The AGM – pure compliance or opportunity to connect?

At the Chartered Governance Institute’s Academy Governance Summit on 25 January 2021, I chaired a session in which I ran a poll asking attendees whether their academies ran an annual general meeting (AGM) and, if so, how it was used. It is a topical question given that trusts have just signed off their annual report and accounts which are often then presented to members at this meeting. The results of the poll were interesting.

Less than 10% reported that their academies did not hold an AGM. Earlier versions of the model articles of association had no specific requirement for an AGM to be held and there is no obligation in company or charity law to compel academies to do so.

70% of attendees used their AGM to provide a full update to members on progress and plans for the future, with 18% of these opening up the AGM to other stakeholders. Only 20% of attendees held an AGM but only used it to cover the basics for members.

The current model articles of association contain a provision for a trust to hold an AGM each financial year. The AGM is held in addition to any other general meetings of members in the year and is identified as such in the notices calling the meeting. No more than 15 months can elapse between one AGM and the next with the first held within 18 months of incorporation.

The Companies Act 2006 contains detailed requirements around holding a general meeting, including an AGM, such as the mechanisms for calling a meeting, notice, voting, quorum, proxies, etc. However, there is little in the way of content that must be covered in an AGM apart from reappointing the auditor. Commonly, the annual report and accounts is also presented in this meeting but they could equally be sent to the members (Companies Act 2006 s423).

The last couple of years has seen an increasing importance put on the role of the members and the AGM gives a perfect opportunity to inform and empower them. Members must be ‘eyes on and hands off’, not involved in the day-to-day management of the trust, but need to make sure that they are cognisant of the trust’s performance as they are also usually responsible for the appointment and, when necessary, removal of the majority of trustees. As the Academies Financial Handbook 2020 states ‘It is important, therefore, for members to be kept informed about trust business so they can be assured that the board is exercising effective governance.’ What better way to do this than via an annual meeting.

Furthermore, if a trust is truly trying to operate transparently and engage with stakeholders and the community, the annual general meeting offers an ideal opportunity to showcase the best of what has happened and respond to feedback if anything has not gone according to plan. It is unlikely that many trusts will see AGMs attracting thousands of attendees as in the corporate sector, but it will give an alternative route for building strong relationships and meaningful stakeholder engagement. What is there to lose?

Jackie Weaver: Why you need an independent clerk

The last 48 hours have seen Jackie Weaver shoot to fame after a recording of a Zoom meeting of the Handforth Parish Council went viral. The meeting was fiery to say the least with raised voices and belligerent attitudes. Jackie remained calm despite the bullying and passive-aggressive laughter and, eventually, ‘kicked out’ the chair; removing him from the meeting.

Jackie is the Chief Officer at Cheshire Association of Local Councils. She was at the meeting to provide support and is not a member of the Handforth Parish Council. Whilst she is not the clerk to the Council, she encompasses exactly why it is so important to have an independent person in attendance with the authority to keep people in order. In a school or academy trust that person will be the clerk or governance professional.

The DfE has made clear the increasing prominence of the clerk. Baroness Berridge’s Foreword to the 2020 version of the Governance Handbook states that ‘robust and effective governance’ can only happen when boards are ‘accessing support and independent advice from a professional and effective clerk’.

It will always be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to act where there is the potential for conflict. When the clerk is also the headteacher’s PA, for example, it will be extremely hard for that person to speak out about poor or inappropriate behaviours; they will be setting themselves up against their line manager.

In the Handforth clip, Jackie remained calm. She did not get drawn into the arguments and was not cowed by the bullying. I suspect part of this comes from many years of experience and having seen meetings disintegrate into disarray before. But part of her strength comes from not being part of the group dynamic because she is not a councillor. In short, every board needs a Jackie Weaver and that person should be the governance professional.

Should the Chief Executive be appointed as a trustee?

In the latest model articles of association for academy trusts, it is no longer the case that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Head Teacher or Principal automatically holds an ex officio place on the board by virtue of their position. The articles contain a subtle shift in that the members can choose to appoint the CEO as a trustee subject to the CEO’s agreement.

The change to the articles marks a move towards the practice in the charity sector where chief executives are not generally appointed to the board of trustees. An academy trust is a charitable company and therefore governed by both charity law and company law.

