The former Secretary of State, Gavin Williamson, stated that MATs ‘are powerful vehicles for improving schools by sharing expertise, working collaboratively and driving improvements’. This concept is also referred to as school improvement support and covers a range of services provided across schools in MATs but also between a MAT and a Local Authority (LA) maintained school. Alternative words to school improvement support, such as collaboration are also used. But what do these words really mean in practice?
Whatever we may regard school improvement support to mean, it generally refers to a MAT sharing its expertise, resources and proven methodologies. This is very clearly the right thing to do as part of social justice in education – a key theme for Frank Field Education Trust. The aim of this school improvement support is to ensure that all pupils receive the best education, regardless of any inequalities and abilities.
School improvement support can be varied and wide-ranging covering a broad spectrum of systems and services. This is typically a MAT providing expertise and resources on a short term basis to a school that is struggling. This school improvement support is primarily aimed at delivering improvements in Teaching and Learning that leads to sustained improved pupil outcomes. Other areas of school improvement support can include school curriculum, the development of an improved governance framework and a revised scheme of delegation.
The actual details of any school improvement support being provided by a MAT needs to be clearly documented and agreed by both parties. These details should also include how this school improvement support will actually be provided although this support is the MATs intellectual property (or golden goose). Therein lies the rub! How to provide school support without giving away the golden goose.
Providing school improvement support can lead to one of two outcomes once the school support has been implemented. One outcome is that there is a recognition of the long term benefits of the close working relationship with the providing MAT. As a result a request is made to join the MAT. This outcome would then be a win/win for both parties.
Once the recipient school or MAT has all the school improvement tools, expertise, systems and processes, it may then believe that it can then continue this improvement journey on its own. Other than some revenue for the providing MAT, there is no long term benefit in this outcome. But where to draw the line between school support, reciprocal benefit and social justice is not clear. The providing MAT needs to carefully consider not giving away the golden goose for limited benefit.
Frank Field Education Trust had this debate as it provides a comprehensive range of school improvement support services to Esprit Trust. This actually includes the unusual situation of Frank Field Education Trust’s CEO being the Accounting Officer for both Trusts, following the ESFA’s prior approval.
So how does a MAT protect the golden goose of the intellectual property when providing school improvement support?
One option is to include restrictive contractual terms between the two parties. This could limit the receiving school or MATs use of the intellectual property after the initial period. These restrictive contractual terms could go on to include some financial recompense for continued use of the intellectual property.
Another option is for the providing MAT to find the right balance on the school improvement support. Providing what needs to be done but not handing over all the details on how this is implemented would leave the providing MAT with some control.
Whether either option would really work in practice is a moot point.
