LA - there is no disputing that, for some, it’s probably a model that works well.

But what if you join a MAT and find it’s not what you hoped, or all that you feared? How do you leave? There appears to be no opportunity for “MATxit” - unless you simply move to another MAT, which the school or its parents have no power to say which one it joins.

There are proposals in the White Paper around allowing schools to leave a MAT but we need more information on how this will operate.

5. Why should we all join MATs?

Perhaps a final question underpinning this is still, why should our school join a MAT?

It seems to offer us no more than we enjoy at present from Camden Learning, a collaboration between schools and the council, and an organisation whose support services and training opportunities are second to none.

It also seems to take away from us many of the freedoms we enjoy that have helped us to tailor what we do and how we do it to the needs and opportunities of our local community, and which have made the school a finalist in two prestigious national award schemes.  

We are not coming from an “if it works, don’t mend it” stance. Such success, as we have had, has been based rather on a philosophy of, “if it works, how can we make it work better?”

Government have yet to tell us why membership in a MAT will make us better.

Gary Moore is headteacher and Martin Stephen chair of governors at Regent High School in London