Multi-academy trust
A multi-academy trust (MAT) is an independent charitable company limited by guarantee in England that operates two or more state-funded academies, which are publicly funded schools exempt from direct local authority oversight and instead receive funding directly from the Department for Education.[1][2] These trusts employ staff across their academies and hold trustees accountable for overall performance, enabling centralized governance while allowing individual schools some operational autonomy under a shared strategic framework.[2][3] Introduced as part of the academies programme launched in 2002 to drive school improvement and raise educational standards, MATs have expanded significantly, with over 1,170 trusts managing more than 5,000 schools by 2019, representing about 16% of England's schools and forming a core element of the national education system.[3][4] Proponents argue that MATs facilitate economies of scale, shared professional development, and rapid intervention in underperforming schools through mechanisms like resource pooling and standardized curricula, contributing to improved outcomes in high-performing trusts.[3][5] However, MATs have faced scrutiny over governance inconsistencies, with some exhibiting weak accountability leading to persistent poor pupil attainment despite substantial public funding, as highlighted by Ofsted inspections revealing inadequate leadership in certain large trusts.[6] Executive remuneration in top trusts has also drawn criticism for exceeding typical public sector norms without commensurate gains in educational results, prompting calls for tighter oversight.[6] Despite these challenges, the model persists as a key policy lever for systemic reform, with ongoing evaluations emphasizing the need for robust trustee expertise and data-driven decision-making to maximize impact.[3][5]Overview
Definition and Purpose
A multi-academy trust (MAT) is a charitable company limited by guarantee that operates as the legal entity governing two or more academies, which are state-funded independent schools in England exempt from direct local authority control.[3] Unlike single academy trusts, which manage only one academy, an MAT centralizes governance, with the trust itself—rather than individual schools—holding legal responsibility for operations, staff employment, and compliance with funding agreements from the Secretary of State for Education.[3] Trustees oversee strategic direction, while local governing bodies may handle delegated site-specific matters.[7] The core purpose of an MAT is to elevate educational standards across its academies by fostering collaboration, disseminating best practices, and leveraging economies of scale to enhance efficiency and sustainability.[3] This structure enables centralized support for functions like finance, human resources, and curriculum development, freeing school leaders to prioritize teaching and pupil outcomes.[3] The Department for Education promotes MAT formation to address underperformance in weaker schools through shared expertise and accountability, while preserving academy freedoms such as curriculum autonomy and admissions flexibility.[7] Ultimately, MATs aim to deliver moral and operational imperatives: improving learning quality via partnerships aligned with shared values, without pursuing profit as not-for-profit entities.[7]Key Features and Distinctions from Single Trusts
Multi-academy trusts (MATs) are charitable companies limited by guarantee that govern and operate two or more state-funded academies, enabling centralized oversight while allowing for localized decision-making in areas such as teaching and curriculum delivery.[2] Unlike standalone institutions, MATs facilitate the pooling of resources, including general annual grants from the Department for Education (DfE), to support cross-academy initiatives like staff training, procurement, and infrastructure improvements, which can yield economies of scale—such as reduced costs through MAT-wide contracts for services like finance and human resources.[3] This structure promotes collaboration on quality assurance, data-driven accountability, and sharing of best practices, with central trust boards holding ultimate responsibility for pupil outcomes across all academies.[8] A defining operational feature is the delegation of functions to local governing bodies or committees within individual academies, which handle day-to-day matters like admissions and exclusions, subject to the trust's overarching policies and DfE regulations.[8] MATs must ensure at least two parent trustee positions either on the central board or across local bodies, fostering parental input while maintaining strategic control at the trust level.[8] Financially, they can centralize budgets without limits on eligible funding streams, provided allocations prioritize educational needs and include appeal mechanisms for disputes, with unresolved issues escalating to the DfE.