Last year the Department for Education’s Academies regulatory and commissioning review outlined that 45 per cent of special and alternative provision (AP) schools are now academies.

Notably, though, data from FFT Education Datalab in November 2022 said only 13 per cent of almost 1,200 multi-academy trusts (MATs) include one or more special school.

The numbers may have shifted slightly since then but it’s fair to say the trend is clear - mainstream MATs stick to mainstream schools and special school MATs to special schools.

Our trust is very much the latter - we have 15 schools and 14 of them are special schools. As a result I am often defined by colleagues as being a “specialist” leader, and - incorrectly, I hasten to add - told that my knowledge and understanding of special schools is unique.

This mindset, while meant kindly, seems to me to be a reason why we have low numbers of special and AP schools in mainstream MATs.

But would we be better off together or should we stick to our own settings?

Go your own way?

There are definitely some benefits to being a specialist-only MAT.

For example, without national benchmarking data, having comparable settings work together on moderation and curriculum development can generate huge efficiency for school leader.

Furthermore, you have a deeper sense of like-for-like provision to more accurately (and reliably) review resource allocation, as DfE toolkits - such as that for integrated curriculum and financial planning - don’t apply to specialist settings.

Having one focus can also help to reduce the risk of having too many different plates to spin at any one time.

So does that mean we are best in our own domains? Not so fast.

Stronger together?

First, it is worth acknowledging that bringing special schools and mainstream schools together can have numerous benefits for staff, pupils and the wider community of a trust.

After all, trusts are emerging civic structures that should be focused on the needs of all children, not just those within their schools’ roll. As such, ensuring there is provision for all pupils in a trust with presence in an area increasingly seems like the right thing to do.

Doing that in reality will come down to the ethics and values of the executive leaders responsible, though, and currently the accountability system that schools and trusts are judged on does not always reward those that place an emphasis on providing for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Most are, of course, equitable and, what’s more, see how having specialist provision will enhance their offer in this regard.

For example, I know plenty of leaders who see special and AP schools as a vehicle to support the improvement of their own mainstream estate by improving the teaching skills of mainstream staff, who are increasingly working with more children with SEND themselves.

This is all good stuff. But what about the not-so-good?

The risks

Some leaders - a minority I‘m sure - see that having specialist provision within their trust provides a fast-track preferential route into specialist settings, which may not always be in the child’s best interest but is encouraged simply because the option is there.

This situation is likely reached more by well-intentioned missteps than Machiavellian strategy but it is an issue that MAT leaders should be aware of.

What’s more, special and AP schools in mainstream MATs could feel unsupported where the leadership of the trust doesn’t have a strong grasp of the operational detail of specialist provision.

By that, I don’t mean staffing ratios and manual handling techniques. I mean they don’t have a developed understanding of applying the high-needs operational guidance in the planning and resourcing of placements, and therefore how to challenge local authorities to make things better.

Without that understanding, special and AP schools can see financial risk manifest quickly and uncontrollably.

The push by the DfE for more general annual grant (GAG) pooling in mainstream schools also presents a complication when accounting for specialist settings, as a trust could easily find itself picking up the funding shortfall that local authorities must meet.

Top-up funding levels are, typically, archaic and rooted in an unclear methodology, and any MAT that GAG pools to set its own special school budgets could quickly become unstuck, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

A pivotal year

Ultimately, to ask what the right MAT model should be is to ask the wrong question. The decision of any school to join a trust should be rooted in what is the right option for that school and the community it serves.

But thinking hard and questioning how the trust sector is evolving, particularly in this pivotal year, with an election likely to take place, is important to ensure we are doing what is right for our schools and, by extension, our most vulnerable pupils.

Warren Carratt is chief executive of Nexus Trust