MAT0044

 

 

Written evidence submitted by the National Governors’ Association

 

 

Introduction

 

The National Governors’ Association charitable aim is to improve the well-being of children and young people by promoting high standards in all our schools and improving the effectiveness of their governing boards. The NGA is the only independent body representing school governors and trustees at national level across England. We support and advise governing boards in both local authority maintained schools and academies.

 

 

Summary of key points

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NGA has been working with more and more MATs to explore effective governance options and how the time of committed volunteers can be best used to improve the education of pupils. Indeed we believe NGA has carried out pioneering work through gathering intelligence, sharing best practice, provoking honest and open debate regarding the performance of MATs and effective governance. Our information and intelligence has been gathered from a number of different sources:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NGA will be holding two MAT events this year and we are committed to exploring further opportunities for sharing best practice in MATs in the coming weeks, months and years.

 

NGA welcomed the freedom that governing bodies had to decide whether it was the right step for their pupils to become academies and is disappointed that this autonomy will now be removed. The NGA does not think that sponsored academy conversion is the only route to school improvement. NGA’s view is that formal partnerships between schools can be extremely valuable in improving outcomes for pupils, as well as offering increased opportunities for staff. Boards which govern more than one school – whether these are in local authority federations or MATs – have the potential to be very effective but this is not always realised.

 

NGA’s view is that these benefits are more likely to be achieved when schools are in reasonable geographical proximity to each other. NGA is concerned that a number of MATs have expanded across too wide an area to be truly effective. More research needs to be done into the maximum effective size and geographical spread of a MAT.

 

NGA is concerned that some MATs continue to grow too quickly and without sufficient thought by either the MAT or DfE into whether there is real actually capacity within the trust to support this growth. MATs have also often grown in an unstructured way, without always giving appropriate consideration about why and whether they grow and if they have the infrastructure needed to deal with growth. MATs are relatively new and governance has not always been at the forefront of thought. The governance arrangements of MATs have not always been properly thought out and there is often a lack of clarity as to the level of responsibility between the over-arching trust board and that at local governance level. More work needs to be done to ensure that MATs operate effectively both at board and management level.

 

 

 

The role of MATs in the context of other intermediate structures operating between Whitehall and individual schools, including Regional Schools Commissioners

 

Stakeholder and community engagement

 

  1. MATs have a key role in engaging local stakeholders and making sure systems are in place to make sure their views are heard. Established and successful MATs have a key role in communicating with other groups how successful community engagement can be achieved.

 

 

MAT led system

 

  1. NGA is aware from its work in talking to MATs that ultimately there has been no easy way in which MATs can learn from what has gone before. This is in part because MATs have been understandably reluctant to publically share the lessons they have learnt from the mistakes they have made along the way for fear of reputational damage to the organisation.

 

  1. In February this year, NGA jointly with Academy Ambassadors brought together thirty-five MATs at the Department for Education (DfE) to discuss these very issues.   The learning from that will inform publications that NGA is now working on: an induction guide called ‘Welcome to a multi academy trust’ and has informed the NGA guidance on schemes of delegation. The main themes arising from the discussion included the need for clarity, transparency, engagement of stakeholders and communications in all directions. In addition, the acceptance that things will and should change.

 

  1. This event and the intelligence NGA have gathered from our work has informed us that governing bodies have hesitated to join a MAT as they did not want to give up local governance. Many governors remain fearful of ‘take-over’; dislike of change; and are concerned about losing the identity of the school.  Existing MATs that have performed well have a clear role to play in advocating the benefits of joining a group – as explored in the joint NGA publication ‘Staying in control of your destiny’.

 

  1. Indeed NGA research shows that joining a group of schools, whether that be a MAT or a maintained federation, can substantially improve the offer to and outcomes for pupils.

 

  1. Our wider work among MATs and feedback from our case work informs us that by and large, the majority of MATs do not get it right first time and need to evolve and adapt to emerging challenges. MATs need to be given reassurance that this is usual for relatively new organisations and that it is acceptable to make mistakes. However this is rarely the message that is portrayed by those MATs who could have an extremely valuable and influential role in smoothing the process of forming a MAT for others. We were very grateful to the three MATs who did share.

 

 

Local authorities

 

  1. Under the DfE’s planned movement of all schools to academy status, NGA thinks this could present a new role for LAs as the champion for both pupils and parents. Included within this would be a role in SEN and high needs, traded services, place planning, place planning and admissions.

 

  1. NGA also see that the academisation of all schools leaves LAs well placed in having a key role in organising independent appeals for exclusions. LAs could also potentially operate as the facilitator for organising an independent appeals service for complaints. Although there should be a proper complaints process agreed at every MAT which would start at local level and work up to executive level where required, any independent appeals could be managed by LAs. They would also have role in providing local intelligence to the RSC.  

 

 

Teaching school alliances

 

  1. Teaching schools are outstanding schools that work with others to provide high-quality training and development to new and experienced school staff. They are part of the government’s plan to give schools a central role in raising standards by developing a self-improving and sustainable school-led system. If the DfE is to attain its goal of having a network of 600 teaching schools making significant improvements in the quality of teaching, leadership and pupil attainment, then NGA’s view is that MATs with teaching school alliances will need to do more to interact and support the development of those schools outside their group.

 

 

 

The current MATs landscape, including in terms of the number, size, and geographical coverage of MATs

 

Landscape

 

  1. NGA’s view is that there is no one right way of doing things when it comes to MAT structures in terms of the size and geographical proximity. There remains a question mark as to whether size should be asserted as number of schools or pupils.  