In other words, the assumption is that there should be no employees (including the chief executive) on the board. Of course, there is a recognition that the CEO should be required to attend board meetings to give advice, present plans and be held to account. In fact, the work of the board is entirely academic without the involvement of the CEO. It is, though, difficult to envisage a situation where the CEO needs to be a trustee: they need to be involved in the discussions and evolution of strategy as they will be required to spearhead its implementation but they do not need to be a member of the board.

When the CEO is appointed to the board there is an inherent conflict of interest. The CEO has a personal economic interest in retaining the employed post and with enhancing its terms and conditions; they have an individual accountability by virtue of their appointment. There is a fundamental logical inconsistency: the CEO will, in effect, be their own employer, responsible for overseeing their own performance and agreeing any pay rises or performance related payments. This simply does not make sense and leads to the potential for external criticism: it fails the ‘Daily Mail test’.

The presence of the Chief Executive AS A TRUSTEE rather than as advisor to the board, being held accountable for performance towards the strategic direction, also has a subtle influence on discussion and decision making. It is essential that board members feel able to raise concerns, speak up or simply discuss matters to arrive at a decision for which they have collective responsibility. The CEO, by definition, has a different perspective and may skew the debate; whilst the CEO must attend board meetings and participate, discussion must remain a dialogue between the board and the CEO.

There is an increasing recognition by DfE of the need to separate the different layers in the leadership and management of academies to retain clear lines of accountability. DfE is already clear that it does not condone the appointment of employees to the board and the latest model articles outlaw it. The next logical step is to see a further move to instruct boards not to appoint the CEO as a trustee to preserve this separation of powers.

The paper ‘What governing boards and school leaders should expect from each other’[1] (November 2019) sets out the roles of the different players involved in governance with a view to improving the effectiveness of school governance. It states that ‘Underpinning it is an expectation that governing boards and school leaders will jointly develop effective working practices which are mutually supportive and respectful of each other’s roles and responsibilities.’ Not appointing the CEO to the board is not about disempowering them: it is about ensuring a robust governance structure that allows everyone to play their part.

---

[1] Produced jointly by Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), Institute of School Business Leadership (ISBL), Local Government Association, National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) and National Governance Association (NGA)

Don’t panic! Embrace the push to academise.

When George Osborne presented his Budget on Wednesday 16 March 2016, he announced his plan for all schools in England to become academies by 2022. The only thing that really surprised me about this was that anyone was surprised!

Social media is in uproar. Many are fearing that they are about to be ‘taken over’ and turned into something else. Figures about failing schools are being thrown about and whether academies are any better at turning them around.

Unfortunately, the focus in a lot of the dialogue is misplaced and the fear-mongering is preventing schools from seeing the situation clearly. The fact of the matter is that most schools are not ‘failing schools’. They are good. Some are outstanding. These are the schools who should accept this announcement as an opportunity to develop.

It is imperative that boards of governors now look at the situation and develop a strategy that will work for their school – a solution that will benefit their pupils. That solution will not be the same for every school. Luckily for schools, there is a huge amount of flexibility in the way that academies or multi academy trusts (‘MAT’) are organised. This means that the governing body can select the approach it wants.

What is an academy?

An academy is simply a state-funded independent school which is removed from local authority control.

Legally, academies are charitable companies limited by guarantee. This means that they must be registered as a company with Companies House and governance undertaken in the same way as any other company. They are also exempt charities and required to comply with charities law which place obligations on the academy particularly around profit-making.

Academies receive their funding directly from the Education Funding Agency (‘EFA’), the Department for Education agency specifically tasked with funding and compliance. Funding is calculated on a per-pupil basis in the same way as maintained schools. In any event, the move to a national funding formula should further reduce inconsistencies between schools.

Freedoms

Much is made of the greater freedoms afforded to academies. They can set their own pay and conditions for staff and have greater flexibility in relation to the delivery of the curriculum. In reality, most academies do not stray far from the norms set by the maintained sector. Secondary schools still need to ensure that their pupils are ready for external examinations by which the schools are currently measured. And, presumably, there will continue to be some form of standardised testing at primary level which pupils will need to pass. To a certain extent this removes the amount of flexibility that a school has in reality.

As far as staff pay is concerned, most academies are continuing to recognise the nationally agreed pay and conditions documents. They understand the importance of agreements made with the unions. The people running academies recognise that staff are their major asset and they need to keep them happy.

There is, however, also an increased freedom in how budgets are utilised. For a school joining a MAT this poses a risk. The individual school legally becomes part of that larger entity which will have ultimate say in how the money is spent to best benefit pupils. An individual school may find that it no longer has any say in how funding is used.

