As a multi-academy trust (MAT) CEO, I have always been reluctant to support the argument that any school is better in a MAT. There are great trusts and poor trusts, just as there are great maintained schools and poor maintained schools.

But given that trusts are here to stay, the attempt to establish a shared understanding of what a strong trust looks like is long-overdue and for that reason, I welcomed the publication of the trust quality descriptions in April. 

Like anything in education, they are not perfect, but there is much to like: the focus on inclusive education; the emphasis on the development and wellbeing of the people who work in schools; and the way the importance of culture is woven throughout. 

Today, with the release of the commissioning guidance, we find out how these descriptors will be used and how decisions will be made about which trusts can grow, which may set up new schools, which may be prevented from growing and how a trust might be identified for takeover.

Again, this is both long overdue and welcome. 

How schools are put into MATs

Some will now pore over every word, deciding what they like and what they don’t. Others will enthusiastically embrace it or jerk their knees in opposition. I just hope that this is the moment where the school system becomes healthier, more transparent and more sustainable, and that this framework is used to ensure that all trusts have no choice but to be inclusive places, turning their backs on competition and truly putting people first.

They can be, they must be - and by emphasising just two important sets of data, the Department for Education can ensure they will be. 

The first key metric sits under “high-quality and inclusive education”. We all know some trusts are truly inclusive, while others are, well, not so much. The giveaway is the proportion of children with education, health and care plans in schools in the trust, compared to similar schools and local schools.

Some trusts have remarkably low figures that stand out compared to similar and local trusts. If there is not a credible explanation, then they should not be allowed to grow. If we are serious about inclusive education, then we need to be serious about the consequences of not being inclusive.

The second measure is about the workforce and what is rapidly becoming the most important metric in the system - teacher retention. We are in the middle of a retention crisis, with over one in 10 new teachers leaving the profession after one year and one in five gone by five. 

In our trust in East Yorkshire, 100 per cent of our new teachers remain in the profession after three years. Some trusts hold onto their teachers, nurture them and develop them. Others dispose of them as if they were pieces of single-use practice.

Teacher retention

It isn’t about whether teachers remain in the same trust, it is about whether they remain in the profession. The DfE holds this data and should analyse it carefully and discuss it with trusts. And where there is significant evidence that the leadership culture is causing flight from the profession, that trust should not be able to grow, no matter what else it does well, until it changes and stops damaging the system.

So, overall, I think we finally have the tools to grow more schools and trusts that are inclusive and ethical and put a stop to the toxicity that has done so much damage to children and adults in our schools. In doing so, we can transform the culture of our school system, end macho competition and begin to solve the retention crisis.

All we need now is the courage and wisdom to use those tools properly.

Jonny Uttley is CEO of The Education Alliance multi-academy trust