Academy trust inspection is about to become more than just an ambition. As they legislate, ministers have a golden opportunity to set expectations that are both ambitious and achievable.
But without a sense of how inspection will operate in practice, there is a risk of creating bureaucracy and pressure for trusts and inspectors without improving outcomes for children.
At Challenge Partners, we have delivered trust peer reviews since 2018, independently evaluated by the National Foundation for Educational Research and informed by our experience in facilitating thousands of school quality assurance reviews.
Peer review is not inspection, and should not replace public accountability. But the parallels are close enough to offer practical lessons that ministers would do well to consider before committing their plans to legislation and subsequent regulations.
Be clear about purpose
Our reviews pivot around a simple question: what is this trust doing to improve the educational experience and outcomes for all pupils – and is it working? That question cuts across structure, scale and organisational philosophy.
If trust inspection does not start from the same core purpose, it risks becoming a compliance exercise rather than a lever for improvement.
At their best, inspections should strengthen public accountability while also matching the best of peer review in driving improvement and learning at trust and sector level.
Uphold high standards without imposing constraints
Trusts vary enormously in size, structure, and maturity. Unlike school performance, where the evidence base allows for detailed quality assurance rubrics, there is far less robust data on trust effectiveness.
We use detailed descriptors for school reviews, while trust peer reviews take a lighter-touch, question-led approach.
Ministers should ensure legislation allows for this flexibility. The bar for pupil outcomes must remain high. But the model for achieving them cannot be rigidly defined while the evidence is still emerging.
Don’t overreach on scope or expertise
Our peer reviews typically involve one lead reviewer and six peer reviewers working alongside host trust leaders over three days.
Even with this time and resource, there are limits to what a review can meaningfully cover.
We always focus on how the trust improves schools and outcomes. Beyond that, trusts can select one or two areas for additional scrutiny, using CST’s strong trusts assurance framework as a guide, with many choosing a focus on central operations or readiness for growth.
We avoid overreach into areas such as governance and finance, not because they’re not important, but because conducting audits requires specialist skills.
Inspectors are not accountants, procurement specialists, or legal experts.
If trust inspection requires Ofsted to make definitive judgments in these areas without the right skills in the inspection workforce, credibility will suffer. Ministers should ensure expectations align with the expertise inspection teams can realistically bring.
Clarify the interplay with school inspection
Trust inspection will also need a clear and realistic relationship with school inspection.
In our peer reviews, we rely on “climate walks” in a representative sample of schools to test alignment between trust leadership intent, what is happening in practice and whether it is having the desired impact.
We haven’t yet been able to devise a reliable way of connecting school and trust-level peer reviews, and this will be even harder for Ofsted given the numbers involved and longer gaps between school inspections.
Invest in the right people
Finally, quality will depend heavily on who conducts trust inspections.
Our own peer reviews are led by recently-retired CEOs of effective trusts, supported by trained peers from leadership, governance and operations roles.
That blend of expertise matters. If trust inspection is to command confidence, Ministers must invest just as deliberately in inspection capability.
Trust inspection is coming. But the most important decisions are being made now – not by inspectors, but by lawmakers.
If ministers want inspection to drive improvement rather than compliance, they should leave themselves room to learn, adapt and build on what the sector already knows.
Your thoughts