Views & Opinion
Effective strategies and systems for MAT growth Comment by WILL JORDAN, Co-Founder of IMP Software
A year ago, the Schools White Paper Opportunity for All was published by government proposing reforms to the education system.
The case for a fully trust-led system was made and, as part of this, a requirement was set for all schools to be part of a MAT and for trusts to grow to at least 10 schools or 7,500 pupils by 2030. In terms of the sector’s ability to meet the seven-year timeframe, and also with reports that the ‘deadline’
has been relaxed if not dropped altogether, this desired outcome of the White Paper is currently shrouded in uncertainty.
At the time of writing, however, this is still the broad political direction of travel. So, having convened a range of perspectives from MAT leaders on the growth challenges facing trusts and document how their approaches are working in practice, a new report may help to inform and support discussion around a trust-led system.
The 2030 MAT Growth Challenge: Effective Strategies and Systems includes the perspectives of those who have hit the ‘magic’ number of schools/number of pupils set out and smaller MATs who are starting their growth journey.
Here are five key themes from the report: • Unintended consequences of 2030 target
Whilst our MAT Growth Survey found that 50% of MATs are targeting growth by one or two schools over the next 12-18 months, a further 33% are seeking between three and five new schools and 8.5% are aiming for five or more schools, movement appears slower than expected in the 12 months following the White Paper.
One trust leader interviewed highlighted how schools are seeing 2030 as the end point only. How there is a sense that they feel they have lots of time to get there and are not taking action. But also that schools are better off seeing who is are out there now, who is the best fit, and taking control of their destinies and futures.
The survey also reported that nearly a third of MATs are considering a merger with another trust over the next 12-18 months. Another report contributor spoke about how smaller MATs will be reflecting on whether they have gone as far as they could or should, and whether they can be stronger in a bigger organisation.
• Sensitivities around centralisation/pooling
The White Paper outlines how “strong trusts” achieve economies of scale, sharing resources, centralising functions, and ensuring robust financial governance, in order to build resilience and save time and money to reinvest into education.
In our MAT Growth Survey, 94% of respondents said that centralising more of their operations and/or funding could make them more effective organisations. And among those trusts that already GAG pool, 71% say their approach to pooling or centralisation has been either a positive or neutral factor for schools looking to join them.
However, as identified by the follow-on interviews with trust leaders, there are some opposing views on these and other issues (although the
20
www.education-today.co.uk
principle of sharing resources as part of the MAT ‘family’ was agreed upon). The common factor is degrees of ambition to centralise always lie with a trust’s organisational strategy. Interestingly, we also featured one trust which had expanded rapidly over a short period of time and, on reflection they said a more structured centralised approach would have been more beneficial.
• Top slice: varying percentages, varying returns Away from GAG pooling, the majority of MATs (67.5%) have a four to six per cent top slice/central charge and a further 14.5% charge seven to nine per cent. The standard across the sector is typically 5%, as per DfE modelling.
A leading finance expert spoke about how the sector seems to be hung up on the top-slice percentage when it is just a means of funding the central services that trusts provide to their schools. “If you are offering school improvement as well as finance, HR and premises in your centralised package, the percentage is likely to be higher than the typical 5%,” she added.
One MAT CEO highlighted how their two schools’ contribution is bigger than 5%, but the percentage will reduce as the trust grows due to economies of scale. Another pointed out that a 7% central levy trust may have significantly more support on offer and it would be wise to assess which model most benefits the school, not just which one is going to cost the most.
• Attracting more schools
Both in the short, medium and long-term, trusts are under more pressure than ever before to adopt smarter MAT finance, and consider the impact of their chosen operating model on their attractiveness to other schools as they seek to grow.
Whilst leaders are clear that organisational strategy will eventually support further growth, for many there is also strength is saying ‘no’ to schools, whether that is due to size, geography or a sense that certain schools would be better placed elsewhere. It is recognised by some that the make-up of the existing portfolio of schools in a MAT can make attracting schools of a different phase and type particularly challenging. Trusts highlighted many examples of how they have supported schools to maintain or improve Ofsted ratings and developed areas of education trust-wide, as well as achieving significant successes operationally. These come through back-office support in areas as finance, estates and HR. One MAT leader said that through GAG pooling they have been able to free up £1.5 million for curriculum and pastoral support.
• Tips on which trust to join
MAT leaders provided some really sound guidance for schools that are assessing their options around which trust they should join in the coming years.
Firstly, a general theme was the need to take your time and do not rush into anything. Schools should reflect on why they want to join one initially. It was also suggested that one of the ways to see if a MAT is the right one is to look at a ‘try before you buy’ model – possibly work with them as a partner at SLT level before committing to join the trust in an official capacity.
Secondly, explore vision, values and culture (and speak to others about the ‘lived’ experience, and ask the right questions. These may include: Which trust’s ethos aligns to your own? Which MAT will improve opportunities for children and staff? What are the central services and how will these be delivered? What is the financial state of the trust? Is there enough money to develop the estates? How will governance work?
April 2023
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