Embrace the opportunity

Although Mr Osborne expects all schools to be academies, those with solid ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ gradings should not rush to convert. Take your time, research your options and then make a considered choice.

Chose your bedfellows well. Joining a MAT is a big step and it is hard to get out once you are in. Exit from a MAT may involve a dip in standards and the choice about where your school goes taken away from you.

However, there are lots of exciting opportunities for collaboration on a more formal basis. Consider a federation to test the water – ‘living together’ for a while before embarking on ‘marriage’.

But make sure that you get your school community and stakeholders involved in a discourse. A lot of the social media hype is fuelled by fear. Fear of change; fear of the unknown. Get them involved and aware of the plans afoot – use the opportunity for consultation.

But most of all – plan your escape route.

Look at what other schools have done but make sure that the choice is personal and unique to your school and will positively impact on your pupils. If you are looking at a chain or MAT, make sure that it is adding value.

And once you know your options and have made your choice, agree a strategy and stick to it.

Academisation might be the end of schooling as we have known it, but it could just be the start of an exciting new era. Make sure you take that power into your own hands!

Thoughts on governance… OGA meeting

At the weekend I attended an open meeting of the Oxfordshire Governors’ Association (which is perhaps unfortunately known as OGA). Prior to the main speaker, we discussed what makes a good governor and the ideal constitution of a governing body. On my table were Stan, Chrissie, Farida and Catherine who had a range of experience from the newly-elected and enthusiastic parent governor right through to many years both involved in governance and in teaching. As a bit of an interloper, I was given the dubious honour of keeping the notes!

• What makes a good governor? Having a healthy scepticism is essential in a governor. It is important that they do not take things at face value and are prepared to delve deeper and ask probing questions. A skilled Headteacher can be very persuasive and it is the role of the governing body to look beyond what is presented.
• The skills audit could be used as a recruitment tool. I recounted a recent visit to a school which had recently held a parent governor election. They had sent out a letter describing the skills that were sought by the governing body and had been astounded when, instead of the usual uncontested election, they had received 9 nominations. Although this was only a single case, it was felt that pinpointing the skills required could help to highlight the importance of experienced and qualified individuals becoming governors.
• The current move was towards smaller governing bodies, but care should be taken that they do not get too small to function in a strategic and effective manner. It was thought that a board of 5-6 governors opened up the possibility of cronyism and reduced opportunities for a dissenting voice.  Having a small governing body also reduced the options when looking at committees and delegated authority.
• Training should be compulsory for all governors with a governor development plan for every governor on the governing body. There should be a full CPD programme which will would encompass mandatory training as well as more personalised requirements. Training could be undertaken via many different means including attendance at courses or meetings, online or use of twitter!
• Given the importance in the role of Chair, it was felt that there should be compulsory training with accreditation. Any individual taking the Chair should have undergone training and have achieved certification or should be working towards it. It was noted that FASNA have called for remuneration of the Chair of Governors to be ‘neither mandatory nor banned’ which could provide flexibility for governing bodies when considering appointment to this pivotal role.
• A story had recently appeared in the media about efforts in Birmingham by certain Muslim groups to infiltrate and ‘take over’ governing bodies. It was agreed that it would be relatively easy to do this and my table agreed that, as a group, we would be able to do so though we lacked the agenda! For this reason it was important that checks and balances were built into the system so that there could be no ‘take over’. Unfortunately there was insufficient time to consider what those checks should be.

The role of governor is key and it is essential that quality, committed individuals are recruited to the governing body. Care must also be taken to ensure that the constitution of the governing body meets the needs of the particular school with sufficient, skilled individuals able and willing to get involved in the business of governance.

Whilst the conversation made it clear that there were worries such as the reduction in size of governing bodies, there was a great deal of optimism. Governing bodies, despite being made up of unpaid volunteers, contain many skilled and committed individuals who are working hard in the best interests of their schools and the pupils that go there.

Personally, I feel if all governing bodies were made up of governors of the calibre of those on my table at the OGA meeting, then we could rest easy that governance in schools is assured!

Nurture 1314 – My wish for the new year

As we start 2014, it’s useful to reflect back on the year just passed and make plans for the new one.

2013 was an interesting year for me. I worked with an array of schools and academies: some still struggling with the concept of converting to academy status and others taking on the challenge and embracing all that it promises. I have worked with growing Multi-Academies creating governance structures robust enough to cope with the demands of running large multi-million pound businesses, but I have also worked with academies that are finding the conversion from a maintained school to charitable company harder than expected.