 

  1. Significant points learnt from NGA work with MATs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One organisation

 

  1. MATs are one organisation; being a part of a MAT brings an intrinsic change to the identity of its schools which no longer have their own legal existence. Schools therefore loose autonomy when they join a MAT. Regardless of the size of the MAT, both the trust board and its stakeholders have to accept this new identity and understand what type of organisation they are now running/are a part of. This means, certainly at trust board level, there is no room for a ‘my school’ mentality. This problem can exists especially in small MATs where the trust board is comprised of those who previously served as governors on the governing bodies that joined to form the MAT. 

 

  1. The debate needs to be about accountability and not power.  The real question for individual schools should be ‘how does the governance structure allow the trust to know its schools, ensuring the education of the children in the school and no loss of trust oversight’. NGA view is that the focus needs to be on the benefits to pupils within the institution not the institution itself.

 

  1. NGA maintains that performance of schools must take precedent over financial incentives and economies of scale of building larger groups. 

 

  1. With the government committed to seeing all schools becoming academies and its expectation that most schools will form or join a MAT, this puts an enormous amount of pressure on existing sponsors to take on new schools. The majority of schools are still local authority maintained and it will be a significant logistical exercise to ensure all these conversions can take place in this timeframe, in a way that stands the test of time, and results in collaboration that brings about the improvement that is required in a ‘school led’ system. (At the time of writing there are currently 820 sponsors listed on the DfE sponsor contact list).

 

  1. NGA is concerned that many schools will now be tempted to jump under pressure and join a MAT without conducting the due diligence that is so vital in forming a sustainable partnership. Some schools indeed have already found themselves at the bottom of the list with existing sponsors not wanting to take them on. While schools which are underperforming cannot expect to ‘choose’ what happens to them it would be unfortunate if successful schools were forced into a partnership they did not choose.

 

  1. NGA is increasingly aware of a lot of schools looking to grow their own MAT who don’t want one school to be the lead sponsor. NGA would like clarification on why there needs to be a lead sponsor, as this can act as a deterrent to partnership working as it is assumed the lead school will determine the trustee board.

 

 

Size and number

 

  1. The DfE has made it clear it  wants more MATs and NGA is of the view that MATs should have a clear strategic plan and not simply expand because that is the expectation placed upon it.  Before a MAT looks to expand, it needs to identify and communicate clear rationale for its growth strategy including:

 

 

  1. NGA is concerned that some MATs continue to grow too quickly and without due consideration about the capacity within the trust to support this growth. MATs have often grown in an unstructured way, without considering why they want to grow and if they have the infrastructure needed to achieve this. NGA would like to see more MATs exercising a period of consolidation following sustained or indeed rapid growth to focus on supporting existing schools within the group and ensuring that support is effective to deliver the best possible outcomes for students.

 

  1. Capacity is an essential issue that has already caught out a number of MATs where academies have been removed from the group due to departmental performance and capacity concerns. There have also been other widely published cases where sponsors have been put on the DfE ‘pause list’ – essentially being told they cannot take on any other schools until they have demonstrated clear capacity to do so. Academies Transformation Trust who were removed from the list earlier in the academic year have publically stated that they used the time to consolidate following a period of growth and focus on the “expertise” within the trust and “working with” it’s existing schools noting that “performance is always the priority”.

 

  1. The NGA remains concerned that existing and new MATs are overstretching themselves under pressure from the DfE to take on more schools when the trust themselves are unsure whether they have capacity to do so. NGA have heard several accounts from members and others of where their trust has bowed to pressure from the DfE to take on schools when in reality they have neither the capacity or desire to do so. NGA remains deeply concerned that the government’s academisation plan as outlined in the Educational Excellence everywhere paper will force more MATs to take on more schools when capacity to do so simply doesn’t exist.

 

  1. Another issue that is in part related to sustained or rapid growth is the inability or unwillingness of schools that join the trust to adopt a ‘one organisation’ approach. Growth within trusts has sometimes had a detrimental effect on the actual identity of the MAT and the willingness or ability of schools to being properly inducted into the identity of that trust. A recurring theme that again arose out of our MAT roundtable event in February was that of trustees or committees of the trust board having a ‘my school’ mentality and failing to recognise the overarching vision, ethos and identity of the trust. Rapid or expansion without proper due diligence can heighten this mentality as resources and support at central level becomes strained and unsustainable and some schools within the MAT inevitably are left on the side-lines.

 

  1. The department assertion that on average MATs can begin to fully develop the centralised systems and functions that will deliver these benefits at a size of around 10-15 academies also runs the risk of causing unnecessary pressure on MATs to grow to a certain size. This is primarily based on economies of scale, but NGA has yet to see any hard evidence for this number. It also appears to be exclusively based on financial economies of scale but not necessarily taking account of the educational performance of the schools within the MATs. NGA is yet to see clear evidence that suggests an optimum size for the developing educational performance and we maintain that this will be determined by a number of factors including the number of pupils, the performance of existing schools, the strength of leadership within the trust. Indeed we maintain that the jury is still out in determining size, and some trusts operating with 10-15 academies as suggested by the DfE have clearly struggled in terms of performance and had academies stripped from them.

 

 

Geography

 

  1. While there is no legal requirement for schools in a group to be in close geographical proximity and there are a few examples of successful MATs with schools many miles apart, emerging evidence, suggests that the benefits of collaboration are much easier to realise when schools are physically close. Lord Nash himself, has suggested that groups should ideally consist of schools between which staff could travel in ‘half a lunch break’. Despite this we continue to hear of cross regional MATs, sometimes spread over vast areas, being approved by RSCs. NGA would like to see further clarity on government policy on geographical placing of schools within MATs.

