The last few weeks have been potentially defining ones for the academy trust sector. However, there are mixed messages emerging that are hard to resolve, placing the trust sector at an inflection point.
Some could well be forgiven for thinking we’ve been here before. The new education white paper has set out the government’s commitment to an “all academy” sector.
It’s not the first white paper to make this pledge. However, whilst a predictable policy for a pro-academy Conservative government, this presents as a radical leap for a Labour one once considered, at most, “agnostic” about academies.
When it comes to trusts, however, three things in particular make this white paper different.
The first is visionary – that trusts will be encouraged to be (in my words) community centred organisations.
This is, happily, reinforced – to a degree – by something we at Forum Strategy have championed for some time: pure accountability, the notion that trusts and their end users should be collectively responsible to one another, locally, in shared endeavour.
The reforms place significant emphasis on community voice, not least through clearer expectations around local governance’s role in engaging with stakeholders, the potential reawakening of expectations around home-school agreements, new trust standards and the proposal for a trust “annual public benefit return”
At Forum Strategy we welcome this shift.
Community-centred trusts can ensure, at least, a partial return to meaningful local accountability through visible and accessible governance and community participation in informing direction.
A defined local identity can help to mobilise local players, such as employers, sports clubs, cultural institutions and public service agencies to contribute co-ordinated capacity and resourcing – not least around much needed enrichment and wellbeing efforts.
And they can be well placed to build and sustain “placed based” relationships to address key issues such as recruitment and retention, attendance and parental apathy.
Vision lacks detail
The second difference in this white paper is technical. There is literally no detail on how or by when the goal of an “all academy” sector will be achieved.
Indeed, there’s no view on what sustainable trusts within this new vision will look like in practice.
This lack of technical detail leaves a void. Only in the last month we have seen the suggestion that the system may be heading towards having the first national academy chain with over 100 schools.
Indeed, the white paper’s emphasis on community-centred trusts comes at a time when the general direction appears to be greater consolidation and mergers of trusts.
This direction feels to some like a technocratic approach, seemingly more driven by efforts to streamline administration and reduce costs in the system than to build community-centred institutions.
This at the very least should raise some big questions, especially in light of the white paper.
Can geographically spread trusts genuinely realise the benefits of the vision for community-centred trusts?
Can a board, say, one hundred miles down the road be sufficiently connected to the realities of schools’ localities to absorb sufficient contextual wisdom and genuine responsiveness into its strategic resourcing decisions?
Can a central team working across multiple counties sufficiently harness the power of “place-based” networks on behalf of all schools, or develop a collective commitment to improvement amongst heads based on the power of shared local identity and sustained and proximate relationships?
Or does great efficiency ultimately risk leading to greater brittleness?
A question of choice
From the other side of the fence, can locality-based trusts avoid the unintended consequences of becoming a potential monopoly?
Can genuine choice be retained for securing both proper accountability and a culture of learning and improvement between institutions? Or does greater local resourcefulness lead to a parochial culture immune to external challenge and innovation?
The fact these questions are not being asked at this juncture leaves the white paper’s proposals rather superficial.
The third key difference in this white paper is around a specific aspect of accountability itself.
This is the first white paper to propose trust inspection. And this presents another mixed message.
How will a standardised national inspection framework give sufficient air for community-centred trusts to breathe, and become genuinely driven by a focus on listening to and responding to the needs of its community and its pupils?
How will pure accountability fare when the role of Ofsted is ramped up, with all the incentives and potential consequences it brings?
And how ready is Ofsted to build the capacity, expertise, and resourcing to perform this very different role with care and nuance?
Some may ask whether trusts are already accountable enough to Ofsted through the inspection of their schools.
This is why the DfE’s lack of detail in the white paper presents us with few answers, and many more questions. This is an inflection point for the trust sector. And its direction still feels rather uncertain.
