Trust in our Trust

Over the past decade, Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) have become a central feature of the educational landscape in England. MATs were introduced as part of a broader effort to drive up educational standards by offering schools greater autonomy while fostering collaboration and shared resources. However, the impact of MATs on the education system has been widely debated, with opinions divided on their effectiveness and implications for equity, school performance, and community engagement.

The Academisation plan was initiated by the last Labour government and since then around 73% of academy schools have voluntarily chosen to become an academy. The Johnson Conservative government set out plans for all schools to become academies by 2030. This was met with further speculation but, on the whole, most maintained schools have been able to see the benefits in academisation and are now engaging with the plans.

The governmental push towards academisation has been driven by the belief that MATs can provide strategic leadership, economies of scale, and improved educational outcomes.

All Saints Catholic Academy Trust (ASCAT) is also committed to the principles set out by the Diocese of Westminster Catholic Education Service which has identified families of schools to form or join Catholic Academy Trusts (CATs)

One of the primary arguments in favour of MATs is their potential to raise educational standards, through shared expertise, resources, and leadership across schools. Some MATs have successfully turned around failing schools, providing robust support and interventions that have led to improved Ofsted ratings and exam results. For example, data from the Department for Education indicates that MATs with strong governance structures often perform better than local authority-maintained schools.

The House of Lords published an article ‘Improving schools’ performance: Are multi-academy trusts the answer?’ which reflected on the March 2022 white paper where the government argued that MATs have a strong record in improving standards in underperforming schools. It said:

If all pupils did as well in reading, writing and math's at key stage two in 2019 as pupils in the MAT performing at the 75th percentile of MATs on this measure, national performance would have been eight percentage points higher at 73%. At the 90th percentile this would have been 79%.

Data on Ofsted ratings does not show that schools in MATs have better ratings than other types of school, according to information published in the same paper. However, the government emphasised that many schools joined MATs because they were underperforming; therefore they started from a lower base. The government highlighted that “more than seven out of 10 sponsored academies were now rated good or outstanding compared to about one in 10 of the local authority-maintained schools they replaced”.

On academic results the picture is mixed, according to figures in the same government paper. The percentage of pupils achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and math's was, on the whole, slightly higher in maintained schools than in MATs. For example, the median proportion of students reaching the expected standard was 67% for maintained schools and 65% for MATs. However, MATs had a greater variation in performance. The higher performing MATs performed better than the better performing maintained schools, and the lower performing MATs performed worse than the worst-performing maintained schools.

However, the picture is not universally positive. Critics argue that the performance of MATs is inconsistent, with some large trusts facing criticism for failing to deliver improvement despite substantial funding. There is some evidence that shows that while some MATs excel, others struggle, leading to a "postcode lottery" where educational outcomes are heavily dependent on the trust that manages the school.

The impact of MATs on equity and social mobility is another contentious issue. Advocates argue that MATs can provide opportunities for disadvantaged students, by pooling resources and focusing on targeted interventions. Some trusts have demonstrated a commitment to social justice by prioritising the needs of vulnerable students and investing in inclusive practices.

The financial management of MATs has also been under scrutiny. The ability to centralise administrative functions can lead to cost savings and more efficient use of resources. Successful MATs often use these savings to invest in teaching and learning, benefiting students directly. There have been some high-profile cases of financial mismanagement within some trusts, including excessive executive pay and poor investment in school facilities.

At ASCAT we are privileged to work with talented headteachers, senior leaders and staff and whilst they appreciate the support and consistency provided by a central team, allowing them to focus on the critical strategic plans to develop their schools, we are also keen to ensure that they retain autonomy and that their skills continue to develop so that they have a full understanding of the operational elements of their schools. An example of this is the Deputy Headteacher Forum which has focused on CPD on School Finances and Human Resources.

In addition to the Deputy Headteacher Forum we have several other network groups ranging from Safeguarding; Subject Leadership; Chairs of Governors; Support Staff; and Early Career Teachers, to name just a few. These have led to the establishment of embedded collaboration and professional development opportunities across the Trust.

The shift from local authority control to MATs has sparked some discussion around community engagement. Traditionally, local authorities had a direct role in overseeing schools, with elected representatives accountable to the local electorate. In contrast, some MATs are governed by boards that may not have strong local ties, leading to fears of a democratic deficit. This can be avoided by placing Community Governors on the local governing boards. From experience, most of the Governors serving on the local boards at ASCAT schools are members of the local community, ensuring that there is a strong understanding of local contexts.

Other areas of concern have been around teacher pay and while some MATs have chosen other routes, ASCAT has committed to maintaining the teachers and support staff pay and conditions. We have also continued to develop our relationship with the local authority. This has led to a strong strategic partnership that ensures the best outcomes for our learners.

As MATs continue to play a central role in the English education system, it is essential that robust mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and local involvement are maintained to ensure that all students receive a high-quality education, regardless of their background or location. The future success of MATs will depend on their ability to balance the benefits of centralisation with the need for local responsiveness and equity.

Christina Reffold, Director of Governance & Compliance 

August 2024