[8] This model supports intervention in underperforming academies through shared expertise, contrasting with more isolated operations elsewhere in the system. In distinction from single academy trusts (SATs), which govern only one academy and retain complete autonomy over its resources and decisions, MATs emphasize scalability and interdependence, often absorbing sponsored or converter academies to address weaknesses—98% of schools under directive academy orders in recent years have joined MATs rather than forming SATs.[3] [2] SATs lack the capacity for cross-school resource pooling, making them less equipped for systemic improvements like standardized behavior management or bulk procurement, though they avoid the potential dilution of school-specific ethos that can arise in larger MATs with dozens of academies.[3] Governance in MATs involves a tiered system with potential for slower local responsiveness due to central approvals, whereas SAT boards directly manage all aspects without delegation layers.[8] By 2018, approximately 75% of academies operated within MATs, reflecting policy incentives for growth to enhance efficiency and standards over isolated SAT models.[3]Historical Development
Origins in the Academy Programme (2002–2010)
The Academy Programme was initiated by the UK Labour government in March 2002, under Prime Minister Tony Blair and Education Secretary Estelle Morris, as a targeted intervention to improve educational outcomes in underperforming secondary schools, particularly in deprived urban areas.[9] The programme replaced failing local authority-maintained schools with independently operated academies, funded directly by central government through the Department for Education (DfE), bypassing local councils to enable greater autonomy in management, curriculum, and staffing.[3] Sponsors—typically businesses, philanthropists, faith groups, or universities—were required to contribute at least £2 million in capital costs per academy, in exchange for oversight roles via charitable trusts established to govern each school.[10] Early academies operated as single-school entities under these sponsor-led trusts, with the first opening in 2002 (Unity City Academy in Middlesbrough) and rapid expansion following; by 2005, 17 academies were operational, growing to 203 by March 2010.[11] The model emphasized private sector involvement to introduce innovative practices and break cycles of failure, with trusts signing funding agreements that granted freedoms from national pay scales and certain curriculum mandates, though accountability remained tied to performance targets set by the DfE and Ofsted inspections.[12] Initial evaluations showed mixed results, with some academies achieving improved GCSE attainment but others facing challenges in sustaining progress amid sponsor changes and high rebuilding costs averaging £20-25 million per site, often supplemented by government loans.[9] The seeds of multi-academy trusts (MATs) emerged within this framework as policymakers recognized the inefficiencies of frequent sponsor turnover—averaging every few years—which disrupted school stability; by the mid-2000s, the government encouraged high-performing sponsors to expand into "chains" of academies to leverage shared expertise, central procurement, and standardized improvement strategies across multiple sites.[13] Pioneering examples included the Harris Federation, which began sponsoring its first academy in 2006 and grew to multiple London schools by 2010, and ARK (Absolute Return for Kids), which opened its initial academies in 2007-2008 as part of a deliberate scaling model.[14] These proto-MATs operated under a single master funding agreement with the DfE, supplemented by per-school agreements, allowing trusts to centralize governance while retaining local school-level bodies for operational decisions.[3] By 2010, though most academies remained standalone, chain formations represented about 20-30% of the programme, laying the structural groundwork for broader MAT proliferation post-2010 through formalized legal and funding mechanisms.[15]Growth and Policy Shifts (2010–2020)
The Academies Act 2010, enacted by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, removed barriers to academy conversions for all maintained schools, enabling outstanding institutions to fast-track the process and marking a pivotal expansion beyond the Labour-era sponsored model focused on underperforming secondaries.[16][17] This policy, driven by Education Secretary Michael Gove, emphasized school autonomy from local authorities, curriculum freedoms, and performance incentives, resulting in academy numbers surging from 203 in January 2010 (serving under 200,000 pupils, all secondary) to 4,722 by January 2015 (enrolling 2.7 million pupils across primaries and secondaries).[18][17] Multi-academy trusts emerged as the dominant structure during this period, with academies increasingly forming or joining groups to leverage economies of scale, shared leadership, and centralized support services. From August 2012 onward, an rising share of new converters integrated into MATs rather than operating as single academy trusts, reflecting government encouragement for collaboration over isolation.