Beyond MATs – how local networks could help accelerate the development of MATs

The performance of MATs is, to quote the recent report of the Education Select Committee, ‘limited and variable’. We also know that many MATs are still in need of considerable strengthening and development. They can now access capacity building grants via their Regional School Commissioner and a growing range of development programmes are coming on line to help MAT leaders to reflect on and understand how they might build capacity. But I want to suggest that there might be sources of support for MATs that are much closer to home.

Listed below are ten areas of potential MAT weakness where local school partnerships, universities, employers,  local authorities and community organisations might be a source of practical help for MATs. In some localities the local education infrastructure may be very fragmented or broken. Some MATs may be operating in a local environment that is hostile to MATs. But there are areas where there is still a strong sense of local identity and a functioning education community. In these localities there is life beyond MATs and a range of networks that can provide support and resource.

MATs do not have to invent or do everything themselves. Forming a MAT is not a virility test. Nor do MATs have to prove their distinctiveness by turning their back on what is working well locally. Some MATs could make faster progress by being more open to using help that is on their doorstep.

Here are the 10 suggested areas where MATs might consider checking out what support is, or could be, available locally.

  1. Governance – an area-wide school partnership could provide MATs with links to the business community and the third sector, and establish a clearing house for identifying appropriate personnel for MAT boards and local governing bodies. Some small MATs might be well advised to continue using local authority clerking services – where they are knowledgable, efficient and cost effective.
  2. Leadership – a local teaching school alliance should be able to provide access to development programmes for aspiring, middle and senior leaders. Experienced local heads from outside a MAT may be equipped to act as mentors or coaches for new heads or executive heads within a MAT. School partnership boards could, along with their local authority and teaching school alliance (TSA), commission or provide a strategic programme for developing leadership talent. The Getting Ahead programme commissioned by the Mayor of London through Challenge Partners and PwC helps talented senior leaders to become future principals. It’s a prime example of what is possible on an area or regional basis.
  3. Quality assurance – this area is an obvious win. Many schools are now using structured peer review as a key plank of their improvement strategy. Peer review within a small or even medium-sized MAT will be limited in the value it adds. Academies within a MAT will gain from being challenged on their practice and will learn from participating in reviews of other schools and MATs. In areas such as Bradford, Wigan and Cumbria MATs are part of networks encompassing all schools that are sharing data and using this to commission support.
  4. Curriculum development – some of the most interesting and effective educational programmes both in this country and other jurisdictions have come when schools in an area or sub-region collaborate closely on designing and implementing a shared curriculum model. Maybe that is too ambitious to expect in the fragmented educational world of today but schools and colleges across an area – irrespective of whether they are part of a MAT or not – could support each other to implement curricular programmes such as Maths mastery, computer coding and the new GCSEs and T-levels. They are also more likely to get a positive response from employers if there is a co-ordinated approach to issues relating to work experience and business engagement. In addition TSAs can convene networks and master classes for subject leaders. And, schools across a locality can benefit hugely by practising systematic and rigorous moderation.
  5. School-to-school improvement – this is another obvious area where MATs can benefit from the combined strength of a broader base of schools. This may come in the form of specialist expertise to tackle particular challenges, high quality professional development programmes, inquiry-led learning projects or participating in one of the Education Endowment Foundation’s research projects.
  6. Staff recruitment – there is an overwhelming case for accelerating moves towards organising initial teacher education on a sub-regional basis. We need to end the tension between university and school-based routes and get schools and higher education working together to deliver a curriculum that, over a three to five year period, provides trainees with the academic knowledge, pedagogical expertise and the classroom skills they need to become effective, with assignments at different schools extending beyond the initial PGCE year. More immediately locality-based teacher recruitment pools and fairs and an area-wide approach to NQT and post-NQT development would benefit MATs.
  7. Behaviour management – it may be too much to expect collaboration around general admission procedures. But fair access protocols around hard-to-place pupils are a must and could provide the basis for co-ordinating access to alternative provision and sharing staff and units with specialist expertise.
  8. Special needs – this is another no-brainer where it makes sense for small MATs to collaborate with other schools in their area to commission assessment services for pupils with high-level needs, agree pathways for supporting pupils with different types and levels of need, develop SENCOs and co-ordinating access to specialist support.
  9. Pupil welfare and well-being – drawing on a local authority’s safeguarding expertise and the procedures and the practice of other MATs and schools will help new MATs make sure they are on top of a high-risk issue. There is also the potential for schools in a locality to use their collective muscle to pin down the support that children’s services and clinical commissioning groups will provide on issues such as mental health. Schools as a group could also develop an extra-curriculum offer or entitlement for every pupil by building links with arts, sporting and community organisations.
  10. Sustainability – at a time of acute budget pressures the numbers on a school’s roll are hugely significant. We cannot afford too much surplus capacity – much as the market purists may desire it. MATs should be first in line to support working with other schools and statutory agencies on agreeing a coherent plan for pupil places, free schools and post-16 provision. Competitive pressures should not prevent MATs from getting involved in dialogue on this. Nor should MAT hold back from sharing with each other their thinking around MAT growth – not least because MAT mergers are becoming a feature of the MAT landscape. There is also scope for MATs to collaborate with other MATs on the organisation of back office functions and/or to commission them from other providers (including potentially their local authority). It would be ludicrous to expect every MAT to try to be a self-sufficient provider of all the functions it needs.

Essentially my argument is this. MATs can become a powerful vehicle for improving pupil progress and outcomes but they need to focus more on school improvement. The more they can free themselves to focus on this by drawing on other parts of the local educational ecosystem to help accelerate their viability and capacity the better. If they do this they will also be helping to support the growth of a more responsive and more effective form of middle tier.






