Governing collaborations: how boards engage with their communities in multi-academy trusts in England

Abstract

Decentralization policy in English education since 2010 has resulted in the creation of large groupings of schools as Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), governed and led by central leadership teams and trustees. However, research illustrates that many of these organisations are failing to connect with school communities and as a result are growing too distant from those they purport to serve. This paper uses documentary analysis and interviews with 30 MAT Board Members to examine this key area. The paper reveals that although there are some strategies in place to overcome this issue, that failure to implement fundamental processes such as communication strategies are leading to fragmentation and feelings of disconnect, particularly amongst trustees, and this raises questions as to the extent to which MATs are in touch with and serving their school communities.

Educational Leadership, Technology and COVID-19: Exploring Observations, Challenges and Future Predictions

“…There was strong evidence that, at times, challenges and tensions exist between the CEOs and the headteachers within their organisations when setting a direction for technology strategy, creating MAT-wide consistency and getting buy-in for support. These findings reflect existing research which describes the complexity of decisionmaking between the MATs and their school-based leadership teams (Baxter & Cornforth, 2019;Greany & Higham, 2018). All CEOs described their general leadership approach as empowering headteachers and schools to make decisions in the best interests of their school communities.…”

The scheme of delegation as a sensemaking framework in multi-academy trusts in England: Useful tool or constraint?

“…Gaining an understanding of the organisation and their place in it is even more demanding for governing boards than it may be for staff, as governing boards essentially sit on the periphery of the organization. Our previous research indicates that communication between levels of board is not always particularly effective, and that trustees often feel 'cut off 'from the schools within the trust, as well as being unclear about their particular roles (Baxter & Cornforth, 2019).…”

“…The first; effectively integrating individual schools into the organisation; the second; ensuring that governing boards at all levels understand their role and powers. Successful integration of a new school into a MAT often depends upon why the school joined the trust in the first place: Failing schools may be mandated to join a trust by the DfE, or they may have elected to join a trust, either to gain the support and back office services that, due to cuts, are often no longer provided by LEAs; Some schools fear takeover by predatory trusts that may impose their own model on schools, regardless of local school context and climate (Greany & Higham, 2018); some schools join trusts due to opportunities offered by the organization: an ethos that matches their own or the opportunity to gain expertise in areas they lack (Baxter & Cornforth, 2019). Whatever their reasons, their roles and responsibilities and boards change considerably on joining, as we explain in the next section.…”

“…The fourth mechanism: reducing biases, judgement errors, incompleteness and inconsistency, denotes the extent to which formalisation reduces individual biases by confronting assumptions and revising them in light of new information and interests. It , according to a number of reports, also allows opportunity for relevant information to be considered in decision making circumstances: this arose during our previous work on communication in MATs, when boards suddenly become aware of new information emanating from particular schools, which subsequently altered their expansion ambitions (see Baxter & Cornforth, 2019).…”

Strategic narrative in multi‐academy trusts in England: Principal drivers for expansion

“…In the case of stronger schools, their boards are most likely to have greater powers, delegated by the board of trustees, which will vary in their scope and range depending on the particular board. These arrangements are set out in a ‘formal scheme of delegation which schools are mandated by the Department of Education to display on their website’ (Baxter & Cornforth, , p. 4).…”