[19] By 2015, while exact MAT-specific pupil figures varied, the framework positioned trusts as vehicles for replicating success in underperforming schools, with sponsored academies—often placed into MATs—targeting failing institutions.[18] Policy evolved under subsequent Conservative administrations, with the 2016 white paper Educational Excellence Everywhere endorsing MATs as the primary delivery mechanism for school improvement, urging trusts to expand to at least 10 schools for efficiency and expertise sharing.[20] The Education and Adoption Act 2016 mandated academy conversion for Ofsted-rated inadequate schools, typically via transfer to strong MATs, though the initial budget proposal for universal academisation by 2020 faced backlash over costs and evidence gaps, leading to its abandonment.[17] Growth persisted, with primary schools in MATs rising from 1,619 in 2015 to over 5,000 by 2021, and secondary MAT schools from 889 to 2,050, indicating sustained momentum into the decade's end despite moderated coercion.[18] By 2020, academies comprised a substantial portion of state-funded schools, with MATs housing the majority, though Department for Education data highlighted uneven trust performance rather than systemic superiority.[18]Recent Expansion and Reforms (2020–Present)
The number of academy schools operating within multi-academy trusts in England increased from 7,971 in 2020 to 9,806 in 2024, representing a 23% rise amid ongoing conversions and transfers.[21] By mid-2024, academies constituted over 50% of all open schools in England, with approximately 91% of them affiliated with multi-academy trusts rather than single trusts.[22][23] This expansion coincided with consolidation trends, as the average number of schools per multi-academy trust grew to nearly 12 by the 2023-24 academic year, an 11.4% year-on-year increase, driven by mergers and acquisitions to achieve economies of scale amid rising operational costs.[24] Fewer but larger trusts emerged, with central teams in major trusts drawing approximately £200 million from school budgets for administrative functions in 2024.[25] Policy reforms emphasized strengthened governance and standardization. The Department for Education updated the Academy Trust Handbook, effective September 1, 2025, to reinforce financial controls, risk management, and related-party transaction scrutiny for academy trusts.[8] The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, introduced in 2024-25, extended requirements for new teachers in academies to hold or pursue qualified teacher status, aligning them more closely with maintained schools, while granting trusts regulatory powers to manage pupil behavior through off-site directions.[26][27] These measures responded to critiques of variability in academy practices, though surveys indicated most academy leaders anticipated minimal operational disruption.[28] Financial pressures prompted adaptive reforms, including a tripling of in-year deficits among trusts since 2021, affecting three in five by 2024 due to escalating staff costs and special educational needs demands outpacing funding.[29] Government guidance encouraged collaboration between local authorities and trusts for significant changes, such as expansions, to ensure sufficient school places.[30] Amid these challenges, policymakers and analysts projected further growth in larger trusts to mitigate fiscal strains, with international interest in the model influencing reforms abroad.[21][31]Governance Framework
Central Trust Board and Trustees
The board of trustees, functioning as the central trust board, represents the paramount governing authority within a multi-academy trust (MAT), exercising ultimate accountability for the strategic oversight, financial integrity, and educational efficacy across all affiliated academies.[7][32] This body ensures alignment with the trust's charitable objectives, primarily the advancement of education for public benefit, while maintaining compliance with the academy funding agreement stipulated by the Secretary of State for Education.[8] In MATs, the board distinguishes itself by concentrating on trust-wide strategic imperatives, such as systemic risk mitigation and policy coherence, rather than site-specific operations.[7] Trustees discharge dual legal responsibilities as charity trustees under the Charities Act 2011—demanding prudent stewardship of trust resources and avoidance of conflicts—and as company directors under the Companies Act 2006, which imposes duties of skill, care, and diligence in decision-making.[32][33] The board must include a minimum of three trustees, with compositions typically expanded to incorporate specialized competencies in finance, education policy, and governance to fulfill core functions: formulating the trust's vision and ethos; scrutinizing executive performance against pupil outcomes and financial targets; and directing resource allocation to prioritize educational improvement.