MAT0023

 

 

Written evidence submitted by REAch2 and Reach4

 

  1. Introduction
     

1.1       This is a joint submission from REAch2 and Reach4 in response to the Education Select Committee’s call for evidence in their inquiry on Multi Academy Trusts (MATs).
 

1.2       Should the Committee find it useful, we would be happy to provide further briefing on any aspect and to give evidence in person should that be appropriate. We would also be delighted to arrange a visit to one or more of our Academies for any members of the Committee to help inform their thinking in the context of this inquiry.

  1. About the Reach Family
     

2.1       Fundamentally, Reach is a family that that delivers school to school improvement, going the extra mile for all our children and young people. Both Trusts are led by experienced educationalists and we are passionate about dispelling the myth that only certain children are able to achieve.
 

2.2       As a family, every school and every individual is connected by a common desire to learn from each other, share experiences, and be mutually supportive. We actively encourage collaboration and work as a team to create and deliver the best possible education for every pupil in our care.
 

2.3       There are currently two branches of the Reach family: REAch2, which focuses solely on primary education; and Reach4, which covers both primary and secondary phases. This is the first time that an academy trust has replicated its model to create scale, rather than simply to keep growing ever larger.  We have active plans to replicate further to extend our reach into other parts of the country in the coming months.

REAch2
 

2.4            Sir Steve Lancashire founded REAch2 Academy Trust in 2012 www.reach2.org.  Born out of the principles that Sir Steve had introduced to create exceptional education at Hillyfield Primary Academy in Waltham Forest, North London, REAch2 has grown to become the largest and most successful primary only academy chain in the country.  As of April 2016, the Trust was operating 53 academies across the Midlands, South East of England and London.   Sir Steve leads REAch2 as its CEO.
 

2.5            REAch2 focuses on providing exceptional learning opportunities for all, reflecting our total commitment to an exceptional and inclusive education that serves its local community.
 

2.6            We are also very proud of the results we have achieved to date, both in terms of Key Stage 2 assessments, and Ofsted judgements. The latter includes significant improvements in the vast majority of our academies, with one academy (Eastbrook) going from Special Measures to Outstanding in under two years.

 

 

 

Reach4

 

2.7            Reach4 Academy Trust www.reach4.org.uk was launched in January 2016.  Jointly led by Libby Nicholas and Sir Steve Lancashire, Reach4 has been established as part of the Department for Education’s (DfE) Northern Fund, to create more capacity in the North of England with the explicit aim of raising standards in both primary and secondary education. 
 

2.8            Reach4 will be operating in number of academies by September 2016.  While the heart of Reach4 is in the Midlands and North of England, it will also seek to establish secondary schools where there are REACh2 primary schools.  An aspiration of the REACH family is to deliver an all through 2-18 education for children and young people. 
 

2.9            Reach4 believes in providing an education that is ‘inspiring beyond measure. This reflects our approach that an exceptional education is rich and empowering beyond the narrow confines of just formal examination success.
 

  1. The role of MATs

 

3.1       Primarily, MATs have an unbreakable responsibility to improve standards in the schools that they oversee. There should be no exceptions to this rule: if a MAT is not improving standards, then it is not fulfilling this responsibility.
 

3.2       The measurement of a school, however, is not just about examination and test results, or indeed Ofsted’s judgement. Though these are critically important, the measure of a school and its improvement also must be seen through the quality of experience for young people; meaningful engagement with parents; and the motivation and satisfaction of the teaching staff. Some these aspects are described in more detail in section 8 below.
 

3.3       In addition though, MATs have a duty to the education system as a whole. They have a responsibility to share their best practice – free of charge – and to celebrate what works. They also have the responsibility to provide support to other MATs where it is needed. It is essential that MATs collaborate to create greater capacity in the system as a whole; insular behaviours in which MATs act as isolated islands will simply replicate the problems that were commonplace with Local Education Authorities.
 

3.4       High performing MATs welcome the opportunity to work with others, rather than work in isolation. They also seek out opportunities to share, freely and openly with others who are perhaps starting out so that we have system-led and system-wide improvement, rather than patches of the country that do well and others that fall behind.
 

3.5       MATs also have a wider responsibility to their staff and the profession more generally to provide ways in which to develop them individually and to fire, nurture, and sometimes reignite, their passion for education. MATs that operate at scale are able to do this and to create opportunities that turn teaching into a career with a clear pathway and clear development milestones, rather than just a job.
 

3.6       Lastly, MATs have a responsibility to be open and transparent. There is a prevailing myth that academies are somehow less accountable than maintained schools.  This is incorrect, and if anything academies are even more accountable than their counterparts. They have direct accountability to parents, and they are held accountable by an array of oversight bodies, including: DfE, Ofsted, Regional Schools Commissioners and the Education Funding Agency.

 

  1. MAT Landscape
     

4.1       There has clearly been significant growth in the number of MATs over the last few years, and that number looks set to increase considerable, in light of the Government’s ambition to move to a world in which all schools are academies.
 

4.2       As a beneficiary of that growth - in terms of REAch2’s expansion, and the creation of Reach4 – we have direct experience of how this works in practice. We would note, in particular, the role of Regional Schools Commissioners in this respect. Whilst there will be occasion when a Trust is asked to take on responsibility for a school that requires additional support and development, our strong preference is where RSCs have taken a more strategic approach.
 

4.3       In practice, this mean looking at geographically coherent clusters of schools across phases- both primary and secondary – to reduce the risks associated with the transition from, for example, a high performing primary school, to a poor performing secondary school.

