Inclusion and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) should sit with academy trust senior leadership and not be delegated down, a group of multi-academy trust (MAT) leaders has said.
SEND and inclusion “must be at the heart of a trust’s strategic priorities and areas for development”, according to the Queen Street Group’s (QSG) annual report for 2023-24, which is being published today.
“It is fundamental that this is not an area that is delegated down, but must sit with CEOs and trust leaders themselves,” the report added.
QSG, a group of 40 trust chief executives, has this year put together a new expert group on SEND and inclusion so trusts can share best practices and experience.
Formally set up in 2018, QSG does not lobby for particular policies - it represents different views from among its members, and has six expert groups. Here are five important findings from the QSG’s annual report:
1. SEND and inclusion needs to be led from top
The report states that SEND and inclusion must be a strategic priority for trusts, and should sit with CEOs and trust leaders rather than being delegated lower down.
It also said trusts are increasingly wanting to develop expertise in these areas in-house because need is increasing when “local support is often decreasing”.
One of the challenges trusts face is the high proportion of children categorised with SEND, the report states.
The annual report, being published today, outlines a need to challenge the “current definitions of SEND” and how schools are having to adapt for a “greater range of milder or moderate need”.
This comes after the Confederation of School Trusts found that inclusion is the top concern for trusts this year, but prioritising it is often hampered by funding shortfalls.
Steve Taylor, chair of QSG and CEO of Cabot Learning Federation, told Tes that SEND and inclusion are things that trusts have to “take really close order of”, and that the QSG expert group is designed to help senior leaders share best practice and learn from experts.
“CEOs should have an understanding of strategy on this and that deeper understanding will help the trust,” he added.
2. Asbestos may be next estates crisis
Trusts felt that despite trying to get “on the front foot” with the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) crisis at the beginning of the year, they received “inconsistent advice” from the Department for Education and were expected to prove they did not have it themselves.
“The group feels that asbestos may be the next issue to hit the headlines, so putting into action the learning from RAAC is urgent,” QSG’s estates group said.
The group further warns the “current slow achievement rate” for the School Rebuilding Programme means delays for decaying buildings.
Trusts are also preparing for a potential future when school capital allocations are linked to sustainable approaches.
The Health and Safety Executive started a programme of asbestos inspections last year.
Jon Ward, QSG estates expert group chair and director of estates and facilities at Creative Education Trust, said that as school buildings continue to age, asbestos removal will likely become more important and, in some cases, buildings may need to be replaced.
3. Strategies to mitigate impact of falling rolls
QSG’s expert finance group shared strategies this year to help trusts mitigate the increasing number of schools with falling rolls.
These ideas included changing secondary admissions policy to make primaries feeder schools, sharing headteachers across schools and increasing the teaching time of leadership teams, and achieving minimum staffing levels for school size.
They could also subsidise their primaries and consider sharing back-office functions with other trusts.
Trusts could lose £1 billion in per-pupil funding by 2030 from the impact of falling rolls, research has suggested.
4. Concerns raised about MAT summary inspections
Trusts that have undergone a MAT summary evaluation by Ofsted reported “a mixed response”, the report said.
Some CEOs were “concerned by the lack of understanding of how trusts operate” that some inspectors demonstrated.
Additionally, finance directors found “little consistency” in the summary evaluations’ approach to finances. The report states more consistency will need to be in place before the finance group supports others to prepare for a summary evaluation.
The new Labour government has said it is planning to bring MATs within the realms of Ofsted inspection through its Children’s Wellbeing Bill.
At present, the inspectorate does not have the power to directly inspect trusts. Instead, it has been running MAT summary evaluations, where it pulls together findings after inspecting a group of schools within a trust. Such evaluations are voluntary and have not included an inspection grade.
Tes revealed last year that these MAT checks had been put on hold.
Trusts “want to make sure they are prepared for MAT summary evaluations” and that they “go as smoothly as possible”, Mr Taylor said. They also want to be prepared for MAT inspections that will “inevitably come after a period of consultation”.
He added that some trusts may think there is “quite a lot of accountability around finance already”, and MAT inspections may instead focus on education and experiences of pupils across the trust.
5. Quality of governance ‘not strong enough’
Many CEOs believe the quality of governance in the school system “is not consistently strong enough to bear the demands placed on it”.
The report suggested this issue is currently being masked because governance is incorporated into a school’s Ofsted inspection judgement on school leadership, and it has recommended that these be separated.
The report also said there needed to be greater consistency in the approach different regions of the DfE take to deciding whether trusts have the capacity to absorb new schools.
The DfE has been contacted for comment.
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