[32] No more than one-third of trustees may be trust employees, preserving independence.[32] Through a mandatory scheme of delegation, the board apportions operational duties—such as admissions, staffing, and curriculum implementation—to local governing bodies (LGBs) or sub-committees, tailored to academy needs (e.g., greater autonomy for high-performing schools).[7] Nonetheless, trustees retain non-delegable accountability for overarching compliance, including safeguarding protocols, statutory policies, and value-for-money assessments, reporting directly to the trust's members and the Department for Education.[8][7] All MATs require an independent governance professional to advise the board, excluding trustees, principals, or staff from this role to enhance objectivity.[34] This structure underscores the board's pivotal role in fostering economies of scale and consistent standards, while mitigating localized governance variances.[3]Local Governing Bodies
Local governing bodies (LGBs), also referred to as academy committees or local committees, operate as sub-committees of the multi-academy trust's (MAT) central board, established via a formal scheme of delegation to oversee academy-specific matters while the trust board holds ultimate legal accountability. These bodies bridge the trust board and individual schools, providing localized scrutiny, support, and challenge to headteachers on operational issues such as pupil performance, school policies, and stakeholder engagement, with responsibilities varying by the trust's delegation scheme.[35][36] The trust board determines whether to establish LGBs, their structure, and scope; most MATs maintain one per academy, but larger trusts may configure them to cover multiple schools or forgo them entirely in favor of direct central oversight, reflecting the board's discretion under academy regulations.[35][37] Composition is set by the trust board and typically includes 5–11 members appointed for their relevant expertise, often comprising parent representatives, staff, community figures, and trust-nominated individuals, without the statutory requirements for elections seen in maintained school governing bodies.[35] LGB members serve as agents of the trust board, lacking independent legal status or separate liability, with decisions subject to central review or revocation. Delegated functions commonly encompass monitoring pupil attainment and progress (reported in 91% of surveyed MATs), appraising headteacher performance (57%), managing school-level budgets (60%), and developing local policies (63%), enabling focused accountability at the academy level while aligning with trust-wide standards.[36] Unlike the central trust board, which addresses strategic, financial, and risk issues across the entire MAT, LGBs concentrate on site-specific execution, reporting upwards to ensure coherence and escalating issues as needed.[35] This model promotes efficiency in larger trusts but can limit LGB autonomy, with some members reporting underutilization due to retained central powers.[36] Policy updates, including provisions from 2018 onward, have enhanced flexibility for multi-school LGBs to adapt to trust growth.[37]Accountability Mechanisms to Government
Multi-academy trusts (MATs) in England are held accountable to the Secretary of State for Education primarily through contractual obligations outlined in their master funding agreement and supplemental funding agreements for individual academies, which stipulate compliance with statutory duties, governance standards, and performance expectations as conditions of receiving public funding from the Department for Education (DfE).[3][8] These agreements require trusts to adhere to the Academies Financial Handbook and the Academy Trust Handbook (ATH), with the 2025 ATH effective from September 1, 2025, mandating rigorous financial controls, value-for-money assessments, and annual reporting to ensure economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in resource use.[8][38] Financial accountability is enforced by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), which requires MATs to submit audited annual accounts to Companies House and the ESFA, with the trust's accounting officer—typically the chief executive—personally responsible for certifying compliance and propriety in fund handling.[38][8] The ESFA conducts proactive financial assessments and investigations into irregularities, such as related-party transactions or excessive executive pay, with powers to recover funds or impose financial notices to improve (FNI) if mismanagement is identified; for instance, in the 2023-2024 period, the ESFA issued multiple FNIs to trusts failing value-for-money tests.[38] Trustees must also publish detailed governance statements and annual reports on their websites, disclosing board composition, attendance, and risk management, enabling DfE oversight of charitable objects and public sector equality duty fulfillment.