 

  1. NGA’s view is that these benefits are more likely to be achieved when schools are in reasonable geographical proximity to each other. NGA is concerned that a number of MATs have expanded across too wider an area to be truly effective. More research needs to be done into the maximum effective size of a MAT. NGA is an advocate of collaboration as a means for aiding school improvement but much of the existing research is based on advantages of being part of a small/local federation. NGA would like to see more research conducted and released into the advantages and disadvantages of large and geographically dispersed groups.

 

  1. Where there is a level of geographical dispersion, cluster boards and regional management will be needed to accommodate growth – resulting in a need to clearly communicate changes in those governance structures once again to relevant stakeholders. Introducing a tier of regional/cluster governance and oversight can be done through a regional executive role on the trust board and/or regional committees. Often these functions are not explained clearly within the MATs themselves and so lead to confusion and duplication arising.

 

 

Culture

 

  1. Trust boards need to continually review and adapt their structures and see adaption not as failure but as a timely response to changes in context. Too many MATs retain outdated and ineffective governance structures, in part perhaps because they may be unaware of how easy it can be to adapt existing arrangements, or because they are fearful of upsetting those at local governance level in turn creating negative reputational impact amongst stakeholders but more widely through the press and across the education sector. When structures are not found to be clearly benefiting the pupils within the trust, the trust board should decide that existing arrangements need reviewing, especially where misunderstanding of role of the LGBs exists.

 

  1. MATs can be based on a primary-only/secondary-only model or a cross-phased model and can also include special schools. NGA would like to see more research conducted into this area to feed through to our members who are now looking at the options available to them. NGA is also aware of concerns relating to benchmarking with MATs which is a potential major benefit of collaboration but this can only be achieved if the right data is available. The secondary feeder model of MAT with only one secondary school for instance could provide valuable benchmarking data for those feeder schools but not for the secondary school. A possible route would be for the DfE to advise that each MAT always has two of the same phase within the group. NGA would like to see more research conducted to ascertain the evidence of performance of MATs in relation to phase.

 

 

 

The balance of decision-making at the individual school level and at the chain level, and the appropriateness of formal governance structures employed

 

Communication

 

  1. Earlier this year, E-ACT abolished local governing bodies (LGBs) and replaced them with academy ambassadors advisory groups. NGA has made it clear that this is not by any means the first MAT to remove key functions from the LGB; one of the differences is that the E-act were in the public domain underlined with a change of name. Some other MATs have also called their local groups something akin to advisory councils without this hitting the headlines.

 

  1. The E-act coverage clearly demonstrates the misconceptions that still exist within the sector, partly as a result of poor communication from MATs themselves who have not always been up front and honest with stakeholders on the role of local school committees. In part this is because MATs themselves have not always been clear at the onset of the over-arching role of the board of trustees and that some things e.g. accountability, cannot be delegated. Many committees at local level have existed without realising that the decision making responsibilities are held by the Board of Trustees in a MAT, and not at local level.  Our experiences through the NGA GOLD advice line have shown that often members of local committees are perplexed by the decisions that the trust board have been able to make, believing, up to that point, that it was their decision to make rather than the central board.

 

  1. There is of course a responsibility on governing bodies joining MATs to conduct their own due diligence and have a clear understanding that this is a fundamental change. NGA does agree that MATs can be effective without a governing body placed in every school within the trust – indeed this is one of the governance freedoms in MATs that has often not been utilised.

 

 

Increase diversity

 

  1. NGA is concerned that sometimes the communication of the delegation of functions has not been clear, in part in order to entice good schools to join the trust. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, NGA is of the view that more needs to be done centrally to ensure that delegation and powers to local committees are not guaranteed when they shouldn’t or indeed can’t be.

 

  1. Leaving the constitution of boards to the discretion of trustees (or members in a Trust) as the White Paper proposes (through the potential to not have any elected parents) increases the risk of them becoming sets of like-minded people who do not have the wealth of experience and viewpoints that brings the healthy challenge and debate that strong governance requires. The DfE has acknowledged this danger in the latest edition of their Governance Handbook: “the most robust governing bodies welcome and thrive on having a sufficient diverse range of viewpoints…governing bodies should be alert to the risk of becoming dominated by one particular mind-set or strand of opinion”.

 

 

Parents and governance

 

  1. NGA is disappointed to see that it is proposed that there will be no ongoing requirement for elected parents on the governing boards of academies. NGA thinks that parents of children and young people studying at a school bring an important perspective to the governance of schools that others are unlikely to bring. NGA completely concurs with the view that skills are a vitally important part of the genetic make-up of any board. Indeed, getting the ‘right people’ round the table is the first of our eight elements of effective governance. Recruiting a small number of board members from certain stakeholder groups and having a skilled board are not mutually exclusive. Governing boards are strongest when they have a range of skills, experience and views. Elections provide a useful device for ensuring that those with different views are able to join boards.

 

  1. Last summer at our conference the Secretary of State floated the proposition of removing categories of governors from maintained school governors, and NGA carried out a significant piece of work consulting our members to inform our response to the DfE. Despite indications at the DfE's Advisory Group on Governance that there would be no constitutional change on parent governors the DfE has now announced through the Educational Excellence Everywhere white paper that it does intend to remove places designated to elected parents on the governing board. NGA is fundamentally against this proposition and will continue to campaign for a change in government policy in this area.

