The schools white paper has made one thing abundantly clear: ministers have placed multi-academy trusts at the heart of their vision for the future of education. It sets an expectation that all state-funded schools will “join or form high-quality school trusts”. It also positioned trusts as the key vehicle for system leadership and the school-level implementation of SEND reform in about 69 per cent of secondary schools, 40 per cent of primary schools and 38 per cent of special schools and alternative provision settings. As one might expect, trust leaders across the country have welcomed this ambition. Many have spent the first two years of this government’s tenure operating against a headwind created by two funding decisions made in the opening weeks of its tenure. Those decisions significantly undermined the development of the same multi-academy trusts that the white paper now identifies as the future. In autumn 2024, having been in office for a matter of weeks, the Starmer-Phillipson administration withdrew the trust capacity fund, ending all future rounds of trust growth funding. Weeks later, they announced the end of academy conversion support grants with almost immediate effect. Vital support removed These decisions removed vital financial support designed specifically to help young, growing trusts build capacity and support schools joining them. More importantly, to some, these seemingly victimless financial quick-wins for the Department for Education signalled something bigger – a marked departure from the ambitious direction set out in the Conservative government’s white paper in March 2022, which called for a “fully trust-led system”. From the outside looking in, one must assume that the money clawed back from the withdrawal of these trust-focused funding streams was redirected to the creation and launch of this government’s flagship RISE strategy. That strategy predominantly drew capacity, expertise and leadership from the very same trust sector from which the government had financially withdrawn. The impact of these initial decisions have had a profound impact on academy conversion rates (outside the faith sector). Academy conversions have slowed significantly in some regions. However, this confusion has not been felt evenly. Established trusts, funded through years of growth grants, but more importantly built in the context of a firm and clearly articulated government position on its educational strategy, are infinitely better positioned to withstand the financial and operational impact of this political limbo. Feeling abandoned They have had their financial “leg-up”, built operational and school improvement capacity under that regime, and are now perfectly positioned to receive even further government funding through RISE commissioning. Young, dynamic, growing trusts can only feel abandoned by the two-year hiatus inflicted on them. They find themselves as a critical part of the educational solution outlined in the white paper, despite this period of underinvestment. Was the previous government’s approach to waiving forced academy orders like the sword of Damocles too blunt? Yes. Did this damage the wider sector’s perception of academisation, making that process even more synonymous with underperformance? Yes. Is academisation the only way to raise standards, ensure robust financial governance and super-charge sector-wide collaboration? No But is a strong, well-supported trust sector still the “best bet” to driving through the ambitions of the schools white paper? Absolutely. As a trust leader, I implore Andy Burnham and Lucy Powell to get version 2.0 of this Labour government “off the fence” and to articulate with clarity and optimism their vision for trusts in our education system. Where’s the evidence? I urge them to share with the sector their “why”. Why does the DfE believe that all state-funded schools should “join or form high-quality school trusts”? What is the department’s evidence base? Why are strong trusts the embodiment of system-wide collaboration that the department feels must be at the centre of the education system? (which, as you might expect, I agree with). Governors, headteachers, staff and parents, who are rightly at the centre of informing a school’s position on academisation, are entitled to understand this rationale and the evidence base that supports it. Only then can we transcend this unnecessarily emotive battle of ideologies, and rationally and logically follow the facts in the best interests of young people. To date, this heart-and-minds piece has been unceremoniously dumped on the shoulders of trust leaders. We are left susceptible to accusations of self-serving salesmanship and “well you would say that” when discussing the benefits of academy conversion with schools. If trusts are the future, back them. If, within the current financial envelope, this isn’t possible, then at least come out and proudly back our trusts publicly, with clarity and optimism.