There are clear advantages to being part of a MAT – notably the culture of collaboration that promotes shared subject expertise and best practice, as well as central systems that improve efficiency.
According to the Ofsted figures, more than half of schools improved their scores for overall effectiveness, outcomes for pupils and quality of teaching, learning and assessment. Encouragingly, 62% of schools increased their personal development, behaviour and welfare rating.
But it is important to remember that, even if MAT members benefit from shared resources and teaching knowledge, academy conversion does not resolve entrenched problems overnight nor does it automatically improve performance. Worryingly, in some cases, standards in newly transitioned academies have failed to rise at the same pace as those seen in council-run schools.
Research published by the Local Government Association (LGA) earlier this year found that 90% of maintained schools kept their Outstanding or Good rating, compared to 81% of those who converted to an academy. An impressive 88% of maintained schools requiring improvement in February 2014 went on to become Outstanding or Good, unlike 59% of those that became academies.
Onboarding any school brings challenges and risks for both new and existing trust members if it is not handled well. Nobody wants to see standards dragged down across the board because of financial mismanagement and inefficiencies, so what is the solution?
Along with shared subject expertise, growing MATs are also well-placed to streamline and improve their back-office functions. A central academy budgeting system, for example, allows the finance and senior management teams to manage increasingly complex budgets, quickly identifying any areas of over-spend and opportunities for investment.
Shared platforms, and access to the most up-to-date financial data, also helps academies move towards curriculum-based financial planning, which means they can make better use of their staffing resources to improve pupil outcomes. Of course, this way of working is not limited to large and complex MATs – single academies and maintained schools can also see results from leaner budgeting processes.
Whether a maintained school will deliver better results under LEA control, a single academy or as part of a MAT depends on the school itself.
Strong leadership and quality teaching, rather than the structure, usually determines the success of a school. As evidence from the LGA suggests, simply joining a trust is no guarantee of success. This is particularly true when trusts are facing challenges of their own, including financial problems, low pupil attainment, high staff turnover and poor governance in the wake of rapid growth.
An under-achieving LEA-funded school, joining an under-achieving MAT, could be extremely problematic, and there is a case to be made for drawing on the council’s experience to turn it around, while containing the issues to one site.
But that should not stop ambitious maintained schools becoming academies, as long as the transition is well-executed and supports every member of the trust to achieve more.