Establishing a successful Multi-Academy Trust - Mark Blois - May 2016

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?

Mark Blois | +44 (0)115 976 6087

mark.blois@brownejacobson.com

@MarkBlois