Multi-academy trusts are not automatically better than other models, but in a system under strain, purpose-led trusts may be our best chance, says Gemma Lavin
As we await the schools white paper, the conversation feels familiar. Behaviour. Attendance. SEND. Workforce. Standards. Accountability.
Each matters. But together, they point to something deeper than a list of policy challenges.
They describe a system operating under sustained strain – a perfect storm of rising need, shrinking capacity and public expectation, and an increasing risk that we mistake activity for progress.
It is tempting to ask whether our current ways of organising schools have lived up to their promise. The honest answer is: not always. Scale in itself guarantees nothing. Pretending otherwise weakens the case for system-level reform.
But it would equally be a mistake to conclude that the underlying idea – that schools are stronger when they work together – has failed.
Organisational maturity
Multi-academy trusts are the primary way this collaboration is realised at scale, providing a structure through which shared capacity, collective responsibility and mutual support can be built across schools.
Doing that well, however, requires organisational maturity. The organisations now carrying that responsibility are still relatively young, operating in conditions their original architects could not have anticipated.
Like any complex system, they take time to develop the coherence, feedback loops and trust required to function intelligently.
In such organisations, the impact of design choices is often felt later than the effort required to implement them, which is why clarity of purpose and leadership discipline matter as much as structure itself.
Why the debate needs reframing
Much of the scepticism about school groups and trusts stems from experiences where policy has outpaced purpose.
Structures were created, but operating models were not. Central teams were established, but not always designed to solve the problems schools could not solve alone. Systems were introduced, but without a clear view of how they can reduce workload, improve insight or support inclusion.
Well-led systems behave differently. They focus on reducing duplication, sharing intelligence early, creating consistency where it benefits pupils and flexibility where it benefits practice, and using digital systems to connect people and insight.
‘One trust, one team’ as a discipline, not a slogan
In the current climate, working as one organisation is not a branding exercise. It is a leadership discipline.
It means making choices that favour long-term capacity over short-term autonomy. It means explaining decisions clearly and repeatedly. It means aligning systems, practice and culture around a shared moral purpose.
That work is slow. It is unfinished. And it is exactly what this moment demands.
There is, however, a reality the sector does not always name clearly enough.
Moving from a group of schools to a genuinely coherent system often requires focused effort and adjustment before its benefits are realised.
Aligning systems, adopting shared platforms and changing ways of working can feel like extra workload in the early stages, particularly because the benefits are structural and long-term, while the disruption is immediate and personal. Judging change from the middle of it is often misleading.
For those who join part-way through a journey of system-building, it can appear as though the organisation is adding complexity rather than removing it. They may encounter change before they experience the full dividend of working as part of a coherent system.
This is not a sign the work is misguided. It is a predictable feature of building systems.
Purpose-led systems do not pretend this phase is effortless. Instead, clear leadership, shared purpose and consistent communication turn what could feel like disruption into a shared effort towards greater impact.
Over time, what once felt complex becomes clearer, more predictable and easier to sustain.
A better question for the next phase
As the white paper approaches, the more important question may not be whether one structure is better than another, but whether we are prepared to thoughtfully adapt how our trusts and organisations work, ensuring roles, support and ways of working are clearly understood, collectively shaped, and fit for the challenges schools now face.
In a system under sustained strain, purpose-led organisations working together can create capacity, coherence and resilience that no school can build alone.
Your thoughts