4 thoughts on “Beyond MATs – how local networks could help accelerate the development of MATs

  1. Robert

    This is an extremely interesting piece, which raises some very pithy, positive and productive issues for ensuring that within Multi Academy Trusts there are sound arrangements for effective school partnership, management and performance – to deliver the professional responsibility for children and young people.

    And you are right to draw from the concerns of the Education Select Committee, to reflect on which lessons need to be learnt in the light of experience: this is pretty much the first principle of education.

    Many of your “10 commandments” for reflection on these areas of common purpose should surely relate to any model of education management, including local authority community schools and the widespread and growing network of co-ooperative foundation Trusts within the maintained sector.
    As you will probably know, these are legally constructed partnerships with similar operational powers to academy Trusts, in which schools commit to working together for the same purpose and in order to deliver on the same agenda. It’s a field I know well, having worked in this sector for the last ten years.

    The self-evident difference is in the structural and legal (rather than professional) accountabilities.
    In some years’ time, I think it will be interesting and useful to undertake studies which compare the various models of education management in the early years of this century – to explore the key question of whether explicitly hierarchical management systems are intrinsically more effective in education than collegiate/co-operative models. Many would say that there is already research which provides the answer.

    The currently available data suggests nothing of significance in any direction on school performance, which in turn begs the question of whether the ends justify the means of extensive public service reorganisation and the costs involved. One can argue both that it is early days and that this is a bold experiment with public funding, which Mr Gove and his successors have justified with the consistent and controversial argument that we have had for many years a failing public education service.

    This was the basis of the DfE’s thesis for change, which many have challenged as a manipulation of data sets and indicators which cannot reasonably be compared, as these “facts” have been contaminated by convulsions in curriculum models, assessment methodology and indeed changing social priorities.
    I suspect that most observers would concede that the policy response which followed could possibly be justified if there were a quantum leap in school performance for first generation academy pupils which can be specifically attributed to the academy model.
    We are now at the point where that evidence can be independently and objectively assessed, by others more qualified to do so – and so far there is a lack of definitive proof supporting the argument for change.

    An interesting minor phenomenon, reflecting on your commentary, is the growing number of academies which have become partners in co-operative Foundation Trust partnerships – sharing an appetite for collective purpose and a common learning community or constituency, enjoying intellectual debate and shared accountability, in disregard of the legal identity, which somehow becomes irrelevant in such work.

    My own view as a class teacher, head teacher and for the last fifteen years as school partnership Director, was always that successful education provision needs to offer colleagues a fair degree of autonomy and scope for professional debate and judgement, once key performance indicators are established and underpinned with a shared mindset, ethos and values. This management climate will generally produce reflective practice and innovation, resulting in improved consistency, impact and outcomes for pupils.

    I haven’t changed my view: the alternative models of management culture somehow have a propensity to develop syndromes and behaviours which are not appropriate in public life.
    As you put it yourself, “forming a MAT is not a virility test” – yet regrettably, almost all the exemplars of unacceptable MAT behaviours and performance which also damage confidence in the wider public education service have been associated with powerful personalities who seem to project extremely macho management styles and have clearly been driven in a majority of cases by personal pecuniary interest.

    Self interest in this form is completely incompatible with public interest, which demands a more open and visible shared agenda. Some of this culture is fostered by decision-making which determines the use of public funding, also impacting upon pupils’ potential and community interests being undertaken in a manner which is unnecessarily secretive – often excused as being for “commercially sensitive” reasons, in dealing with public money. This is predicated on what is uncomfortably close to a bunker mentality, where only the privileged few and unchallenging voices have access to the powerful leaders of this new regime.

    In particular, having worked in a spirit of collegiality with some of the officers concerned, I believe that the Regional School Commissioners in particular would surely welcome new mechanisms to counter this impression, by developing and demonstrating greater transparency within the academy system and the use of public funds – as this report suggests. This would be in the best traditions of the civil service.

    As a first step in this direction, if only to remove the suggestion of conflicts of interest, many believe that in place of the current regional Head Teacher Board machinery which appears to include little representation of the maintained sector, it is time to open up a more democratic appointment process for public scrutiny of this key office within the DfE academy system. A simple approach to the task of raising school performance effectively would be to include regional Ofsted HMI, local authority advisers or maintained sector leaders, particularly to ensure that a rounded picture of schools in need of intervention results in proportionate and shared solutions.

    Recent and tragic events remind us (in an extreme context) that as a society, we need public services to be subject to contemporary public accountability – rather than to any retrospective public enquiry.

    In reality, 2017 presents both a mixed economy education service and a very vulnerable economic picture.
    At this point, accountability and impact must be the two headline criteria for judging the value of our social and financial investment in education provision.

    That is the main lesson I draw from the Education Select Committee’s 22 recommendations on systemic development. Their report is calling for significant change to address accountability models, because these will either underpin or undermine a system seeking to deliver public service more effectively.

    The message which you have extrapolated for leaders in the academy system is the need to address the latter with reference to an approach intrinsically well-rooted in strong partnership working.

    As a proponent of co-operative education, I am glad we have that – and probably much else – in common.

    • Jon

      Thank you for your comments. I don’t think we have to make a false choice between developing effective hierarchies and collaborative networks. As Michael Fullan has pointed out in a recent paper (The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 539-544) the challenge is to create “A system of continuous improvement and innovation that is simultaneously bottom-up, top-down and sideways”. We need sharp accountability AND lots of opportunities for collaborative learning. The two are not mutually exclusive.The challenge is to “cultivate a culture of purposeful learning that is neither too tightly controlled nor too loose”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s