1 Introduction
“MATs are the only structures which formally bring together leadership, autonomy, funding and accountability across a group of academies in an enduring way, and are the best long term formal arrangement for stronger schools to support the improvement of weaker schools.” (DfE 2016, p. 57).
2 Conceptual framework
2.1 Network properties
2.2 External accountability
-
Monitor the performance of the academies in their area
-
Take action when an academy is underperforming
-
Decide on the creation of new academies
-
Make recommendations to ministers about free school applications
-
Encourage organizations to become academy sponsors (ensuring that there are enough high-quality sponsors to meet local need, ensuring each region has a strong supply of high-quality sponsors)
-
Proposing suitable sponsors for poorly performing maintained schools who have been selected by DfE to become sponsored academies.
-
Approve changes to open academies, including the following: changes to age ranges, mergers between academies, changes to MAT arrangements
2.3 Internal quality control in the network
3 Methodology
3.1 Data collection
HMI/RSC/DfE/EFA | Trust/central staff | Academies and free school in the trust |
---|---|---|
- Interview with National School Commissioner and Regional School Commissioner - Group interview with 6 HMI (including lead inspector of FI) - Interview with Ofsted director of education policy - Analysis of outcome letter of FI year 5 - Analysis of DfE notice letters to academy trusts about poor or inadequate performance or weaknesses in safeguarding, governance or financialmanagement (pre-warning notices to 2 academies) - Analysis of RSC websites | - Interview with CEO of the trust - Analysis of website, 5 annual reports, Articles of association, Master funding agreement, Register of local governing bodies, scheme of delegation in year 5 | Analysis of website and all Ofsted schoolinspection reports since conversion to academy status of all the schools that were part of the Trust between years 1 and 6 Interviews with 6 headteachers of schools inspected as part of the FI |
3.2 Data analysis
Variable | Events for case description |
---|---|
External accountability | Ofsted school inspections, FI and MAT review, RSC monitoring of schools, RSC monitoring of the Trust (timing, judgement and feedback on the functioning and performance of the Trust) |
Internal quality control | |
Information mechanism | Changes in policies to implement Trust-wide peer reviews and actual peer reviews in schools, external reviews of governance of schools and of the network, Trust-level monitoring of academies (timing and outcomes of these reviews, such as safeguarding visits, performance monitoring, financial monitoring) |
Switching mechanism | Changes in collaboration between schools and support provided by the central staff |
Exclusion mechanism | Transfer of schools to other Trusts, and brokering and re-brokering schools through the RSC |
Control mechanism | Changes in allocation of resources (membership fee) and coordinating transactions between schools in working groups (coordination of schools is described under governance) |
Network properties | |
Governance | Changes in structure (e.g. introduction of regional structure, changes in roles and responsibilities of central staff, schemes of delegation and terms of reference, improvement boards with central staff), roll out of centralized systems (e.g. common assessment policy, common systems for financial planning and monitoring) |
Size and growth | (Increasing/declining) numbers of academies in the Trust |
Composition | Primary/secondary, sponsored/new academies/free schools: voluntary or forced brokering; location of schools and distances between schools and the head office |
4 Findings
4.1 External accountability
“well obviously it’s a benchmark isn’t it, it’s a marker for them [the Trust] to know how well their schools are doing. It’s…I’m going to say a status symbol but I don’t…well I do mean it, they do like to say we’ve got X amount of Outstanding schools, X amount of Good schools, of course they do, that’s how they are viewed by the outside world. So it’s important to them.”
4.2 External accountability and internal mechanisms for quality control
4.2.1 Information mechanisms
“Unless we know what’s happening in the schools and we’ve got good data then we can’t make judgements and decisions and analyse what’s going on in our schools well. This is important because A, to help different schools help each other, but B, because the trustees are held accountable by the Secretary of State for the performance of their schools. You know, we are the most accountable system, externally accountable system, I think, in Europe, in terms of Ofsted inspections, in terms of publications, performance tables, so there’s no getting away from it, you know, ministers hold people like me and my trustees to account for how well the accountability works in the trust.”
“our school matters to them as much as the school they’re working in because we are one collective entity. And therefore, their investment, not just in the review, but the follow up to that review was great and had a great impact”.
“I think the Trust has definitely moved to the fact that the school leaders are as open and honest with the Trust, more so than they would be with an Ofsted inspector where you want to paint the rosy view, whereas the Trust is not seen in that respect. I think there was a feel, you know, three years ago where if everything on paper looked fine you could keep the central team at bay and carry on doing your day job, whereas now it’s much more collaborative, and the fact of forced collaboration… you are not allowed to keep your door shut, you need to have people in and stuff.”
4.2.2 Control mechanisms
4.2.3 Switching mechanisms
-
A support programme in areas of statutory and financial compliance
-
Support in conversion to an academy
-
Dealing with administrative issues around new school buildings
-
Applications to open free school
-
Financial support of schools in deficit
-
Staff training and mentoring, e.g. to develop assessment, teaching and learning in core subjects and leadership and management
-
Brokering professional development through teaching schools outside of the Trust.
“so if a school is in special measures or requires improvement, or they [the Trust] are worried about them, you know, everybody and their uncle will be in and checking and helping and making sure, and actually if you are doing OK then it’s perhaps perceived as not being a priority, and if resources are limited then you’d, you know, you’d put your resources where they need it most really.” (Headteacher of Campanula Academy)
4.2.4 Exclusion mechanisms
4.3 External accountability and changes in network properties
4.3.1 Size and composition
4.3.2 Governance
“I think that when I took up post I would describe the way that the schools had come into the trust as being one where they were encouraged to join, to affiliate to an organisation in a kind of a club type way. Whereas the way in which the government and policy has moved is that the accountability, the lines of accountability, are much more sharper and clearer than they were even two years ago. So the MAT have had to take more central control of their schools, and that’s been a very, very difficult cultural change for some of our schools, because that’s not the trust that they joined.”
“The trusts that have been the most successful generally have quite a bit of control over the schools they have managed, we think of X, we think of Y, we think about Z, um…those big secondary trusts where they’ve said this is the way we do things, have been more successful than the ones where the schools have been left to their own devices to get on with things. And so we have moved away from a very loose arrangement between our schools to one which is much tighter and the relationship’s much deeper.”
-
Payroll and HR support;
-
Leadership and governance advice;
-
Property management;
-
Information technology systems;
-
Management information system;
-
Finance;
-
Marketing and communication;
5 Conclusion and discussion
-
Support from the Trust and Ofsted “outstanding” or “good” schools is allocated to schools judged to “require improvement” or schools in “special measures”, creating a culture of short-termism which constrains the development of more sustainable mechanisms for internal quality control to monitor, support and improve all schools over time
-
Distribution of resources is (until year 6) tied to Ofsted school inspection grades where schools in special measures have to pay a higher membership fee
-
Schools “requiring improvement” or in “special measures” are monitored more intensively by RSCs and the Trust and more likely re-brokered into other Trusts who have a portfolio of schools with good Ofsted grades
-
Head teachers’ performance targets are set around Ofsted grades as well as specific standards in the inspection framework
-
An important criteria for the allocation of schools to regional hubs is their Ofsted grade, ensuring a mixture of schools with good and failing grades as an indicator of available and required support capacity
-
Trusts with a portfolio of overall good/outstanding schools act as good practice examples within the system, and inform the structure and collaboration in other MATs (e.g. regional “hub” structure and centralized monitoring and control)
-
Governing bodies of schools “requiring improvement” or in “special measures” are replaced by Improvement Boards with Trust representatives who have a school improvement background.