It feels like not a week goes by without journalists salivating with glee about the latest transgression in MAT-land, as one CEO/executive head or another is outed for a string of dodgy deals that line either their own, or family members’, pockets.

We’ve had the whole Durand controversy (it’s really not OK to run a dating service from a school, however much Sir Greg stamps his feet). And Aspirations Academy Trust, which allegedly jetted in its high-flying founder from the US, who then charged a day rate of thousands. Nice work if you can get it.

Time and again, we find academies mired in murk - whether it is founders or CEOs rewarding themselves with a juicy contract or two, or similar benefits being lavished on spouses, partners, siblings and children.

Outrageous perks

If it’s not related-party contracts being reported, it’s the latest in a long line of increasingly outrageous perks that academy leaders are indulging in and that are put on the taxpayers’ tab: top-ofthe-range cars, endless first-class travel, etc etc.

Then there are the salaries: oh, the salaries…There is a wider argument here about what successful education leaders should be paid and how to attract talent into the sector, but seen alongside the friends and family benefits packages, it’s full steam ahead for the gravy train.

Breathlessly reported, these examples and more provide succour to those who wish to see academies fail. It is - they argue self-righteously - irrefutable evidence of a bust system, run by corrupt individuals who have only one priority, and it’s certainly not educating young people. This is, after all, what happens if councils are forced to cede control of our schools, and allow these types of individuals to take the reins.

And it’s our fault. As much as my colleagues and I protest that these are simply one or two bad apples, the failure argument is served up on a plate. And it’s true, there has been a failure here: a failure to self-regulate. Some of this is driven by genuine self-interest where individuals do see a business opportunity; some of it is about the hubris of senior leaders and an unspoken sentiment of “this is bloody hard work, so I bloody well deserve this”; and some of it is naivety. But whatever the driving reason, none of the examples already being picked over publicly would have passed the “sniff test”, had the senior leadership of the organisation paused to apply it. If it smells bad, it almost certainly is bad.

I, for one, am sick and tired of the sector I am proud to be part of being dragged into disrepute because of the poor judgement of some of my colleagues. All of this detracts from our number one priority: exhausting every possibility in providing the very best education for every single student. The reward for that is neither monetary nor material.

Zero tolerance

So what do we do? Here’s a thing: how about Sir David Carter, the national schools commissioner, declares an amnesty on any conflicts of interest between now and Christmas. This would be a one-off opportunity to declare any conflicts or related-party transactions and to rectify any wrongdoings.

The perpetrators should have three months to resolve any issues, after which the Education Funding Agency should carry out an audit. It would be an extensive drains-up exercise which would, I have no doubt, bring all manner of uncomfortable truths out into the light, but constantly publicly exposing and punishing is the least effective way to foster self-regulation.

After that, Sir David should take a hard line. It’s clear that a self-regulating system doesn’t work, so zero-tolerance should be the order of the day. There are absolutely no excuses - nefarious or naive - for behaviour that tarnishes us all.

The Secret CEO is the chief executive of a multi-academy trust somewhere in England