 

  1. NGA firmly believes that all schools need to establish and maintain good links with their parents and local communities, using a wide range of mechanisms to listen, consult, inform and involve them. In many schools this outreach and engagement could be improved, but these important activities should not be confused with formal governance structures. For more information see Emma Knights blog.

 

 

Members of the Trust

 

  1. Discussions from our regional meetings have demonstrated that there is still a lot of confusion regarding the role of Members, who agree changes to the articles of association and usually have the power to appoint and remove a certain number of trustees. NGA’s concern includes how we stop this becoming a self-perpetuating, powerful elite, especially where there is little distinction between what should be two different layers of governance.

 

  1. Often the parallel is drawn with the private sector – with members of academy trusts described as akin to shareholders.  But this is an invidious comparison – state schools have absolutely nothing to do with profit making or paying dividends.  NGA maintains that no-one should become involved in the governance of charities or schools out of self-interest.  Governance decisions should only be made by the people best placed to do so without losing the accountability to the local community and the taxpayer.

 

  1. NGA is concerned about the common misconception that has increased as a result of the white paper regarding the ‘privatisation’ of our schools.  The removal of power from the democratically elected local authority, to a small group of unelected trustees is by many being viewed as a purely money making initiative that has no impact on school improvement. Members of a trust hold its trustees to account and although they are listed in the academy trust’s annual accounts, and in theory on their websites, members are largely invisible and their role is overlooked.  Some of the early trusts have only three members. Often, they are also the trustees - one of whom is the chief executive. While the DfE has subsequently accepted the need to have a few more members, it remains a contentious point and one that NGA are repeatedly coming across in conferences and seminars where there is very little distinction between the members and trust board. There needs to be a clear message that academies are not corporate profiteers but charitable institutions.

 

  1. This hugely significant move to governance by trusteeship is being underplayed by the DfE. NGA is concerned the experiences of the charity sector have not been valued or utilised. We should be drawing on the practice of the charity sector. As well as being held to account by the board of trustees, charities are held to account by the Charity Commission and company law and should include this same sort of accountability.

 

  1. NGA would like to see a debate opening membership to a wider group of people in order to truly hold the academy trust’s board of trustees to account.  There are a number of models we could consider: from all parents of pupils becoming members, to having some elected members.

 

 

The Trust board

 

  1. NGA’s view is that whatever structure is used, the Trust board needs to have confidence that it allows them to know their schools and hold them to account for performance.   Even with performance data, executive reports and the advice of paid external advisers, the board needs to understand the context, the community, and other soft information.  The views of parents, pupils and staff are essential and NGA maintain that every layer of governance within the trust, whether it be executive, committee, trust board or indeed the members, has a role to play in stakeholder engagement. The given structure must allow the trust board to gather the view and concerns of its clients.  

 

  1. This is where school level committees, whether operating in an advisory context or with delegated functions, can act as the eyes and ears of board, but also support the school, bringing links from other local organisations, helping the school to play its role in the community, being ambassadors. NGA’s view is this a potential major strength of the MAT system as it will allow time to be given over to these crucial tasks  that have sometimes been downgraded with the ever increasing remit of the maintained governing body .  A new advisory role with influence, rather than responsibility, could be one which builds on the best of governing, being part of school life.

 

  1. NGA is concerned regarding the longevity of terms of office for some trustees. In line with good practice in the charity sector the NGA thinks that governors should serve no more than two terms of office (eight years) in any one school.

 

 

Executives

 

  1. In charities the chief executive is not a trustee; one of the primary purposes of the board is to hold the chief executive to account and holding oneself to account presents an inherent conflict of interest. Although the latest model academy articles do provide for them not to be trustees, we have yet to come across a trust where this is the case.

 

  1. Not only has this important check been largely ignored in academies, but often a number of other senior employees are also involved in governing. There is usually a rule in the articles of association instead that employees should be no more than one third of boards. Many school leaders do not comprehend the conflict of their position, and without qualm present proposals to boards of which they are members, and therefore should be challenging. NGA’s position is that headteachers should not govern at their own school but it is not one we made a lot of noise about as there were other things which would make a bigger difference to improving governance.  With the growth of MATs, however, the risks are greater and this weakness in the model should no longer be ignored.  

 

 

School level committees

 

  1. NGA thinks that academy level governance within MATs being called LGBs is unhelpful as it suggests a similar function to that of maintained school governing bodies when LGBs are in fact committees of the MAT’s trust board.  The functions of committees of MAT boards will vary significantly from trust to trust, so a comparison to governing bodies of maintained schools is unhelpful and continues to fuel the power struggle that remains prevalent within many MATs.  Key functions of a governing body such as determining the individual academy’s vision, ethos and strategic direction and recruiting the academy’s Principal/Head of school are largely carried out at executive level in MATs and it is vital that this is explained to governing bodies before joining an existing trust to prevent subsequent misunderstandings from distracting from the core purpose of improving the outcomes of pupils in the trust.

 

  1. NGA’s view is that in any organisation line management has to be the responsibility of those employed to manage, so that the lead professional, in the case of a MAT, the chief executive or executive headteacher, would performance manage other senior staff, including heads of schools. However about half of those who participated in our regional discussions on this topic this spring wanted those governing at school level to retain some input into the recruitment and appraisal of the head of school

 

 

Academy councils

 

  1. Where decisions are not delegated to the school level, trust boards need to be very clear what is left for a school level governing committee. The recently published NGA model schemes of delegation have referred to these as academy councils. The rationale being that while these are still technically committees of the trust board in a broad sense, they do in reality have a vastly different role, fundamentally one that doesn’t constitute them as a ‘’governing” committee. Instead they have a vital role in feeding into and influencing decision making.