[38] Educational performance accountability involves submission of pupil attainment and progress data to the DfE, which regional schools commissioners review to monitor trust-wide outcomes against national benchmarks, with underperformance triggering interventions such as academy transfer directives or board resets.[39] Ofsted inspections focus on individual academies but incorporate MAT-level evaluations through summary evaluations (MATSEs), assessing trust capacity for school improvement, leadership support, and curriculum consistency; as of April 2023, these evaluations inform DfE decisions on trust expansion or merger approvals.[40][41] In cases of systemic failure, the DfE holds ultimate authority to terminate funding agreements, direct governance changes, or mandate trust reconfigurations, as exercised in over 20 interventions annually since 2020, often prioritizing evidence of sustained low progress scores over self-reported metrics.[39] This framework contrasts with local authority-maintained schools by emphasizing contractual and data-driven levers over direct operational control, though critics argue it relies heavily on trust self-regulation, prompting calls for enhanced DfE auditing capacity.[42]Operational Model
Resource Allocation and Centralization
In multi-academy trusts (MATs), resource allocation typically involves centralizing funding received from the Department for Education (DfE), primarily through the general annual grant (GAG), which constitutes the core revenue for academies. Trusts commonly employ top-slicing, deducting 2-6% of each academy's GAG to fund central services such as finance, human resources (HR), and procurement, with the percentage varying by trust size, Ofsted ratings, or fixed rates.[43] Alternatively, GAG pooling amalgamates all academy GAG into a single central fund, enabling flexible redistribution to address disparities, such as supporting underperforming schools, though this requires academy consent and appeals mechanisms.[43][44] By 2024, 32% of MATs utilized GAG pooling, up from 23% in 2022, reflecting a trend toward greater central control for financial equity.[45] Centralization extends to operational services, including HR, payroll, legal support, facilities management, IT, and procurement, allowing trusts to negotiate bulk contracts for items like cleaning and catering, which reduces administrative burdens and leverages economies of scale.[3][43] For instance, MAT-wide procurement has yielded savings such as £10,000 on payroll contracts in some cases, freeing school leaders to prioritize teaching.[43] Capital resources, like the School Condition Allocation (SCA) for building maintenance, are allocated directly by the DfE to larger MATs with five or more academies and at least 3,000 pupils, bypassing local authorities for streamlined investment.[43] In 2024, 61% of MATs operated fully centralized models, up from 47% in 2021, enhancing consistency in resource deployment across schools.[45] This approach yields measurable efficiencies, with MATs demonstrating stronger financial health—only 23% reported unsustainability in 2024 compared to 45% in maintained schools—attributable to shared expertise and reduced duplication.[45] GAG pooling, in particular, facilitates needs-based allocation, potentially improving overall trust performance by bolstering weaker academies, though evidence suggests benefits accrue mainly in trusts with financial variances among schools.[46][47] However, centralization can erode local autonomy, leading to slower decision-making, such as recruitment delays, and resentment over redistributed funds, with some academy leaders perceiving top-slices exceeding 3% as disproportionate.[3][48] Critics note risks of complexity in pooled systems and disincentives for high-performing schools to join, underscoring the need for transparent governance to mitigate distrust.[49][48]Curriculum Delivery and Standardization
Multi-academy trusts (MATs) oversee curriculum delivery primarily through school-level implementation, where individual academies exercise flexibility in pedagogical approaches while adhering to trust-defined principles and national statutory requirements for a broad and balanced curriculum.[3] This model allows trusts to centralize support functions such as professional development and resource sharing, but delivery remains adapted to local contexts, with trusts monitoring compliance via data and inspections.[3][41] Standardization in MATs emphasizes collaborative frameworks over uniform imposition, with trusts often developing shared schemes of work, assessment moderation, and subject networks to enhance consistency without eliminating school autonomy.[3] A 2016 Department for Education-commissioned study of 41 MATs and 121 schools found few trusts fully standardized curricula, though collaboration on planning and enrichment was increasing, particularly in larger trusts with over 11 schools, to leverage collective expertise.[3] High-performing MATs have been observed resisting prescriptive standardization of curriculum and pedagogy to preserve adaptive teaching practices suited to diverse pupil needs.