The news that multi-academy trusts will soon be subject to government health checks should be welcomed by MATs themselves. These school MOTs, which will test whether they are roadworthy and in a position to take on more schools, signal that the regulatory regime wrapped around academies and MATs is maturing.

One misconception that persistently bounces around the sector is that, as academies, we are not as accountable as maintained schools. This is simply not true. Having been a head both in schools under council control and in academies, I can say very straightforwardly that the level of scrutiny and the layers of accountability in academies far outstrip anything I ever experienced in a maintained school.

Anyone who runs an academy or a MAT will be all too familiar with the cornucopia of bodies that oversee all aspects of our work: the Department for Education, Ofsted, regional schools commissioners and the Education Funding Agency. And while this quadruple lock of accountability can prove to be extremely demanding (and not a little frustrating), we all recognise that this is the price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy. Freedoms that, I firmly believe, help us to deliver the best possible education for the children in our care.

Total transparency

Frustrating or not, it is absolutely right that MATs are subject to such intense scrutiny when you consider just how many young people we are responsible for; in REAch2, the chain which I run, that number is now over 21,000 and will climb to around 32,000 once the 22 free schools that we have been given approval to open are full.

This is a huge and awesome responsibility and not one that anyone who runs such an organisation should take lightly. And with the RSCs now well established under the national schools commissioner, Sir David Carter, and new leadership in both the DfE and Ofsted, it is timely to look again at the regulatory regime we operate under and consider what practical changes could be made so that this becomes a self-improving system.

Starting with the RSCs; each MAT is given a rating by the RSCs. But, at present, these ratings are not disclosed - not publicly, and not to the MATs themselves. This should be revisited - after all, in what classroom would you expect a student to be graded but not told what that grading is, or what they need to do to improve?

The best way to improve is by working with other MATs, sharing best practice

I would go a step further, though, and - in the interests of total transparency - make these ratings publicly available, too, à la Ofsted and individual schools.

Similarly, it seems reasonable to suggest that MATs should complete a self-evaluation framework and improvement plan, much in the same way that individual academies are required to do now. This would be reviewed and approved by both RSCs and Ofsted to ensure that it is in line with both bodies’ expectations.

To assist this, a standardised quality assurance framework should be developed, which MATs would then self-assess against on a yearly basis - or more frequently if there were concerns. And, in the spirit of a self-improving system, the quality assurance framework should be developed in partnership between the RSCs and the larger, successful MATs. It, should, for instance, include effective governance, a school improvement model and student outcomes.

Let’s work together

Turning to assessing MAT operations and performance, Ofsted should regularly review how well a MAT is working. At REAch2, we recently had an inspection of sorts from Ofsted, and found the experience to be enormously valuable. This should become the norm, and something that MATs view positively, not punitively.

And while I am not advocating a whole new layer of the quangocracy, I do think that we need to have a specialist unit within Ofsted, comprising the top tier of inspectors who know what they need to look for at our level.

But as well as having the formal inspection process - which is a must - I believe that MATs need to collaborate more and engage in constructive peer-to-peer review. Some of this is already happening and at REAch2, we have such arrangements in place with Outwood Grange Academies Trust. But there is not enough of this type of work happening more generally. Even the highest performing MATs should recognise that there is space to improve, and that the best way to do this is by working with others, sharing and borrowing best practice.

The last element is what parents, teachers and students think. Annual attitudinal surveys from each of these groups could help to build a full dashboard of measures that would give a rounded picture of what is going on in an academy year-on-year. Again, these should be publicly available.

Much of what is described here is about building on what we already have, though with a greater formal consistency that reflects the fact that we are entering a more mature phase of the academies movement.

What the growing MAT ecosystem needs is thoughtful, collaborative working between regulator and regulated that fosters a coherent and effective regime of self-improvement: not one that is punitive and knee-jerk.

Sir Steve Lancashire is the founder and CEO of REAch2, the largest primary-only academy trust in the country. He tweets @stevereach2