 

  1. Academy councils rather than LGB’s are increasingly being used as a vehicle for giving MAT boards assurances that they know their schools. These Academy councils feature heavily in the best practice work NGA are now doing including in our model governance structures and schemes of delegation where they retain a monitoring and promoting role in relation to how the trust vision is being implemented in the trusts academies, acting as a local contact point for parents etc. – providing ‘on the ground’ knowledge.

 

 

How the expansion of MATs should be monitored and managed

 

Role of the DfE

 

  1. NGA is concerned that the Department for Education (DfE) advice for performance, accountability and governance in MATs is lacking. Where DfE advice and practice does exist, it lacks clarity and often consistency across the department. NGA is concerned by the contrasting messages from different parts of the DfE it is hearing from in relation to MAT approval, growth and expansion.

 

  1. Experience shows MATs need a decent and appropriate level of support in setting up effective structures including facilitated shared practice by the DfE which is currently very limited. NGA would like the DfE to provide more in terms of generic advice including guidance on structures and accountability that MATs could then choose from.

 

  1. NGA is concerned that due diligence carried out by the DfE is not always sufficient. For example, the DfE approved the opening of a number of free schools by the Perry Beeches academy trust but did not pick up on the arrangements and the clear failures of corporate governance that have subsequently been released by the EFA.  NGA has also come across examples where the governance set out in a MAT’s articles of association is not what has been constituted in practice on indeed as recorded with Companies House. The DfE says it has a good handle on how MATs are set up but there appears to be clear failings in communicating to schools that MATs are one organisation and schools enter into this collaboration for the long haul. Again NGA have heard accounts from members where the DfE have advised them that can easily leave a MAT after six months if they are unhappy when this is clearly not the case.

 

  1. NGA is also hearing reports from members that DfE officials have said it will no longer allow ‘empty’ MATs and MATs now have to include expansion plans showing how they will get to 10 academies within a 3-5 year strategic plan. DfE need to clarify this view and apply the same rules across the sector. These inconsistent and sometimes incorrect messages are contributing to the confusion and lack of clarity that exists within the sector.

 

  1. It is not just those in existing MATs that need to be given more accurate information but also the governing bodies of maintained schools now exploring collaboration as part of a MAT. Governing bodies need to be informed that there will be a fundamental change upon joining a MAT.  NGA would also like to see further detail of how the role of the EFA is carried out. The EFA has said that it carries out risk assessments on MATs but yet the criteria for these assessments are not published.

 

  1. NGA’s view is that the messages coming out from the DfE require much more consideration and would like to see the following four messages consistently communicated by the DfE to all schools:

 

a)    If you join a MAT things will change as you become part of one organisation with one overarching board bringing about a major cultural change

 

b)    When you become part of a MAT you do so for the long haul and there is no quick release

 

c)     What the circumstances are likely to be for a school to be moved from one trust to another

 

d)    A scheme of delegation must be published

 

 

The characteristics of high-performing MATs

 

Clarity of Delegation

 

  1. Who makes the decisions and who is held to account and for what – this is important in all settings but especially so in a MAT and where done well, is, in NGA’s view, a characteristic of a high performing MAT.

 

  1. Effective delegation within MATs has the power to push performance to the next level, but where done badly, have an opposite effect. A scheme of delegation is the key document defining the lines of responsibility and accountability in a MAT. NGA believes this should provide a simple yet systematic way of ensuring members, trustees, committees (including local governance committees), executive leadership and academy heads are clear about their roles and responsibilities – and crucially, are clear on lines of accountability within the trust. NGA is concerned that a large number of MATs do not have an effective scheme. NGA is also concerned about the large number of MATs that still don’t publish their scheme on the trust website. More needs to be done at a central level to make this requirement clearer.

 

  1. Deciding what to retain at trustee level and what to delegate will vary from trust to trust. A Scheme of Delegation establishes who makes which decisions and ensures all those within the MAT and governing bodies of schools potentially looking to join a MAT are clear. The enormous amount of flexibility in MATs has been both a weakness and strength in the system.

 

  1. NGA is aware of a number of occasions where governing bodies have opted to join a MAT with the agreement they will be retained as a local governing body (LGB) by the trust and ‘little will change’. But some trusts have not always been as clear as they could be that although the ‘body’ may be retained, its decision-making powers will be very different (i.e. much reduced or in some cases non-existent). A detailed scheme will prevent confusion from arising before any misunderstanding leads to a loss of trust and damaged working relationships.

 

  1. The importance of the scheme of delegation (SoD) is often misunderstood. It is an essential requirement for effective governance and management. Indeed NGA’s view, confirmed by the DfE’s Governance handbook, that the Academies Financial Handbook, requirement for trusts to “publish on their website the structure and remit of the members, board of trustees, its committees and local governing bodies” means that a trust’s SoD must be publicly available.

 

  1. Often MATs do have a scheme but not one that is fit for purpose; the scheme itself might inadvertently distort the roles and responsibilities within the trust or has been constructed clumsily, blurring lines of accountability rather than clarifying them. The exclusion of key layers of governance such as executive leadership or any regional committees will prevent delegation being seen as part of the wider workings of the whole trust. Duplication of functions and the inclusion of unused layers of governance will cause confusion and lead to key players not fully grasping what their own role is and how it works in conjunction with others.

 

  1. NGA is especially concerned in relation to the performance management of the headteachers of individual schools within the trust and miscommunication of this key responsibility. It is all too common to find that at the point this should be taking place a number of ‘players’ think they have the responsibility – local governing bodies (because well, governing bodies always do that don’t they) and the chief executive/executive principal because s/he is the line manager. At best this causes confusion and duplication, at worse it leads to broken working relationships and a very poor experience for the headteacher stuck in the middle.