 

4.4       RSCs should also be planning on a medium to long-term cycle to establish what trajectory of growth is sensible and pragmatic for each MAT. Ideally, this would be agreed on a 3 – 5 year planning cycle with individual RSCs, with oversight from the National Schools Commissioner. This planned approach allows MATs to have sufficient capacity internally to be able to support each academy appropriately. Typically, large scale MATs that have struggled with performance have done so because of an ad hoc, more piecemeal growth pattern, rather than a more strategic and carefully thought through approach.
 

4.5       MATs are also playing an important role in setting up and creating new free schools, where there is a need locally for new provision. REAch2 currently runs two free schools and we have submitted an application to the DfE for a significant number of new schools to be opened over the coming years. As with academy planning, we fully support a model in which MATs plan strategically in partnership with the RSCs, rather than a scattergun approach to new provision.
 

4.6       As the MAT landscape matures, we believe that individual academies should have the freedom to leave one MAT to join another. If the academy does not, for instance, believe that the MAT is adding value to its operations and results, it should be able to make the case to RSCs to leave that MAT and join a different trust. A set of criterial should be developed to this effect.
 

  1. Decision making and Governance

 

5.1              Governance is not an end in itself, it is the means by which risk (in its widest sense) is appropriately managed.  Academy trust governance must be both effective and transparent given the public funding/assets involved in delivering education as a key public service.  At Reach, we believe that good governance entails:

 

 

5.2              At Reach, we believe that governance should be delivered as close as possible to the point of impact of decision-making: that is, at school level.  Governors who live and work in the local community are well placed to identify and address issues at an early point, escalating concerns as necessary.  In our model, this includes parent and staff representation on local governing bodies.  We do not consider that skills-based governance and representation of key stakeholder groups are mutually exclusive.  Indeed the Government’s White Paper does not suggest this, but unfortunately some of the reporting/commentary around it has given that impression.  What is crucial for local governors, as with non-executives at any level, is to be clear on their remit and, collectively, to have or to develop the skills to deliver it.

 

5.3              The Reach family operates a governance structure that reflects our Governance Charter: http://reach2.org/governance-policy/governance/.

 

5.4       In particular, the Charter sets out the fundamental principles of the organisation and lays down the rules for its governance.  The governance scheme consists of the Charter, the Trust Articles of Association and the detailed Scheme of Delegation.  The governance principles recognise the importance of developing relationships with common purpose as much as they are about developing processes and structures.
 

5.5       The ’21 questions that every Multi-academy Trust should ask itself’, set out by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Education Governance and Leadership (January 2015), provide a foundation by which we assess the effectiveness of our governance. https://www.academyambassadors.org/sites/default/files/21-Questions-for-Multi-academy-Trusts-FINAL-(2).pdf
 

5.6       Financial governance must as a foundation, be compliant with the principles and regulations set out in the Academies Financial handbook.  At Reach, we aim to go beyond this foundation to provide excellence in its governance.
 

5.7       At Reach, governance is underpinned by a common understanding about who is responsible for providing valuable input to decision making and who has the decision-making responsibility.
 

5.8       Effective governance in Reach comprises the following tiers:

 

5.9       The Trust Board has overall responsibility and ultimate decision-making authority for all the work of the Trust, including the establishment and maintenance of the Academies.
 

5.10  Regional Boards have three key functions:

5.11  The governance of each Academy is delegated to the relevant Local Governing Body.
 

6              Monitoring, Management and Assessing Performance of MATs
 

6.1       As noted earlier, the accountability system for any academy is considerably more robust than for maintained schools. There are layers of accountability that involve no fewer than four government bodies: the DfE, Ofsted, Regional Schools Commissioners and the Education Funding Agency.
 

6.2       Within that context, it is right that MATs are subject to this level of scrutiny and challenge, given the significant number of young people that we are responsible for. Ofsted can, and does, inspect the robustness of individual MATs, and we are also held to account via the Regional Schools Commissioners.
 

6.3       Each MAT is also given a rating by the RSCs. This is not currently something disclosed to MATs or made public more generally. In the interest of transparency, we believe this information be made available to individual MATs, and consideration be given to whether this information should be publicly available more generally.
 

6.4       In addition, we think that consideration should be given to each MAT completing a Self Evaluation Framework and Improvement plan, much in the same way that individual academies do already. To assist this, a standardised Quality Assurance Framework should be developed, which MATs would then self-assess against on a yearly basis. The Quality Assurance Framework should be developed in partnership between the RSCs and the larger, successful MATs.
 

6.5       In terms of assessing MAT performance, data relating to examination and test results will continue to be key, as will Ofsted and RSC judgements. In addition, however, we believe that attitudinal surveys of parents, pupils and staff should also be taken into consideration to provide a balanced scorecard model of performance assessment.

 

 

7              Characteristics of high-performing MATs

 

7.1               While Reach has demonstrated how to develop an effective and sustainable MAT, it is clear that some have fallen short in this venture.  Reform, a non-party research organisation that focuses on the delivery of public services, published ‘Education in Chains’ http://www.reform.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Education-in-chains.pdf in 2015.  This publication examined the key characteristics of successful MATs.  Reach adopts these five principles, and combines them with our own knowledge of works:

7.2              In addition to these core components, in a successful, high-performing MAT, regular and meaningful engagement with parents is non-negotiable. This means having an open dialogue with parents from the very outset when taking on a new school, throughout the process of joining the Trust, and continuing as part of business as usual operations. When done well, MAT engagement with parents, is not an adjunct to the MATs work, but deeply ingrained within the culture, ethos and operations of the organisation at all levels.

 

 

 

April 2016