I have been extremely lucky to work with some amazing people through 2013 and met many Headteachers, educationalists, governors and other professionals working to make the academy agenda a reality. At the forefront of these are the inspirational Chairs of Governors/Directors that I’ve had the privilege to work with. These forceful people are leading the way in creating an educational landscape with new schools that have internal structures that are regulated and managed yet can take advantage of all that the academy constitution has to offer. Most importantly, these people are crafting educational provision that is the best for their pupils.

As we start 2014, I am very much focussed on my small contribution to this brave new world. As I finalise the book I am producing on running an academy, I hope that its guidance can be used to help academies come to terms with their responsibilities and embrace them. My wish for 2014 can only be that academies incorporate strong internal, and external, systems into their structures so that the actions of all those involved in the management of academies is effectively monitored and controlled. My wish is that the scandals that have arisen in 2013 in relation to academies and free schools such as Al-Madinah and Kings Science Academy are now things of the past. Here’s hoping that Directors all over the country have made their New Year’s Resolution to strengthen the controls on their schools to prevent any mismanagement or corruption from occurring!

 

My book can now be pre-ordered:

https://www.icsa.org.uk/bookshop/books/how-to-run-a-school-academy-trust

The race to file… The Annual Report and Accounts

Just before Christmas, accountants all over the country shut up shop and went home to relax with their families. The Annual Report and Accounts had finally been filed with Companies House and the EFA in respect of numerous academies to meet the deadline of 31 December. Whilst this isn’t a new phenomenon for the accountants, it is painfully new for many academies. In fact, the financial aspects of running an academy are, for most, the single largest difference from being a maintained school.

Academies are strange beasts with many guises: companies limited by guarantee, charities and public bodies. They are required by the conditions contained in their Funding Agreement to comply with the Academies Financial Handbook which sets out the responsibilities and requirements relating to the financial governance and management of academies.

The Handbook states that the EFA expects academies ‘to take full control of their financial affairs’:

• As companies, academies must produce audited company accounts
• As charities, academies must maintain accounting records and provide publicly accessible accounts in line with the statement of recommended practice (SORP) for charities
• As public bodies, academies must ensure regularity, propriety and value for money in their management of public funds

The financial year for an academy will run from 1 September to 31 August so that, unlike maintained schools, the academic year and the financial year will be brought into line. However, the Accounts Direction produced by the EFA which supplements the Academies Financial Handbook, also states that the audited accounts must be submitted to the EFA by 31 December – a mere 4 months after the end of the financial year and not the 9 months from the accounting reference date required by Companies House for any other private limited company. As most schools (and their accountants) will now tell you, this is too tight a deadline!

The Accounts Direction provides guidance for academies and their auditors when preparing and auditing the trust’s annual reports and financial statements. In essence, the financial statements to 31 August must be prepared and audited by an independent auditor prior to submission to the EFA by 31 December, and to the Companies Registrar as required under the Companies Act 2006.

The annual reports must also be prepared alongside the financial statements which include a report on behalf of the Directors, a governance statement, a statement on regularity, propriety and compliance and a statement of trustees’ responsibilities. These are submitted together with reports from the independent auditor on the financial statements and on regularity.

The reports are central, outlining the governance structure and confirming that there is an acceptable system of internal control. Academies are recipients of public funding and so must prepare a Governance Statement in accordance with HM Treasury requirements.

Rather than being simply a cumbersome reporting mechanism, it should be remembered that the annual report and accounts are an important opportunity to demonstrate the accountability and transparency which the academy holds dear. Instead of reluctantly publishing the accounts information simply to comply with the legal requirement, it is a way to encourage those who are involved with the academy to have confidence in it and the way that it is run.

What makes a great Chair of Governors? 10 main attributes

Yesterday I met up with Bob Wintringham, a highly experienced Chair with whom I have had the pleasure of working over the last couple of years. Bob has been extremely successful in his roles; he has Chaired 5 IEBs and was Chair of Faringdon Community College for over 20 years. He is now Chair of the Faringdon Academy of Schools, a multi-academy which has recently expanded from three to eight schools. It is a ground-breaking arrangement which includes infant, junior and primary schools alongside the secondary school. Most importantly it is one of the first to have Church of England schools in a multi-academy with community schools.

I asked Bob what was his secret? What makes a good Chair?

‘I build teams,’ he explained. ‘I build teams that are prepared to put in the work to achieve results.’

With a team largely comprised of unpaid volunteers this is no mean feat. But Bob does create remarkably cohesive teams who work well together.

