When it comes to trust inspection, the government has been clear about two things.
First, it intends to introduce inspection at trust level from 2027-28. Second, it says it wants to work with the sector to get this right.
Those two statements now meet in the detail of legislation currently before Parliament.
And how ministers respond at this point will tell us a great deal about whether working with the sector is a genuine approach or simply a nice sounding phrase.
Proposed amendments to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill would establish, for the first time, the statutory basis for trust inspection.
This is not a minor technical change. It creates new powers, new judgments and new consequences at organisational level.
If trust inspection is to command confidence, the legislation underpinning it must be proportionate, precise and clearly aligned with its stated purpose.
That is why getting the legislation right is such an important first test.
A case of how, not if
Given the government’s manifesto commitment to introduce trust inspection, the question now is not whether trust inspection happens, but whether it is established in a way that truly strengthens the system.
The current legislative approach mirrors the framework used for school inspection. That has some obvious attractions: it is a familiar model and allows flexibility to be developed through regulations and an Ofsted framework later on.
Given the need for substantial research, development and piloting to underpin the new regime, this flexibility could be important as it allows for iteration.
But that same flexibility carries risks, particularly when legislation is brought forward quickly and ahead of a white paper.
Blunt judgments
Four issues stand out.
First, the legislation requires Ofsted to reach a fairly blunt judgment on trusts: acceptable or unacceptable.
At school level, there is existing convention and practice for judging when a school is causing concern, which is a rather hard-edged judgment that can result in the school being sponsored or rebrokered.
But does the same approach make sense at trust level? We don’t expect many trusts to be judged “unacceptable”, but what is the system’s capacity to respond if they are?
Second, intervention powers would apply across an entire trust even where concerns relate to a single academy.
The government has said trust inspection should focus on systemic issues in groups of academies, and not duplicate school inspection.
But as drafted the legislation allows whole-trust consequences to flow from isolated school-level problems.
We think the new intervention powers should only apply where serious issues affect more than one school, and that this should be considered proportionately given the size of the trust.
Concerns about an individual school should be addressed through existing school inspection and intervention arrangements.
Ad-hoc inspections
Third, the legislation allows for ad-hoc inspections without clear parameters. Given the significance of the consequences attached, the grounds and process for such inspections need to be transparent and tightly defined.
Finally, there is the question of timing.
The government is legislating now, with regulations and the Ofsted framework to follow, and with inspections potentially beginning as early as autumn 2027.
While the launch could be moved back we have to assess the proposal on the understanding that these could theoretically be rolled out in trusts from September 2027.
That leaves a very narrow window to consult properly, pilot effectively and build inspection capacity.
To give confidence to the sector we think the government should add a “commencement clause” that ensures that among other things proper consultation takes place prior to the legislation taking effect.
This is never about one government’s intent
None of these concerns amount to opposition to trust inspection in principle or seek to dilute it as an accountability mechanism.
They are about ensuring that the powers Parliament creates are used in a way that is fair, proportionate and genuinely bring about positive effects.
And, as ever with legislation, this is never about any one government’s intent. Legislation tends to outlive governments and, particularly when it’s drawn up at breakneck speed there are risks.
Ministers have indicated they want to work with the sector to shape this work.
The reality of that sentiment is not in speeches or strategy documents, but in whether sensible adjustments will be made following feedback along the way. How government moves forward with the legislation could provide the first test of this.
Your thoughts