[50] Evidence indicates variation by trust size and focus: larger MATs tend toward greater centralization for efficiency, such as standardized behavior-linked curriculum elements or trust-wide training, while smaller ones prioritize knowledge exchange.[3][51] For pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), some MATs deploy standardized curricula at trust level to ensure consistent support and resource allocation amid rising demand.[52] Ofsted evaluations of MATs assess curriculum quality through batched school inspections, emphasizing trust contributions to coherent delivery and pupil outcomes rather than rigid uniformity.[41] Challenges include potential mismatches between centralized elements and local demographics, which can limit responsiveness, alongside evidence that prescribed curricula do not alleviate teacher workloads or enhance self-efficacy.[3][53] Recent analyses highlight growing centralization risks eroding local governance input on curriculum decisions, though empirical data on widespread adoption remains limited post-2020.[54]Leadership and Staff Management
In multi-academy trusts (MATs), executive leadership typically centers on a chief executive officer (CEO) or equivalent who oversees strategic direction across academies, including staff-related decisions, supported by a central team that may include human resources (HR) directors and regional education directors. This structure enables centralized coordination of leadership functions, such as appointing headteachers and ensuring alignment with trust-wide policies on staffing, while local academy heads retain operational autonomy in day-to-day management.[3] The trust board collaborates with this executive layer to monitor leadership effectiveness, often through performance indicators tied to pupil outcomes and staff stability. Staff recruitment in MATs is frequently managed centrally to leverage economies of scale, with trusts able to set pay and conditions independently of national agreements, potentially offering competitive salaries to attract talent amid national shortages.[55] For instance, larger MATs employ dedicated HR functions to handle advertising, vetting, and induction processes across multiple sites, reducing administrative burden on individual schools.[56] However, this centralization can lead to perceptions of reduced local input, though evidence indicates it facilitates targeted hiring for disadvantaged areas.[3] Professional development and training are standardized trust-wide, with many MATs providing shared programs such as continuing professional development (CPD) courses in leadership competencies and subject expertise, often delivered through internal academies or partnerships.[56] This approach aims to build capacity across the trust, with CEOs responsible for fostering a coherent vision that includes staff skill enhancement, as outlined in Department for Education frameworks.[57] Performance management involves aligned appraisal systems, where central oversight ensures consistency in evaluations linked to pay progression and career pathways, though implementation varies by trust size.[55] Challenges in staff management persist, including high workload for leaders due to expanded remits and retention difficulties exacerbated by funding constraints and post-pandemic recovery.[58] Research highlights that while MATs can mitigate recruitment shortfalls through pooled resources, staff morale may suffer if central policies overlook school-specific needs, prompting calls for enhanced local governance input.[3] Government evaluations note that effective MATs address these via robust succession planning and wellbeing initiatives, yet systemic issues like teacher shortages affect 44% of the workforce in trusts as of 2019 data.[55]Performance Metrics
Attainment Data and League Table Comparisons
In England, the Department for Education (DfE) compiles annual attainment data for multi-academy trusts (MATs) through key performance indicators, including the percentage of pupils meeting expected standards at key stage 2 (KS2) in reading, writing, and mathematics, and at key stage 4 (KS4), metrics such as Attainment 8 (average GCSE achievement across eight subjects) and Progress 8 (value-added progress from KS2 to KS4). These data underpin league table comparisons via the DfE's Compare School Performance service, which ranks MATs against national benchmarks and peers, highlighting both aggregate trust-level outcomes and variations across constituent academies.[59][60] For 2023/24, DfE data segmented by school type reveal that converter academies (typically higher-performing schools that converted voluntarily and often join MATs) outperform local authority (LA) maintained schools, while sponsored academies (those converted from underperforming status, frequently integrated into MATs for improvement) lag behind. The table below summarizes KS4 outcomes:| School Type | Attainment 8 Score | Progress 8 Score |
|---|---|---|
| LA Maintained Schools | 47.0 | 0.02 |
| Sponsored Academies | 41.4 | -0.23 |
| Converter Academies | 49.4 | 0.10 |