Amanda Spielman, Chief Inspector of Ofsted, late this week expressed concern that MATs ( Multi-Academy Trust) are not open for inspection considering their educational responsibilities with schools and finds such an arrangement “unnatural”. Over 700 interviewees from 41 academy trusts and 121 schools around the country participated in the survey of MATs.
The ensuing report noted concerns among the responders for the need to centralize finances across academy trusts. There was particular mention of the trusts
“charging a large top-slice and pooling finances across schools, with one headteacher reporting that the reserve they had built up had been given to schools less careful”.
Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills which inspects services providing education and skills for learners of all ages. They also inspect and regulate services that care for children and young people.
One recalls that Ofsted had previously asked the government for the power to inspect academy trusts. Although it can now carry out ‘summary evaluations’ of trusts, it has been warned by education secretary Damian Hinds to ensure these are not “undue burdens” on MATs.
The investigation by Ofsted dug deep into advantages, setbacks, and purposes of Trusts, while the published results recognized MATs accountability with their schools, they were deemed inadequate to self-assess their performances.
The Chief Inspector maintained that the short self-assessment by MATs is a reflection of their low level of responsibility in the state system and called on the Department for Education to assist Academy Trusts by developing an assessment framework that would include information on the influence of MATs in the quality of education.
According to the investigation report published by Ofsted, accountability status will inform stakeholders about the quality of service provided by MATs. Ofsted advocates inclusion in the inspection model. This model is the framework for schools and MAT inspection.
Spielman mentioned in the report that MATs had no feedback system in place which should be adapted to obtain information from stakeholders concerning their performance. Even the personal accounts of head-teachers are not collected or evaluated.
Plus, MAT administrators have not fully come to terms with their roles. The interrogation of governors regarding the function of MAT received conflicting answers such as being responsible for all and not being responsible for anything.
Some concerns expressed during the investigation include MAT not having a central financial controlling point, especially in collecting funds from schools. A respondent admitted that the Trust funds had been distributed to schools imprecisely due to the lack of centralized.
On the positive side, the report discussed how employees are optimistic about working with MAT, especially in the back – office support. The staff also expressed positive views about employee development and school improvement.
Amanda Spielman said that schools could not fully profit from being a part of MAT through back-office roles. She stated that continuing with this function will limit the administrative abilities of the schools.
Seven hundred interviewees, forty-one Academy Trust and one hundred and twenty-one schools in the nation took part in the survey which resulted in the report. On a general note, staff who partook in the survey exercise commended that process, that it is worth the pain for improved support on MAT.
