The Secretary of State for Education has clearly stated that the future for every Local Authority (LA) maintained school is being part of a ‘family of schools in a strong multi-academy Trust’ due to the strong governance, across groups of schools. However, the specific details on how this will be delivered, and over what timeframe, is rather lacking at the moment, so I have provided some food for thought below on this.
The current pick and mix combination of Local Authority (LA) maintained schools, empty MATS and standalone academy schools as single entity MATs is now regarded as unviable in the medium to long term. However, it is worth remembering that each Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) is the decision making authority in their geographical area for all school and MAT merger requests. It is therefore clearly within each of the RSC’s control to determine how their region delivers the Secretary of State for Education’s vision within the existing regulatory framework.
However, whilst the RSC is the decision making body in each region, the RSC can currently, only issue an Academy Order to a LA school judged by Ofsted to be Inadequate. In addition the RSC is the decision maker for any MATs who submit a request to merge or a school that submits an academisation request. In all other scenarios, the RSC can only make recommendations to MATs or schools not graded as Inadequate, but this carries little weight as the RSC has no decision making authority in these other scenarios which could be regarded as having a guard dog with very few teeth!
Furthermore, all LA maintained schools who avoid an Inadequate Ofsted rating have no immediate reason to join a MAT, even if they have multiple consecutive Requires Improvement Ofsted outcomes. One option therefore would be to amend the Academy Order criteria so that it applies to LA maintained schools that have more than two consecutive ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted assessments. This approach would have some merit as it would help increase the number of LA schools joining a MAT with improved teaching & learning that ultimately leads to improved pupil outcomes.
Small MATs with a low number of pupils have much smaller financial budgets as the majority of school funding is directly related to the number of pupils on role and those pupils who qualify for premium. This smaller budget is further exacerbated as economies of scale for volume business does not apply. However, any financially viable MAT over a 3 to 5 year term, based upon reasonable assumptions on future pupil numbers, has very little incentive to engage in this MAT consolidation. So unless a MAT has a key specific need to merge with another MAT e.g. financial difficulties or to secure a governance framework that meets the ESFA Academies Handbook rules and regulations, then why would the MAT Members support being taken over by another MAT? This is akin to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas!
Another option for the DfE to deliver MAT consolidation includes the use of financial incentivises or other direct or indirect means. Offering to pay the energy costs of MATs who agree to merge in today’s high energy cost market may be sufficiently attractive to MATs. Energy costs at one secondary school in Frank Field Education Trust are increasing from £280k to £430k per annum and that’s in a school building that was recently built and therefore should be energy efficient.
Perhaps sharing expertise and school support services through formal and informal MAT schemes will be sufficient to deliver the MAT merger and growth vision. However, this school support model leading to increased MAT integration is unproven and is not guaranteed to deliver the MAT consolidation. Nevertheless, changing internal and external market forces will lead to some MAT consolidation as market forces will occasionally outweigh other considerations for schools and MATs.