Bob also feels the Chair’s relationship with the Headteacher is key to effectiveness in the role. But this is not some cosy, symbiotic relationship which does little to challenge the Headteacher or the organisation. In fact, quite the reverse.

‘The Chair must be able to have those difficult conversations. Sometimes there is no option but for the Headteacher to leave and the Chair must be able to recognise this and tell them.’

In fact, what Bob says really sums up the ‘Support and Challenge’ or ‘Critical Friend’ role that is at the heart of good governance.

What is more, Bob is a charismatic speaker and fantastic PR champion for the MAT. Although he is relatively softly spoken, he conveys an authority so that others stop to listen when he speaks. He has a credibility that comes from a deeply-held conviction that the actions of the Board, led by the Chair, can really make a difference to the children.

There is, of course, no simple formula for what makes a good Chair and it will differ from school to school, but the main attributes may be:

1. Ability to build effective teams
2. Good working relationship with the Headteacher
3. Willingness to have the ‘difficult’ conversations
4. PR champion
5. Credible public speaker
6. Understanding of educational environment and current changes
7. Excellent knowledge of the school and key staff
8. Ability to delegate
9. Effective chairing of meetings
10. Recognise the skills that the team has, and use them effectively

Free schools and the need for corporate governance

Much has been made of free schools by the media recently, but not in a positive way. There have been high-profile cases of failures by this new breed of school which have led to critics claiming that the free school model is fundamentally flawed and that public support is collapsing. But is it possible that those failures are, in fact, instances of mismanagement that have arisen due to a lack of corporate governance and observation by the governors of their legal duties?

In a report published on 17 October 2013, Ofsted judged Al-Madinah Muslim free school in Derby to be inadequate after an inspection triggered by complaints including whistleblowing by the Headteacher. The school was claimed to be ‘dysfunctional’ and was providing an ‘unacceptably poor standard of education’.  As well as alleged equality breaches, the school was found to have breached ‘Health and Safety’ requirements by failing to verify the qualifications of staff of complete CRB/DBS checks. DfE investigations were ongoing into allegations of irregularities involving contracts with suppliers.

Another prominent free school, Kings Science Academy in Bradford, has been accused of serious financial mismanagement with an EFA report identifying possible financial irregularities and fraud. The issues were featured in an edition of Newsnight which described how a DfE investigation in early 2013 found that fabricated invoices and over-claiming against legitimate payments were claimed against the original grant monies. In addition, a number of members of the Headteacher’s family were hired to work at the school.

But are these issues really due to the fact that the schools are ‘free schools’? Is the model flawed?

Free schools were set up by the coalition government following the general election in 2010. They are state-funded schools, independent of Local Authority control. Mainstream free schools are academically non-selective and subject to the School Admissions Code of Practice (with the exception that they are allowed to give priority to founders’ children). In other words, free schools are a type of academy. This has been recognised by the Labour shadow cabinet who plan to rebrand them ‘Parent led academies’ if, and when, it gets into power.  What sets free schools apart is that they can be set up by parents, teachers, charities or other groups.

Free schools are charitable companies limited by guarantee in just the same way as academies.  The main ‘contractual’ details are set out in the Funding Agreement which in essence requires the academy or free school to provide educational services in exchange for funding provided by the DfE. Appended to the Funding Agreement are the Memorandum and Articles of Association which are the constitution of the company and set out the rules by which the company must operate. Although the DfE has model versions of the documentation, this has changed over time and individual free schools/academies may have been able to negotiate variation from the model. This means that it is essential to check the school’s documentation to verify the specific requirements.

Major scandals such as Enron, Parmalat and BCCI, have already arisen in the corporate world and have led to an increased focus on corporate governance. The Cadbury Committee published a report ‘Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance’ in 1992 in which it defined corporate governance as ‘the system by which companies are directed and controlled’. The report proposed recommendations on the arrangement of company boards and accounting systems to mitigate risks and failures. The resultant UK Corporate Governance Code expanded this to state that the purpose of corporate governance is ‘to facilitate effective, entrepreneurial and prudent management that can deliver the long-term success of the company’. The principles contained in the Code are primarily aimed at listed companies. However, the principles relating to the operation of the Board should also be considered by free schools and academies, not least because they are the recipients of public funding:

• Every company should be headed by an effective board which is collectively responsible for the long-term success of the company.
• The board and its committees should have the appropriate balance of skills, experience, independence and knowledge of the company to enable them to discharge their respective duties and responsibilities effectively.
• The board should present a fair, balanced and understandable assessment of the company’s position and prospects.