 

  1. While SoDs will vary from trust to trust depending on size, structure and geographical spread, there are basic principles to follow. Firstly simplicity; a succinct and clear format should be adopted. Many of the best schemes NGA has seen are in a grid format, with clear columns for each layer of governance.

 

  1. NGA is concerned that language used to communicate to key stakeholders in MATs is often misleading or overly legalistic. Language needs to be relevant; a governance structure needs to avoid legalese and a scheme characterized by overly complicated legal terminology isn’t fit for purpose as a means of clear communication. A scheme is a working document that the trust board and the senior leadership team should be able to devise themselves – albeit you may want to have a look at what other people have done.  It is not necessary to have your scheme of delegation written by your solicitors. Thirdly you don’t need to include all the information covered in your articles of association (if relevant a reference will do).

 

  1. The scheme should include all layers of governance actually used by the trust and be designed in a way that clearly shows how the layers work to deliver the trust’s vision and strategic goals. No one model is going to suit everyone and each trust should ensure their scheme is tailored to their chosen structure.

 

  1. MATs should regularly review their strategy and structure, adapting as required. As you adapt, it’s important that your scheme is amended to reflect any changes implemented. If lines of accountability have shifted, delegation should be altered to reflect this. Indeed a review of your SoD should be part of your review of effectiveness – if responsibilities are duplicated it’s probably time for a change.

 

 

Clarity of roles

 

  1. Governance in MATs is often more complicated and bureaucratic than it should be; not uncommonly because MATs lack clear SoDs. Frequently, this is a result of expansion without clear thought about how that will change the workings of the MAT, both in terms of governance and operational leadership.

 

  1. In significant numbers of MATs, trustees, executive leaders, local committee members and individual principals are unclear about the level decision-making and internal accountability lie at. It’s hard for any trust to successfully implement its vision and strategic plan if those supposed to be delivering it aren’t clear about their roles and responsibilities. A clear SoD ensures your trust avoids time wasting by employing the right checks and balances and helping you to check your structure remains fit for purpose.

 

 

Structure

 

  1. Whatever management structure a group decides to implement, the trustee board needs to be confident that the heads of the schools are held accountable for the performance of their school by the executive structure and to take appropriate action if required.

 

  1. Does the structure allow trustees the ability to evaluate the performance of the schools? Are they aware of pupil progress in all of their schools?

 

  1. Trusts will have different approaches to school improvement strategies depending on their size etc. – that’s why it’s so important to ensure the governance structure is built in such a way to ensure the board is able to retain oversight of its schools.

 

  1. NGA view is that a characteristic of a high performing MAT is one where the Trust board and each layer of governance is aware of their role and are confident in making the decisions delegated to it. The trust board will retain a clear focus on its three core strategic functions, and will have a clear strategy for turning vision into reality.  As a part of this commitment the trust board and each committee will be committed to induction and ongoing training. The lines of accountability within the Trust will be clear and effectively communicated to everyone. 

 

  1. The trust board will be open and transparent regarding the role of executive leaders and will balance strategy (including risk and creative thinking) with ongoing compliance issues.  The governance structure itself will fit for purpose and flexible to adapt to emerging circumstances.

 

Induction and development

 

  1. NGA has long campaigned for induction for those governing to be mandatory and we welcome the Department for Education’s (DfE) focus on the need for all those involved in governance to receive proper induction and ongoing training and development. We look forward to working with Sir David Carter (National Schools Commissioner) to develop the competency framework proposed for governance in different contexts. As the organisation leading the field on developing schemes of delegation for multi academy trusts, NGA is well placed to inform this process. It is important that the framework considers the competence and diversity of the team of those governing; it is not just skills but also commitment and the attributes of individuals such as wisdom, knowledge and experience which makes for rich discussion and good decision making.

 

 

Financial performance

 

  1. Effective financial management is always important, but in the current economic climate it is crucial. One of the primary functions of the MAT boards is to oversee the financial performance and make sure its money is well spent. Governing boards need to ensure they understand their role in relation to school finances and have the confidence to act when necessary. The trust board has collective responsibility for the financial outgoings of the trust. The Academies Financial Handbook requires the board of trustees to establish internal control procedures in order to monitor financial transactions and ensure openness with the public – if this is being done effectively then issues such as these will simply be avoided.

 

  1. Academy trusts are required by the Academies Financial Handbook to appoint an accounting officer and a chief financial officer (CFO). However, whom is appointed to these roles, and whether this is the extent of the financial leadership roles in the academy trust varies significantly between trusts and is often dependent upon the size of the school (or the number of schools in the case of multi-academy trusts (MATs)). Larger academy trusts may employ a chief operating officer (COO), for example.

 

  1. The accounting officer has a duty in ensuring that full accounting records are kept and financial opportunities and risks are well managed. In order to assist them fulfil this duty, the specific accounting processes will be delegated to a named chief financial officer (CFO) appointed by the Trust. The CFO is the academy trust’s lead on finance and may be referred to as a finance director, business manager, chief operating officer or equivalent. The CFO is a leadership role with technical responsibilities and while they will often look after the day to day keeping of the academy finances, this will depend on the size of the academy trust. The CFO’s main roles include monitoring the budget and producing the in-year accounts. However the CFO does not necessarily have to complete all duties personally – it is highly likely that in a medium or large MAT for example, that the trust will employ further staff and the CFO will delegate some duties accordingly. NGA is concerned that some MATs do not have the necessary experience and expertise at this level to oversee the finance operations of a group of schools.

