This week’s publication of the long-awaited commissioning guidance is, without question, a positive step in the right direction. Providing, as it does, significant clarification on the Department for Education’s Regions Group decision-making process, this can only be a good thing given the murkiness that has bedevilled the whole approach until now.

It’s also reassuring that the DfE is explicitly supportive of trusts taking on challenging schools, and a focus on those trusts that provide high-quality support for disadvantaged pupils or those with special educational needs or disabilities. 

I also welcome the clarity around schools that are less than good and not improving who will be supported to find a suitable strong trust to join. And it’s useful, too, that regions are looking at matching trusts that have the capacity to support schools with specific challenges, and where those trusts have experience and a track record of delivery.

And yet.

Despite this being a step forward, there remain a number of challenges.

A transparent trust-led system?

First, it’s far from clear that the Regions Group has the expertise or the depth of local intelligence to really know which trusts are strong. Absent this, it’s only natural that they will fall back on attainment data, which is a blunt assessment of trust strength.

Second, in areas with selective education, matching strong trusts with similar schools is particularly difficult given the different intakes and contexts.

Thirdly, while the assessment of strategic needs in the local area is a worthwhile focus, being open and transparent in sharing these is equally crucial for the sector. This is also the case for the agenda and minutes of the advisory board meetings, which, to date, have been all too frequently opaque. Consequently, the sector has been in a state of flux, mostly due to a system that has been about as clear as mud when it comes to where schools can find support. 

School accountability

The commissioning guidance is a useful starting point for the sector to strengthen accountability, but a significant barrier is the amount of control sitting with regional directors, without an obvious mechanism to challenge decisions made, given that the advisory board is just that - an advisory board.

What’s more, there remains a danger that trusts who fit the established model become the go-to solution when a regional director is looking to support “stuck schools”, and where the evidence of trust impact is mixed.

While many trusts and schools will see this as a bold statement of intent of the fundamentals of the White Paper; in reality, this guidance is more a reflection of how effective trusts have developed across the country.

Strong school improvement systems, rigorous governance, financial fitness, highly inclusive education and a professional workforce must be central features of the new middle tier if children - especially those who face additional headwinds - are going to be served well.

As such, the Regions Group has a moral imperative to chart the landscape as rigorously and efficiently as possible so that strong trusts can get on with transforming children’s lives. This guidance is an important first step; let’s hope there is more to follow.

Seamus Murphy is CEO of Turner Schools