The words “transparent” and “clear” appear at least 10 times in DfE guidance on how decisions are made about multi-academy trust growth.

But these are the very last adjectives that most of those who work in trusts would use to describe a process that is at best complex, at worse utterly baffling.

“I just don’t understand how it works,” a seasoned MAT CEO admitted to me. They are not alone. And who can blame them?

Efforts have been made to set out the DfE’s approach to rebrokering, MAT growth and mergers, such as publishing trust quality descriptions, along with the metrics used by the Regions Group. This has helped, and organisations like the Confederation of School Trusts deserve credit for the work they have done.

But it is still far from clear how these criteria are being applied in practical terms, or how consistently this is happening across the nine regions. Leaders often say they are operating in the dark: lacking clarity on how significant decisions are being reached, with no easily accessible data to help plan their organisation’s future.

Our MAT Tracker, launching today, attempts to address both of these problems for the benefit of the sector.

Firstly, we’ve analysed regional advisory board minutes to track the decisions being made across the country and the conditions being applied to growth plans. For example, some regions insist MAT leaders are mentored before their trusts can expand, while others require boards to prove phase-specific expertise before taking on new primaries.

Along the way, this work has prompted questions: when is a merger a takeover? Why have apparently financially healthy trusts been assigned a school resource management adviser (SRMA)?

Analysing MAT sector trends and key issues

We’ll continue to monitor advisers’ discussions, using our specialist sector knowledge and editorial judgement to pick out essential highlights, spot patterns and unpick knotty emerging issues. Some of these themes will be expanded upon, for example in today’s analysis of the outlook for single-academy trusts, and in our investigation into MAT growth plans.

On the second problem, growth plans require user-friendly data, and our interactive map showing the size and location of each MAT in the country gives a visual overview of the system. We will update it each month, and plan to develop it further - please get in touch directly with any feedback.

We have developed these tools because the trust leaders we speak to believe it is critical to the health of the sector that this data is available. What has been gratifying to see is that many of the leaders we spoke to in developing the MAT Tracker know the sector can do more itself, too.

The Academies Handbook states that trustee reports and minutes must be available “for public inspection” - but few trusts publish these online, and only six of the 23 biggest MATs provided them when asked. This would be a great place to start. And trusts could go further, making their meetings public, like NHS foundation trusts.

Ultimately, greater openness ensures ministers and senior officials are held to account more effectively, but it can also tackle misplaced suspicion and cynicism.

Schools are full of dedicated, innovative professionals doing the best they can to give children the best start in life. Our MAT Tracker will help ensure that work is better recognised, that it can be scaled up sensibly, and that the system is working for those within it, not against them.

Find our interactive map of England’s multi-academy trusts here, along with links to all of our MAT Tracker content