The English state-funded school system has been transformed over the past decade, with a massive expansion of academies funded directly by central government.
This has meant the education system has become fragmented between locally administered maintained schools and centrally controlled academies: indeed, 80 per cent of secondary schools are now academies.
Academies are increasingly part of multi-academy trusts (MATs) rather than single-academy trusts (SATs). They are governed differently. And maintained schools are governed differently still.
The different models of operation mean there are now multiple ways in which schools are governed, which raises some tricky questions: Is this system fit for purpose, what are its shortfalls, and where could things be improved?
This is what we set out to understand with a recently published research paper entitled Secondary schools (academies and maintained schools) in England: issues of governance and autonomy, which focused on the fundamentals of school governance and the overriding question of who “controls” schools of different types.
To do this, we compared the governance of 23 secondary schools, including schools maintained by local authorities, SATs and MATs, by conducting a detailed analysis of publicly available documents relating to governance.
We also assessed the extent to which MATs delegated responsibilities (admissions, curriculum and pupil premium) to schools, and explored the match between information that should be published and what was published.
Key findings
Perhaps the most notable finding is the difference in governance arrangements.
The school governing body in maintained schools has a constitution laid down by statute with specific powers.
There must be at least seven governors: at least two parent governors, elected where possible; one elected staff governor; the headteacher; one local authority (LA) governor nominated by the LA and appointed by the board; and for some schools, such as those with a religious character, foundation governors.
In contrast, academy trusts are private companies adhering to company law - the trust generally has a small number of members who appoint trustees. The trust board must include at least two parent academy trustees, unless (in a MAT) there are at least two parents on each local governing body (LGB).
In our sample, the process regarding the appointment of trustees to academy trusts was rarely open to public scrutiny, with no public involvement.
In almost all cases, the majority, if not all, trustees were appointed by the small number of members. Trustees who were in paid work often had corporate positions, with little, if any, education expertise.
All schools, except for one, in our sample had a school-level governing body. Virtually all maintained schools had two parent governors (as required) but a sizeable minority of academy LGBs had only one.
Powers and responsibilities
Maintained school governing bodies are responsible for the school budget, appointment of governors and staff appointments, including the appointment of the headteacher. SAT governing bodies have similar responsibilities.
In contrast, in MATs, the trust board makes decisions about the mission of the academy trust and determines which powers and responsibilities should be delegated or controlled centrally.
Schools in MATs have only as much power as the trust board permits.
Other key governance stories:
In our sample, the power of trust boards extended to the appointment of governors to local school governing bodies (where the MAT allowed for them), the appointment (and removal) of chairs of LGBs and the appointment of academy headteachers.
We found that some, but not all, LGBs were involved with or consulted about the appointment of the headteacher.
Information regarding governance arrangements should, according to the DfE, be “readily available”, but it was often missing with some trusts providing information on governors but not members, and some not giving details of the structure and remit of committees.
This lack of transparency suggests parents and stakeholders may struggle to access relevant information.
Specific policies
Turning to specific areas of governance, admissions arrangements are the responsibility of the local authority (for community and voluntary controlled schools), the school (voluntary aided schools) or the trust board.
For schools in some MATs, the LGB (where one existed) was involved with admissions policies, although in different - sometimes very limited - ways.
Some academy trusts followed the local authority oversubscription criteria for community schools, making it easier for parents to navigate the process of school “choice”.
Not all academies and voluntary aided schools gave information regarding the admission of children with education, health and care plans (EHCPs).
The curriculum in maintained schools and SATs is the responsibility of the school (ultimately the governing body/trust board). However, in some MATs, there was limited delegation to LGBs.
A national curriculum is important from the perspective of equality of opportunity enabling access to a common nationwide curriculum. Maintained schools but not academies are required by statute to follow the national curriculum.
However, in most academies in our sample, the curriculum was aligned with the national curriculum regarding the subjects taught.
Explicit reference to the study of the national curriculum, particularly at key stage 3, was made by half of the academy trusts.
Governing bodies of maintained schools and SATs have autonomy to decide how best to use resources including the pupil premium, but schools in MATs have less clarity - in only one case in our sample was the LGB responsible for how the pupil premium was used.
A fragmented system
Overall, our findings reveal a fragmented system of state-funded secondary schools in England.
Schools operate to different rules: statutory education law in the case of maintained schools, and company law and government policy in the case of academies. Governance varies.
Academy trusts are legal entities but schools in MATs have no legal identity, with only the powers delegated to them by the trust board.
There is also fragmentation regarding the structure of academy trusts themselves, with variation in terms of the number of members, the number of trustees, the expertise of trustees and schemes of delegation.
There is no transparency regarding decision-making because trusts do not have to publish minutes of meetings, so there is a clear deficit in terms of local democratic accountability.
What should change?
Given these findings, there is clearly much that needs to be addressed.
Perhaps most clearly there is a strong case for greater transparency regarding the process of setting up academy trusts, and more transparency on the appointment of academy trustees and for trustees to have educational expertise.
This could also make a stakeholder model of governance (for SATs, MATs and any LGB) - with representation of parents, staff, the local authority, and the wider community - more realistic. This would then provide local democratic accountability and greater transparency about the functioning of academy trusts.
Schemes of delegation for MATs should be similar in form and content to ensure that schools in different MATs have the same powers and responsibilities.
For state-funded schools there is also a convincing case for giving all local governing bodies clear powers and responsibilities (including the appointment of the headteacher, responsibility for the budget, curriculum, and ethos setting), meaning all state-funded schools would have a similar level of autonomy.
Elsewhere, admissions arrangements and criteria used by all state-funded schools should be aligned to aid the process of parental “choice” and state-funded schools should be obliged to provide clear information regarding the admission of children with special educational needs and disabilities, including those with EHCPs.
This is all coming sharply into focus. The Schools White Paper announced the government’s intention for all schools to be in or be in the process of joining a “strong” MAT by 2030.
As such, this proposed expansion has important implications for the governance of the school system.
Our proposals are a step in the direction of creating a more transparent system of schools and, together with a common rule book across state-funded schools, should help ensure a fairer and more cohesive system.
Professor Anne West is professor of education policy in the Department of Social Policy at LSE
Dr David Wolfe QC is a public lawyer with expertise in education law
Basma Yaghi is researcher in the Department of Social Policy at LSE
