The Department for Education’s permanent secretary Susan Acland-Hood recently commented that secondary multi-academy trusts (MATs) should not assume they can run primaries: “Any trust that is taking on a primary school needs to be able to demonstrate that they understand the effective running of primary schools,” she said.

“There is something about a secondary trust not assuming they can run primary schools because they can run secondary schools, because they are different and they require different things.”

While it is hard to disagree, this principle is actually part of a much broader one: primary MATs might not cope with a secondary school; a cross-phase MAT may not be well placed to support Alternative Provision, and other capacities, such as special educational needs or disabilities, cannot be assumed either.

Mixing things up

Does, in short, the MAT have the ability to support varying institutions? Or the humility to learn?

Such judgements are made every month by the eight Regional Schools Commissioners (RSC) when they decide if a MAT can take responsibility for a new school.

In truth, the cross-phase element has been, for many CEOs, a real joy and learning opportunity, and something that has stimulated thinking. 

Similarly, “mixed MATs” composed of non-denominational and church schools such as the Palladian Academy Trust (PAT), which I left in August last year, have found this structure mutually enriching. 

The Anglican Dioceses of Salisbury and Bath and Wells took the view that there were six schools gained, rather than four lost. And PAT gained hugely from expertise, values and professional development opportunities offered.

Yet MATs remain contentious and even in the last week I have heard a number of adverse comments from educational professionals to the tune of, there’s no evidence of improved standards, and do they lack accountability? 

Some people even lack awareness as to how they are funded. 

On the national stage, I notice that Michael Rosen has, on the day I am writing this, been retweeting the Anti Academies Alliance in a similar vein. For some, then, the jury is out.

Better promotion needed

It is not surprising that the relative roles of the trust board and local governing bodies are not always well understood, since the shape in the foreground of community vision is still the school. 

We can and should do much more to shake off this sense that governance is a mysterious power, and make its moving cogs visible to all through energetic community engagement.   

Trustees making up the trust board hold legal responsibilities as employers, with school governors operating as accountable committees. 

They are generally people of very high calibre with a wealth of work and personal experience. These are not people who would lack the ability to challenge, though there is certainly more work to be done in diversity.

It is also sometimes overlooked that schools becoming academies have often been in a situation of poor inspection outcomes, financial challenges and low achievement. 

Thus, the baseline for current comparisons of maintained schools and academies is not an equal one because they have risen from such a low point.

It may be that an acceptable level of achievement is a huge advance.  

It is also notable that MATs come in many forms, from two schools to national organisations of 80; as such it’s possible with hindsight the first generation of RSCs should have had more sharply defined blueprints for success.

Then again, we have also seen MATs of varying size and over challenging geographical areas succeeding so we can say not being too prescriptive has worked out well too.

Overall then the MAT garden shows a profusion of growth, but its borders are all shapes and sizes, and now it needs its Capability Brown. Could that be Nadhim Zahawi?

Well, today’s announcement that more schools rated less than “good” in successive Ofsted inspections could be moved into MATs under the government’s “levelling up” plans certainly suggests he has a belief MATs can be a force for good - and should keep growing.

Sharing best practice

Wholesale revision of the school system is highly unlikely at this point in 2022; we will simply be needing our energies for other challenges, such as catch-up priorities, and, in truth, the reorganisation of the system into academies was never completed.

What is far more likely is that some rationalisation of the sector will take place, typically at a time when key leaders such as CEOs elect to move on, as they certainly will in the next three years.

What’s more, while many smaller MATs are rightly proud of their standards, services and school improvement offer, it’s a challenge to offer a range of services when wholesale employment is not an option. 

One development here could be that smaller trusts, if not joining others, begin to take from them some contracted services in areas such as HR, or even school improvement.

Furthermore, in the last 25 years, Ofsted and the DFE have done good work in pointing out good practice in many areas, such as in behaviour management or subjects, and it would be timely to do a similar job for MATs. 

Who is raising standards most effectively? Who is offering the most extensive opportunities to learners? The public sector can be hazy on this, and not everyone hears voices such as that of the Confederation of School Trusts (CST).  

But will Ofsted have the bandwidth for a guide to the best practice in MATs? This “good practice” element of their work has certainly been in decline, unfortunately.

It could be important though. Government rhetoric in 2010 suggested that the simple act of becoming an academy would raise standards, but this is meaningless without the science of school and system improvement. 

Growing through the pandemic 

What’s more, how has the academy sector responded during the last two years? 

Evidence has been accumulating from the CST and also Ofsted of the key role played by MATs, with school leaders wondering how they would have coped with a pandemic otherwise.

This was certainly the narrative in the PAT where constant contact, weekly meetings, as well as informal contacts, allowed school leaders to weather the storm in one piece.

Not only this, but apocryphal evidence suggests that some maintained schools have benefited from “soft” support of local MATs in these times of crisis without a subscription, as the local authority has lacked the ability to help.

And with recent calls from the Education Policy Institute for MATs and other school groups to be measured against a wider range of measures, such as pupil inclusion, it could well be the case that MATs become more accountable for the quality of their services and school improvement offer and that Ofsted develops frameworks for the inspection of trusts more systematically.

The sector has matured through this.

Time to evolve 

My own belief, though, is that some rationalisation would be timely in the knowledge of the established good practice.

HR, finance, school improvement services - if a MAT is not able to guarantee a quality offer, then clearly it needs to join with a partner trust. 

However, it’s also timely to examine the undergrowth, and which parts of the garden look just fine and are decisive in introducing more systems to any parts which do not, as the evidence is accumulating of good practice. 

Wild gardens might have their place but they are unlikely to bear fruit in any impressive way. Yet, with many trusts agreeing on legal terms of 125 years, there is plenty of time for plentiful harvests.

Tim Withers is the former CEO of the Palladian Academy Trust in Bath and Wiltshire. Prior to that, he was a headteacher and then CEO of Ralph Allen School in Bath. He is now an independent educational consultant