The system of regional directors (RDs) that governs school academisation conversions is “a black box” and their decisions lack “visibility”, a former schools minister has warned.
Speaking exclusively to Tes, Robin Walker, chair of the Commons Education Select Committee, also admitted he had “concerns” about the changes made to the role of RDs when he was schools minister, saying he was “not hugely keen on the idea”.
His comments come as trust and education system leaders’ frustration ramps up over the transparency of the system set up to make local decisions over the academisation of schools.
One leader told Tes that decisions made by RDs are “all smoke and mirrors”.
Mr Walker spoke to Tes after the government rejected a recommendation made by the Commons Education Select Committee for RDs to provide an annual report to Parliament “setting out the scope, detail and impact of their work”.
Improve transparency and accountability
The rejection was part of the Department for Education’s response to the MPs’ inquiry into Ofsted, in which the department also defended the watchdog’s single-word judgements after the committee recommended they be replaced as a “priority”.
The committee also suggested that the DfE ”improve the transparency and accountability of the work of the regional directors”.
RDs are senior DfE civil servants who make decisions on how trusts grow, which trusts are best suited to run particular schools and how trusts are merged or dissolved.
They were previously known as regional schools commissioners (RSC) before the DfE 2022 restructure of the system triggered the switch to “reflect their evolving role”.
In recent years, the role has also grown to include improvement and intervention in children’s social care and special educational needs, as well as deciding which trusts sponsor schools with coasting orders.
Mr Walker told Tes he has concerns about these changes.
He said: “The RD system feels a bit like a black box where decisions are taken by RDs and there is no visibility on how they get to those decisions.
“Given how important these decisions are, they need to explain their criteria. The initiative to rebrand RDs happened when I was schools minister and I was not hugely keen on the idea.”
Mr Walker felt that the RSC model better “reflected their powers and the role they played in the system”.
He said he feels the move “underplayed the importance and significance of their role and therefore the need for accountability” - but he had not been able to influence the decision as it was “not part of my brief”.
Regional directors hold ‘enormous power’
“I think the problem is, throughout my time in Parliament, I have observed these people held an enormous amount of power and take some pretty crucial decisions,” Mr Walker said.
However, “the only way for MPs to be able to get any response or accountability is through ministers”, he added.
Tes launched its MAT tracker project earlier this year in a bid to bring more transparency to the academies sector.
Mr Walker’s words come amid increasing calls in the sector for the next government to ”shine a greater lens” on the RD system - dubbed by some as the “middle sector”, which others say causes “unnecessary stress and workload”, and that it needs “delineation” and “streamlining”.
Shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson also recently said there was a need for more transparency and accountability in the regional “layer” of the schools system.
Before going to the advisory board for advice, Regions Groups make commissioning recommendations using the three stages set out in the CHQT guidance. The proposals are then brought to the advisory board for a decision.
It is important to note that advisory board members are not decision makers and the outcome lies purely with the RD.
The Commons Education Select Committee also called for the government to “make RDs available to give evidence ” to it as part of its recommendations to the DfE made earlier this year.
The DfE response said that RDs are available to give evidence, but added that “approval for their attendance before the committee rests with the secretary of state for education”.
MAT development priorities
The government also highlighted its Commissioning High-Quality Trusts (CHQT) guidance in its response to the committee.
The department said: “By being transparent about how commissioning decisions are made, we will support trusts to direct their own self-improvement activity - so that together we can grow capacity, capability and choice across the system.”
The department added that it would ”be making available multi-academy trust (MAT) development priorities nationally from May”.
However, former national schools commissioner Sir David Carter told Tes that “the steps offered by the government to offer greater transparency around the RDs are no more than a token gesture”.
He said: “Publishing the MAT development priorities, while not unhelpful, will not reveal much that is not already obvious to the sector.
“The Commons Education Select Committee has for a long time been calling for greater transparency and this feels like a debate that will continue to go back and forth.”
‘Smoke and mirrors’
Before going to the advisory board for advice, Regions Groups make commissioning recommendations using the three stages set out in the CHQT guidance. The proposals are then brought to the advisory board for a decision.
One CEO of a large MAT, who wished to remain anonymous, said they would like more transparency of the decisions made and considered before a proposal is put to the advisory board, adding that the situation at the moment is “all smoke and mirrors”.
The CEO said they would also like the DfE to publish the key performance indicators for RDs and how they achieve them because “they need to be held to account by the public”.
The MAT leader proposed a portal where a school wishing to academise declares its key information and the values it holds. The portal would then list the potential regional trusts to approach, with those local trusts also notified when schools are using the portal.
However, the CEO said they are also concerned that trusts picked to offer support to a school ahead of a conversion “often end up being top of the list to become a future sponsor”, as there is “no transparency about why they were asked to provide support”.
More clarity on ‘behind the scenes’ decisions
Peter Hughes, CEO of the four-school trust Mossbourne Federation, also wants more clarity on the decisions being made “behind the scenes” before they reach the advisory board.
While experts say transparency around decision making has improved in recent years, Mr Hughes thinks there is still a lot more that could be done, arguing that local authorities “tend to be more open to scrutiny”.
However, unlike the Commons Education Select Committee, Mr Hughes does not think an annual report would make much of a difference.
Like the anonymous CEO, Mr Hughes would like to see more transparency from the moment a school decides - or is told - to move into a trust as “by the time you find out about a MAT conversion [under the current system] it’s already happened...and you’re seeing the rubber stamp”.
Mr Hughes would like to see a process for both academy orders and conversions where schools publish their intentions and anyone can apply.
Dr Tim Coulson, former regional schools commissioner and CEO of Unity Schools Partnership - which has 35 schools in the East of England - agreed that “something needs to happen because people feel there’s not enough transparency in the system”.
However, he warned complete transparency over the decision-making process from start to finish on how a trust is chosen to sponsor a school is “a bit tricky” as trusts may not want the public to know if they have not been chosen on numerous occasions.
Calls for standardisation of RD work
Tom Campbell, CEO of the national 29-school MAT E-ACT, wants to see a standardisation of the way the RDs work to reduce the workload on trusts.
As a national trust, Mr Campbell said that he works with seven regional directors and “it’s really difficult to manage relationships across those seven different teams who all work in seven different ways”.
He explained the different ways of working create a “bureaucratic administrative burden” for trusts.
“So anything that helps standardise or address some of the regional variables would be helpful,” he added.
For the latest education news and analysis delivered directly to your inbox every weekday morning, sign up to the Tes Daily newsletter
