There is “significant scepticism” among decision-makers in multi-academy trusts about the government’s vision for a trust-led system by the end of the decade, Tes can reveal.
A survey of trustees carried out by the National Governance Association, seen by Tes, reveals some opposition to the Department for Education’s plan for all state schools to be part of a trust and to the Schools White Paper target of MATs to run at least 10 schools.
Responses from more than 100 MAT trustees, 99 per of which came from separate trusts, showed that just over half (51 per cent) supported the commitment to a fully academised system by 2030.
Almost a third (32 per cent) disagreed with this commitment and another 17 per cent were unsure.
Trustees who supported the government’s target for 2030 highlighted the confusion and complexities caused by the current “mixed economy” of schools, with a trust-led system seen as the best way to provide consistency and sustainability.
One respondent said that “the current fragmented system is not viable in the long term”, while another said that “running two systems [academies and maintained schools] will become inefficient over time”.
Doubts over DfE multi-academy trust plans
However, others warned that any compulsion to join a trust would be self-defeating, as good schools may join reluctantly and “without commitment” to the group.
In the survey, well under half of trustees (39 per cent) agreed that trusts should run at least 10 schools or 7,500 pupils,
Those who supported the proposal accepted the DfE’s argument that a minimum size was necessary to enjoy many of the benefits of the MAT model.
One respondent said that “MATs do need to be a certain size to provide good central services”, while another said that having enough pupils was “critical to support an appropriate business model and gain the benefits of collaborative working”.
Among the 46 per cent who disagreed with the proposal and 16 per cent who were unsure, a number of the responses referred to the need for “quality not quantity”.
Trustees also seem acutely aware of MATs growing too large.
Some responses focused on the issue of MATs running schools very far apart geographically, and how that can negatively affect community links.
“There needs to be a maximum cap and proximity ruling,” one trustee said.
MATs ‘do not have one single view’
The NGA also asked about the white paper’s view that to avoid monopolies the proportion of schools in a local area served by an individual trust should be limited.
Respondents were split with 39 per cent supporting a limit on the proportion of schools in a local area served by an individual trust and 36 per cent against.
It also asked about the Schools Bill’s proposal for local authorities and diocese to request academy orders for maintained schools despite governing body objections.
Respondents were given a link to the DfE’s briefing paper which explained the rationale for the proposal.
Again opinion was divided with 42 per cent supporting the proposal, 40 per cent against and 18 per cent unsure.
Most trustees in favour of graded Ofsted MAT inspection
One area where there was a clear majority view was on the question of MAT inspection. Nearly two-thirds of trustees (63.6 per cent) felt that Ofsted should inspect and grade trusts as a whole.
This compared with 12.5 per cent of respondents who were against the inspectorate being given this role.
The question was posed as the government considers how to regulate and hold MATs to account as it moves to a fully trust-led system.
Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman has said that the inspectorate can play a part in holding MATs to account through inspection. Currently, Ofsted does not have the powers to directly inspect MATs or grade them.
But in the new NGA survey, more than two-thirds of respondents supported Ofsted being able to to do this.
One respondent said: “The MAT has power. Power should mean responsibility, and those with responsibility for using public money should be accountable.”
Another added that a MAT inspection regime would provide a more comprehensive view of what was and wasn’t working across a MAT as a whole.
Those who were sceptical, however, worried that grading a trust could make trusts “risk adverse” in terms of taking on struggling schools, fearing that this would affect their overall grade.
Some trustees were not convinced that Ofsted is qualified to inspect entire MATs. ”Ofsted do not have the required skills,” one said.
Emma Knights, the chief executive of the NGA, said: “These findings confirm NGA’s long-held view based on our extensive work with MATs of all shapes and sizes up and down the country that most trustees understand the need for clear standards, scrutiny and greater transparency. T
“The responses of MAT trustees support the case made over the past few years by NGA that the issues of locality, size of trust and impact on pupils need to be more thoroughly examined, listened to, and reported on transparently in an evidence-based manner. NGA has always been aware of the variety and nuance of trustees’ opinions and experiences.”
Ms Knights urged the new education secretary Gillian Keegan to to take note of the diversity of views within the MAT sector, “especially when other issues, in particular around funding, staffing and SEND, are so pressing.”
The Department for Education has been approached for comment.
