New Ofsted inspections of multi-academy trusts could begin as early as 2027, the government has announced.
Labour had already pledged to introduce Ofsted inspections at MATs during this Parliament.
Currently, Ofsted provides summary evaluations of trusts (MATSEs), which see it batch-inspect multiple schools within a trust. But it does not inspect the way their central teams work.
Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has confirmed government will introduce legislation to enable MAT inspections, via an amendment to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill.
Trust CEOs have welcomed it as a move that will “strengthen accountability” – but warned inspections must reflect “different sizes and approaches across the system”, and questioned whether Ofsted’s inspectors have the expertise to “do this well”.
Trust inspections “will focus on leadership, governance and impact,” said the Department for Education.
This will include “how effectively trusts improve schools, provide high quality education, support staff, use resources and promote pupil wellbeing”.
The approach “will celebrate excellence [and] support improvement”. But the Bill will also give the DfE “new powers of intervention to step in when trusts are not meeting acceptable standards”, including moving academies to “stronger” trusts.
“Trust inspection will recognise excellence, support improvement and ensure no child is overlooked, especially those with the greatest needs,” said Phillipson.
The DfE will draw up detailed plans with Ofsted and trust leaders, and the approach will be piloted before being rolled out.
The inspections are not expected to begin before the 2027-28 academic year.
Inspections ‘must have clear purpose’
The Confederation of School Trusts, the academy trust sector body, has welcomed the move but stressed inspections must “have a clear purpose” and allow for “diversity of approaches”.
“School trusts are a crucial part of our education system and it is welcome the Secretary of State has reiterated government’s support for their vital role,” said CST deputy chief executive Steve Rollett.
“It is appropriate trusts are accountable – as indeed they already are. Any new checks must however have a clear purpose and not duplicate or conflict with school inspections or regulation by the Department for Education.
“Trust inspection will also need a really clear and evidence-based concept of what quality looks like, while allowing for the diversity of approaches that is a key strength of the trust system.”
CST has previously said MAT inspections should not be graded.
Inspections ‘should not add to workloads’
More details on the format and delivery of MAT inspection reports will be shared by government in due course, and feedback will be sought from leaders.
Leaders’ union ASCL also welcomed the plans, but general secretary Pepe Di’Iasio agreed “careful consideration” must be given to the inspection framework, “particularly to ensure this does not add to already onerous workloads for school leaders”.
Emma Balchin, chief executive of the National Governance Association, said the framework should avoid “disincentivising trusts from taking on those schools which most need help, while ensuring any intervention as a result of inspection is proportionate and constructive”.
Tom Campbell, CEO of E-ACT, said MAT inspections could bring “real potential benefits” if “done well”.
He added trust-level inspections could help reduce pressure on leaders, by preventing them from “having the same conversations with Ofsted multiple times” about different academies.
But he also questioned whether there is currently “an inspection workforce with the right expertise to do this well”.
He pointed out MATs are “complex organisations and no two are the same”. Inspectors will need a deep understanding of how trusts operate and where accountability genuinely sits at local, regional and national level.
David Hatchett, CEO of Anthem, stressed the importance of “making sure inspectors have the right training so they have a secure understanding of the intricacies of how MATs work, especially around governance.”
This is long overdue.
What it must not become is work for the sake of work.
Measures need to be taken to hold trusts accountable for the recruitment and retention of staff. Some of the practices that drive people out of the profession are shielded by us not having this layer of accountability.
We also need to reach a stage where trusts are becoming increasingly ‘selective’ at the expense of vulnerable individuals within their given community.