 

  1. Where the EFA has serious concerns regarding the financial management, control and governance at an academy trust, it will conduct an investigation into its financial operations. It will make recommendations for improvement and where it is deemed necessary, issue what is termed a financial notice to improve (FNTI) that will outline the EFA’s concerns and provide a deadline for the academy to tackle these issues. The EFA currently has 24 open FNTIs and 11 closed FNTIs, and NGA is concerned that a number of these FNTIs have been open for a sustained amount of time. 

 

  1. NGA’s eight elements of effective governance shows that understanding role and responsibilities is key to being effective, as is good chairing and having good relationships built on trust. Part of the role and responsibilities for academy trust board trustees is ensuring full compliance with the academies financial handbook and academy trust boards should reassure themselves they are aware of its requirements and seek assurances that they are meeting them.

 

  1. Governing boards need to ensure that resources are employed so as to achieve the best outcomes for pupils. Poor financial management, whether through a lack of competence or deliberate mismanagement, will mean that resources are not being deployed in the best interests of children. Accounting Officers have a crucial role in showing stakeholders and the public that its allocated public funds demonstrate value for money - achieving the maximum possible educational benefit for the most economic allocation of academy finances.

 

  1. For procurement purposes, trusts should have checks and measures in place to ensure that suppliers are reputable and are offering value for money and everything is conducted through the appropriate channels. Suppliers should be contacted independently, ensuring the bank details are genuine. NGA view is that MATs should promote a culture of whistleblowing and challenge and emerging evidence has shown this culture has not been embedded in a number of high profile cases. achieved when schools are in reasonable geographical proximity to each other

 

  1. NGA urge all governing boards to adopt a Code of Conduct, rooted in the seven principles of public life. This should include clear strategies for dealing with conflicts of interest. NGA’s view is that conflicts of interest should be avoided, whether or not these are financial. If governors adopt open and transparent recruitment strategies then such conflicts should be identified earlier and more easily avoided. As was the case here, sadly some governing boards either fail to identify a conflict, or think that because it has been identified and registered it has been dealt with.

 

 

 

HR

 

  1. At the NGA’s spring regional meetings it was generally agreed there was no need for school committees to agree individual HR policies and oversee HR practice. The former was the remit of the MAT board and the latter of the executive staff. However NGA is aware of the wide ranging approach to HR across MATs, both in terms of policy and support. NGA’s view would be that there should be a consistent approach to HR support across the trust and the offer is very clearly explained to individual schools before they join the group. Where HR support and advice is not included within the central services offer/top slice, this should be clearly explained and schools should receive some direction from the trust board or executive on where they can access such support.  

 

 

How the performance of MATs should be assessed

 

Ofsted

 

  1. Ofsted publically stated earlier on in the academic year that it was growing increasingly concerned about poor governance in schools, and while NGA welcome an increased focus on governance, feedback from members and Ofsted reports where MAT boards continue to not be listed as the accountable authority means that NGA remains unconvinced that Ofsted truly understand how governance in MATs works. Different school structures bring different governance structures, particularly when governing more than one school. These functions are reflected in criteria Ofsted use when assessing effectiveness of governance but we continue to hear of accounts where Ofsted have not looked at the trust scheme of delegation/governance structure upon inspection. NGA think that Ofsted should ask to see the scheme of delegation.

 

  1. Our spring regional meetings in the spring revealed that members experience was that Ofsted’s understanding of MATs was often queried, and delegates felt that Ofsted did not understand governance structures of trusts. NGA view is that it is essential that there is a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities for governance within the trust and these should be published on both the individual academy and trust’s websites so that it is clear to all, including Ofsted, where responsibility lies.

 

  1. At the NGA spring regional conferences, Ofsted itself noted that Ofsted’s role is not to say what the structure should be, but rather to focus on the impact. MATs could be subject to ‘focused inspections’ where a number of schools within the MAT are inspected and others spoken to by telephone. Judgments are made on the individual schools, but Ofsted would also ask what support was provided by the MAT and make an assessment of how successful it is in improving its schools.

 

  1. The MAT assessment would then be published in a letter

 

  1. NGA welcomes the proposed introduction of ‘improvement periods’ where a new leader has taken on a school in difficulty and is given time to embed improvement before Ofsted inspects.

 

  1. Views shared at the NGA round table event in February showed strong support for inspectors being challenged when it becomes clear they haven’t understood the structure. NGA continue in dialogue with Ofsted to clarify that the accountable body for schools within a MAT is the trust board and not the local committee. Despite ongoing conversations, NGA continue to see evidence that Ofsted reports are referring to the local committee as the accountable body rather than the MAT trust board.

 

  1. NGA would like to see further clarity defining the relationship between Ofsted and the RSC. The RSCs are likely to use intelligence from Ofsted inspections to inform their interventions in underperforming academies and maintained schools which are eligible for intervention. NGA is of the opinion that, if RSCs have access to information gathered by Ofsted before it becomes publicly available; there should be transparency around this arrangement. Wherever possible, RSCs should seek to engage inspectors and school leaders in professional dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses identified by the inspection and how these can be addressed. The relationship between RSCs and Ofsted’s regional directors could potentially be a very important one but is limited because regions are not aligned.

 

 

Self review

 

  1. The All Party Parliamentary Group for Education Governance and Leadership published a set of 21 questions in 2015to help ensure that governance structures in MATs are fit for purpose. These questions have been widely accepted as best practice and NGA view is that integral to assessment of MAT performance is a regular self review cycle. Chair of the Group Neil Carmichael MP said: “These Questions address really important issues. MAT board effectiveness is important, it’s important that we get the structures right and it’s important that we get executive leadership right. For that to happen we have to ask the right questions.”

