There is a strong moral argument, and one that many CEOs would recognise, that MATs are very important community assets with responsibilities that extend beyond their duty to educate their own children. The argument for collaborating with other schools and playing a part in tackling local challenges is reinforced by the approach of leading international systems. It is also backed by educational research, such as the work of Michael Fullan, who says that “locality-based governance and partnership working is key to building school systems that can deliver excellence and equity”.
By working locally, we can create scope for producing extra capacity within schools, build upon historical relationships with and commitments to people and communities and reinforce local partnerships.
But don’t take mine or Michael Fullan’s word for it. The nine pilot LocalED projects and 34 school-led Area Education Partnerships are demonstrating first-hand the benefits to schools and MATs of strategically operating in their locality on behalf of their pupils. The Confederation of School Trusts has also been exploring a civic role for MATs. In fact, it could be argued that MATs are potentially disadvantaging their students if they are unable or unwilling to play a role as community assets in shaping and supporting the way services are delivered locally.
My recent report, The role of MATs in localities, draws on research from 10 per cent of local authorities (LAs) and shows that on average 60 per cent of MATs are made up of schools drawn from one LA. The percentage is much higher if Diocesan MATs, which equate to 20 per cent of all MATs, are included. They operate across LA boundaries but within a local faith community. What’s more, convertor academies which choose to join MATs mostly choose local MATs with very few opting for MATs with more than twenty schools. On the whole, there is little desire to become a small cog in a large machine.
The report spells out an ambitious local agenda for MATs to work with other local strategic partners on a raft of priorities, including school improvement, support for vulnerable pupils, the move to full academisation, pupil admissions, staff pooling costs, recruitment and retention.
MATs’ responsibilities extend beyond educating their own children
However, it’s important to note that there are still many schools – in some LAs, the majority of schools – which are not part of MATs. They still need to be engaged with and supported through strategic partnerships. It is not yet clear whether the DfE is planning to continue with the strategy of encouraging LAs to set up MATs, but if they are this would be likely to increase the locality focus.
There are, of course significant barriers to overcome. Many CEOs will point to a system which fosters competition between MATs and the indifference of the DfE in prioritise locality working except for in the 11 opportunity areas.
But recent research provides support for the argument to remove these barriers. Commenting on the benefits of local partnership work in Leading Education Networks, one MAT CEO working in an opportunity area said: “We are talking about this as a group as the best thing that we have ever done.” He praised its “positive role in getting us to where we are now” and new practices the partnership had brought about like regular research breakfasts where members look at evidence collectively.
The way MATs engage with localities is an important part of the ‘levelling up’ agenda. As Michael Gove put it recently when announcing a new devolution deal for the North East: “Devolution is all about leaders who breathe the region deciding what works best for their people and their business.” And it’s an agenda that has cross-party support. In her new book, All In, shadow community secretary, Lisa Nandy quotes George Orwell to make her point: “As a positive force, there is nothing to set beside it.”
So don’t just take my word for it. Locality work is and will be central to how education policy evolves, and MATs will need to be at the heart of it.
Your thoughts