Failure to observe these principles leaves a Board of Governors/Directors open to criticism that it has not acted appropriately and failed to fulfil the requirements of the Funding Agreement.

Furthermore, as Governors are Directors they have ‘general duties’ imposed on them by the Companies Act 2006:

• Duty to act within powers
• Duty to promote the success of the company
• Duty to exercise independent judgement
• Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
• Duty to avoid conflicts of interest
• Duty not to accept benefits from third parties
• Duty to declare interest in proposed transactions or arrangements (Directors must also declare an interest in any existing transaction or arrangements)

Governors have a fiduciary duty to their company, ie they must act with the ‘utmost good faith’. They also have a responsibility to ensure that the company complies with charity law requirements.

Those who do not act in good faith risk significant personal liabilities. In an extreme situation, a governor who is found to be acting fraudulently could be charged under criminal law and receive a prison sentence of up to ten years. Governors could also find themselves disqualified from acting as a director of a UK company for a period of up to 15 years as well as subject to a fine.

Unfortunately, although the principles of corporate governance should apply to free schools and academies, they are run by volunteers acting as Directors who often lack the skills or experience to understand the obligations. They are not aware of the requirements let alone ignore them. Most corporate bodies have professional individuals involved with the administration of its corporate governance. If errors can occur in this situation, what hope is there for free schools and academies?

Just like the corporate governance scandals that occupied the media in previous years, the instances of failures in free schools are few and far between. This is, of course, no reason to ignore the problems. However, it is not the structure of the free school that is at fault.

However, a more robust process to ensure ongoing financial and regulatory oversight is required to ensure that all academies and their Directors are appropriate guardians of funding and use it to the benefit of the pupils. One way of ensuring at school level that the obligations are being met is to engage the services of a company secretarial advisor who can highlight the areas of risk and ensure that a robust system in put into place.

 

Multi academy or umbrella trust? Considerations for the governing body

Deciding to convert to an academy is not an easy decision, but harder still is the question of the appropriate governance structure. Is it better to convert as a single academy or to join with other schools in an academy chain? Of course, it is always possible to work with like-minded schools in a collaborative partnership which involves no formal legal relationship.

The first converter academies became single academies. Needless to say, these schools were generally large schools, often secondary, rated as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted; they had the skills and resources to survive alone.

However, there has been a huge increase in the numbers of schools entering into academy chains which are able to provide wide-ranging support and expertise. These can be either multi academy trusts (MAT) or umbrella trusts (UT). But what is the difference and how does a governing body decide what is the most appropriate form for their school?

MATs

In a MAT a number of schools join together and form a single legal entity accountable for all schools in the MAT. The decision-making body of the MAT is the central Board of Directors and any local governing bodies in individual schools are akin to a committee. There is one set of Articles which governs all the academies in that Trust. The MAT has a Master Funding Agreement with the Secretary of State and each academy also has a Supplemental Funding Agreement. Each of the academies in the MAT has its own governing body or advisory body which deals with local issues.

MATs can take many formats ranging from the genuinely collaborative to a sponsorship model where the individual schools are effectively ‘taken over’ by the MAT. It is this latter form of chain which attracts a great deal of negative publicity as they hover over schools and sweep them up to transform them into ‘Stepford’ schools in their own image. Naturally, the picture is much more complex and there are many genuinely supportive chains and examples of a truly collective approach. Schools which do not have an ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’ Ofsted grading may be unable to show an ability to support school improvement and may need to join a sponsored academy.

UTs

A UT is a half-way house between a single academy and a MAT. A group of schools is linked together under an academy trust which spans all of them, but each school is an academy in their own right.

How to choose?

The governance structure appropriate will differ from school to school and their own circumstances. The governing body should consider:

• Does our school have a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating from the most recent report?
• Do we have the business and finance expertise and resources necessary to convert alone?
• Do we have the capacity for long-term school improvement and ability to raise standards further?
• How strong is our current partnership model? Is there scope for collaborative working?
• Do we want involvement in overall strategic control or would we prefer to focus on provision of teaching and learning within a defined structure?
• Is there a particular chain that we would want to join? Or any we wish to avoid?
• How important is it to us to remain legally independent?
• What skills/expertise/resources could we provide in a wider collaborative structure?
• If we are a faith school, what is the policy of our Diocese/overseeing body?
• What is our ideal scenario?