There is no set structure that suggests an ‘ideal’ configuration or shape for multi-academy trusts. Indeed, the DfE itself struggles to determine exactly what constitutes a large trust, let alone a strong one. The general trend seems to be towards MAT expansion, but the truth is that bigger doesn’t always mean better.
This isn’t about mega-trust bashing or setting up a David and Goliath battle for the soul of education; MATs of different sizes should coexist with ease. But appreciating that there is ample space for all sizes of trusts, we should recognise the specific benefits of smaller trusts within the educational ecosystem.
As CEO of one such small-yet-perfectly-formed organisation, I know there is tremendous value arising from smaller trusts with ambition, agility and clarity of purpose, with a shared common vision and a clear culture of inclusion, and with strong systems and processes. But smaller trusts often offer more than these; the organisation has a ‘feel’ that’s tangible to its staff and wider stakeholders, and which can make it more accessible to potential new and partner schools.
Smaller trusts also tend to nurture more collaborative relationships, where knowledge and strengths are shared and specialisms are valued. This can enable children within a community to receive a rich, broad, balanced and varied curriculum to suit their needs. Securing the right trust for the right school can ensure local context is celebrated in a way larger trusts can struggle to deliver.
This sense of belonging to an extended family, where everyone knows each other and staff regularly see the CEO and central team is the result of a careful balancing act, which upscaling can put at risk. But this very familiarity can facilitate the emergence of talent, skills development and succession planning from staff with first-hand knowledge of their schools and communities.
In a smaller team, talent has no hiding place
In a smaller team, talent has no hiding place. Some people simply don’t recognise how great they are and would never have the confidence to apply for promotion or step forward for a new challenge. Being visible as a leader across your schools means you are bound to spot great people doing great things; It’s easier to have a personal approach when working on a smaller scale.
Regardless of size, autonomy is a two-way discussion. When schools are working well, trusts can give more autonomy to school leaders who, in turn, will require high standards of the trust’s central team. This virtuous circle of high standards is arguably the defining characteristic of a winning partnership. Smaller trusts empower this on a bigger scale: schools are more likely to have a significant role in the direction the trust takes, and trusts can offer a greater depth of understanding and more bespoke support.
In addition, the systemic benefits of trusts aren’t limited to larger MATs. Our trust has significant experience of expansion and change leadership. We have created a satellite provision; we trade services in IT, SEND, and early help to name but a few; and we have set up service-level agreements to support local provisions – including with a football club. Meanwhile, schools can join us through the usual conversion route, or experience the trust way of life by working in collaboration with us or having an associate contract with access to our services.
Throughout all of these initiatives and more, our smaller size and flexible, highly skilled central team mean we are able to offer a creative and agile response to local needs while maintaining the family feel that sustains our schools as community assets.
It is not even necessarily true that larger trusts are better coordinated and can offer more because of their greater purchasing power and economies of scale. Trusts like ours can achieve the same benefits by arranging scaling up deals or collaborating with like-minded maintained schools and other small trusts.
Many schools will find they are well suited to larger trusts, and many will not. Delivering the MAT-led system is as much a local issue as a national one, and valuing small trusts is key to catering for the varying needs of every community.
Your thoughts