establishing a successful multi-academy trust - mark blois - may 2016
TRANSCRIPT
Multi-Academy Trust
26 May 2016
Drivers for change
‐ accountability – Education and Adoption Act -
pressure
‐ political will - white paper - more pressure?
‐ finances – joint working
‐ benefits of formal collaboration
@BJEducationLaw
“A new system led by good and
outstanding schools… putting our great
school leaders in charge of running and
improving schools”.
@BJEducationLaw
New hierarchical system of MATs
• ‘Starter Trusts’ – up to 5 schools in one
region
• ‘Established Trusts’ – between 5 – 15
schools in a single region
@BJEducationLaw
New hierarchical system of MATs
• ‘National Trusts’ – 15 - 30 schools
across more than one region
• ‘System Leader Trusts’ – 30 plus
schools across a number of regions
Academy
1
multi-academy trusts
LGB
School
Level
Board of Trustees
Trust
level
Members
Academy
2
Academy
3
Academy
4
LGB
LGB
LGB
Members – appoint
& remove directors
Board of Trustees –
approve accounts,
MFA, employ staff,
hold land & overall
responsibility
Academy - SFA,
oversight of
educational
standards at local
level
Note: also church/mixed MAT models
@BJEducationLaw
Governance
• one employer, one holder of land
titles, one legal entity
• MAT board equally responsible for all
academies in group
• MAT board are the directors and
trustees
@BJEducationLaw
Governance
• governors on LGB are not directors
(unless also sit on board)
• still usual for each academy to have its
own local governing body
• but hard ‘Federations’ of LGBs
increasing in numbers where LGBs
oversee more than one academy
@BJEducationLaw
• DfE prefer minimum of 5 members
• no employees as members
• separation between members and
trustees
@BJEducationLaw
• latest articles have majority of
trustees appointed by members
• movement away from ‘representative
model’ to a delivery model based on
skills and experience
• reluctance to have multiple Heads on
trust board
@BJEducationLaw
• DfE will look closely at the proposal
for the board membership
• can be difficult area at the beginning
of a MAT project
‐ “21 questions every multi-academy trust board
should ask itself” - APPG on Education
Governance and Leadership (March 2015)
‐ “The 9 Characteristics of Successful Multi-
Academy Trusts” – Sir David Carter (July 2015)
Accountability of the executive
16. How well does the Trustee Board understand its
academies’ performance data, & how do Trustees
know that pupils in all their academies are making
the best progress they can?
17. What mechanisms does the Trustee Board use to
ensure there is a strong and effective executive
leadership structure and personnel in place across
the Trust with the right skills, clear line-management
and reporting mechanisms?
Accountability of the executive
20. Do the compliance systems give assurance to the
Trustee Board that the Trust is meeting its statutory
and legal responsibilities?
Taken from 21 key questions for MATs document
available from the NGA & APPG on Education
Governance and Leadership
@BJEducationLaw
Main Board
Strategic oversight, setting visions and policies for the Trust, governance, contractual relationships with third parties
LGB
Day to day running of the academy, carrying out the Trust’s vision, policies and priorities, holding academy leadership to account
@BJEducationLaw
delegation
linked to
OFSTED
hybrid
approach full delegation
for all
@BJEducationLaw
Finances
• master funding agreement plus
supplemental funding agreements
• funding allocated on an individual
academy basis
@BJEducationLaw
Finances
• can amalgamate a proportion of GAG
funding
• must have due regard to funding needs
and allocations of each academy trust
but is an appeals process
@BJEducationLaw
Ofsted
• inspection as individual academies
• placement in category triggers right of
SofS to give notice to terminate that
academy’s SFA – does not affect MFA or
other SFAs
• one academy’s inspection grade will
not directly affect another’s
@BJEducationLaw
Ofsted
• Ofsted discretion to inspect if
concerns around group generally
• inspectors likely to meet with
members of Local Governing Body, as
well as board
@BJEducationLaw
The gatekeepers of MAT design RSCs do not like:
• ‘Flat MATs’
• ‘Mates MATs’
• ‘Empty MATs’ – sometimes
• another gatekeeper is Diocese eg
mixed MATs?
Executive Head/
Principal
Head of School
School A
Head of School
School B
Head of School
School C
Executive Head/
Principal
Headteacher
School A
Headteacher
School B
Headteacher
School C
CEO
Headteacher
School A
Headteacher
School B
Headteacher
School C
Headteacher
School D
Headteacher
School E
@BJEducationLaw
• not enough time?
• too complex?
• GB feels pressurised?
• working group to report on ‐ why needed
‐ approach
• firm but fair timeline
• clear rationale with targets
@BJEducationLaw
Will you…
• have a clear common vision and
values?
• have a shared distinct teaching and
learning model?
@BJEducationLaw
Will you…
• have a system for training leaders and
other staff?
• deploy key leaders and staff across the
group?
• have shared T&Cs and pay scales?
@BJEducationLaw
Will you…
• insist on geographical proximity?
• have central resources and systems?
• develop strong common quality
assurance arrangements?