 

  1. It’s essential that governors and trustees can be confident that their structure supports better outcomes for children and young people. The Twenty-one Questions for MAT Boards are broad and challenging; they should provoke reflection and change and inform wider assessment such as external reviews and inspections.

 

  1. The White Paper means an even greater pace of movement of schools into the third sector, trustees of multi academy trusts (MATs) responsible for more public money and the education of more pupils. For pupils then, the consequences of poor governance of MATs are huge; we must minimise that risk.

 

 

 

External review

 

  1. NGA view is that quality assured external reviews of multi academy trusts play a valuable role in the assessment of MATs. These reviews should be bespoke to the structure and context of the MAT and include:

 

 

 

 

 

  1. NGA provide such a service and would be happy to confidentially share further learning points from our experiences.

 

 

Charitable status

 

  1. NGA is concerned that that the hugely significant move to governance by trusteeship instead of oversight by local governance is being underplayed by the DfE. The White Paper does not use the word trustee and responsibilities and decisions of boards are reported as belonging to school leaders.

 

 

Regional schools commissioners

 

  1. The recommendation from the Education Select Committee’s report on the role of RSCs that the composition and role of Headteacher Boards be reviewed – a recommendation which the NGA lobbied for and support – will not be taken up. These Boards advise on and challenge the decisions of RSCs and the White Paper makes clear that “they will continue to comprise top headteachers elected by their peers and appointed for their track records”. At present, there is no requirement for individuals with governance expertise to sit on Headteacher Boards.

 

  1. NGA has long campaigned for HTBs to be renamed and that including someone with governance expertise should be mandatory; the education select committee agrees with us and recommended this in its recent inquiry report. Sadly the white paper continues to refer to HTBs being comprised of elected headteachers, something that is at odds with the DfE’s focus on skills in the governance sector. NGA fundamentally disagrees with the ongoing approach to MAT accountability that does not include those with governance experience and fails to see how these advisory boards can accurately advice on accountability of MATs when there is no representation from those at governing board level.

 

  1. NGA is disappointed that the DfE does not appear to have taken on board the comments from the House of Commons Education Select Committee about the composition of Headteacher Boards (HTBs) which support the Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs).  The White Paper makes clear that the RSCs working with HTBs ‘approve governance arrangements for new academies’ but it appears that there will still be no requirement for the HTB to contain individuals with governance expertise.  This seems at odds with the requirements elsewhere in the document for governing boards to be entirely skills based.

 

  1. It is the trustees who are responsible for holding the headteacher or chief executive to account for the performance of the school(s) in the trust, not the RSC.  If a particular academy trust, is not succeeding then it is the trust board which must be held to account for the failure.   This lack of understanding of precisely who they are supposed to be holding to account is of considerable concern to the NGA and indicates the underlying lack of knowledge about governance and governance structures within both the Department for Education and professional educational staff.

 

  1. In addition, there are significant conflicts of interests where members of the Headteacher Boards are employed by MATs which may be potential sponsors of schools, or are headteachers of schools that may be directly or indirectly affected by RSC decisions. While NGA understands that measures are taken to manage these conflicts, the reality is that simply excluding the individual from the discussion and the formal decision making process, does not mean they do not unconsciously or consciously affect the decision.   Their underlying influence as a member of the HTB will still be felt and it is difficult to argue that the other board members’ consideration was not affected by their knowledge of the excluded individual. The Department for Education (DfE) sets out on its website the role of the RSCs.  The role is already extensive, encompassing as it does oversight of academy performance, decisions about academy sponsors and approving changes to open academies. NGA has significant concerns about the capacity within the existing RSC structure to carry out the responsibilities effectively.

 

  1. RSCs should accord governance arrangements more scrutiny at an early stage of their decision making with regard to academy conversion,   establishment of a free school and particularly crucially the expansion of multi-academy trusts. This would allow risks to be identified and strategies to address these risks to be put in place.

 

  1. Part of the RSCs roles is to take action when an academy is underperforming. However we are not convinced that the RSC has sufficient resources at his/her disposal to support struggling academes to improve. We understand that the aim is to achieve a self-improving system, but almost by definition, those underperforming are not participating well in that context.  They will most probably require at least for some time external expertise and this needs to be timely and  bespoke; it is not clear to us how the RSC brokers this or where the funding come from.

 

  1. NGA does think there is a significant lack of capacity in the system and this will become more acute with an expanded remit.   We would like to see at least a doubling of the RSCs, perhaps deputy in each region as well as greater number of support staff. 

 

  1. The relationship between individual schools and RSCs will vary according to the type of school and its circumstances. Relationships with underperforming academies and maintained schools which are eligible for intervention should be based on transparent professional dialogue, with the RSCs providing support and challenge as appropriate. Governors and school leaders in academies should have opportunities to raise concerns with RSCs in order that potential underperformance can be identified and addressed before problems become acute

 

  1. The relationship between RSCs and the local community should be one of open and transparent dialogue.  NGA recognises that what is needed to provide good educational outcomes for pupils and what the local community wants is not always the same thing and that in some cases it will be necessary for RSCs to make difficult or unpopular decisions about the future of a school. In these circumstances it is vital that there is meaningful dialogue with the community throughout the process and that the reasons for making this decision are communicated as clearly as possible. However this is a time consuming process and we are unconvinced that the RSC offices have the time to undertake this well.

 

 

 

 

April 2016