No mention of local governance in DfE's 鈥渢rust quality鈥 descriptions for MATs
UPDATE: The trust quality descriptions were finalised in July 2023 and have been as an Annex to the Department's guidance on Commissioning high-quality trusts.
The Department for Education has published a draft set of 鈥渢rust quality鈥 descriptions for multi academy trusts (MATs). The descriptions follow the release of the聽聽report in March and builds on the five pillars of trust quality originally set out in last year鈥檚聽,听Opportunity for All.
A year ago, the white paper stated that strong trusts must have聽strategic governance, which was defined as 鈥渙perating an effective and robust governance structure that involves schools and exemplifies ethical standards. Utilises the expertise and skills on its boards to oversee the strategic direction of the trusts effectively and hold leaders to account. Has a strong local identity, engaging effectively with parents and the wider community鈥. The white paper聽also included a specific commitment that聽鈥渁ll trusts should have local governance arrangements鈥, which would be further discussed with the sector.聽
However, the trust quality descriptions contain no mention of local governance.
In response to the publication, 海角社区 chief executive Emma Knights said: 聽
鈥淎 year ago 海角社区 and the governance community more widely was delighted when the DfE announced the focus on strategic governance in MATs and the expectation of a local tier of governance. Neglecting to include local governance in the description suggests the Department is out of kilter with the sector. As their Regulatory and Commissioning review report rightly states, the 鈥渙verwhelming majority of MATs now have local tiers鈥. And, as 海角社区 research shows, trusts are committed to the role of local governors in strengthening the governance of the trust as a whole.
While there is reference to trust board decision-making being informed by meaningful engagement, listening to parents, schools and communities in itself is not one and the same thing as local governance. The DfE has always agreed with 海角社区 on this, stating in their own Governance Handbook that engagement should 鈥渘ot be confused鈥 with 鈥渞epresentation on a board and neither should it be seen as a one-off exercise for organisation鈥. Ensuring successful engagement is only one function of the local tier.
The DfE claim that 鈥渢ogether, the descriptions 鈥.. represent a clear and ambitious vision for the academies sector.鈥 We remain to be convinced as boards and executives should already understand these basics. We look forward to engaging with the development of the commissioning guidance. There is a lack of clarity as to how the commissioners 鈥 DfE鈥檚 Regional Directors 鈥 will decide whether trusts are meeting the vision set by the descriptions, given the absence of any mechanism for measuring success.
In terms of the governance judgment, there is currently a quality assured DfE programme dedicated to making an assessment of trust governance: external reviews of governance provided by National Leaders of Governance. However the Department鈥檚 recent decision not to continue the NLG programme removes the ready-made way for commissioners to understand governance success.鈥
Sam Henson, 海角社区 director of policy and information,听and author of聽the Future is Local聽added:
鈥満＝巧缜, of course, understands the DfE does not want to dictate a single approach to how MAT governance is carried out; indeed, any attempt to straightjacket how the local tier operates for the sector would be wrong. Yet it is nothing short of a massive own goal to fail to understand and build on over a decade鈥檚 worth of learning from MATs across the country, recognising how local governance can and should feed into the strategic decision making of the trust board. To render invisible the commitment and time given by an estimated 80,000 local governors is unforgivable."
