The Department for Education’s plan to introduce inspections of multi-academy trusts has, predictably, raised eyebrows across the sector.
The idea is not a new one but now that it’s firmly back on the table, what’s clear is that any workable inspection framework will need some very careful design - especially given the broader changes taking place at Ofsted.
Concerns are, of course, well-founded. Many trust leaders are understandably anxious about the introduction of what could become a second layer of inspection, with all the attendant risks: increased workload, added pressure on already stretched improvement teams and the further erosion of staff morale in a system that is spluttering on, on the last fumes in the tank.
Introducing MAT inspections
Yet we should pause before engaging in collective hand-wringing and doom-mongering.
Done well, MAT inspections could offer a rare opportunity to bridge the gap between trust-level strategy and school-level experience - something the current arrangements simply don’t achieve.
At the moment, Ofsted’s engagement with trusts is often relegated to a short conversation with the chief executive on the second day of a school inspection, and often this involves inspection teams who don’t really have any experience of how trusts work (or, indeed, how different trusts work differently).
In effect, this amounts to no more than a cursory regulatory glance in the direction of the most powerful structural force in England’s education system, rather than a rigorous and thoughtful assessment of that structure.
How the system could work
There are already models in place that could be adapted. In further education, large college groups are inspected through a sampling model over an extended period. Inspectors visit multiple sites, building a broader picture of quality across the group.
This could be a useful starting point for larger MATs. However, there is a not insignificant issue with this approach: with the move towards school-level inspection “report cards”, it is hard to see how such a light-touch approach could yield enough information to support meaningful accountability at trust or school level.
But there’s a third way.
With intelligent scheduling, it should be possible for inspection teams to visit a small number of schools across different phases within a MAT over a two-week period, while also engaging in a structured dialogue with trust leaders.
This would allow for a more nuanced and balanced picture of how a trust adds value across its schools. Crucially, it would place trust-level impact under scrutiny without reducing schools to data points in a spreadsheet.
For Ofsted, the benefits are significant. Inspectors would gain more time to explore how the trust’s central functions support teaching, leadership and governance in its schools. They would also have access to school improvement leads and other key personnel beyond the CEO.
In short, they could assess not just whether schools are improving but how, and what role, the trust is playing in making that happen.
How MATs could benefit
A clear, published framework would reduce the ambiguity that currently surrounds trust accountability.
It would give improvement teams a benchmark to work to and give leaders space to demonstrate how they are responding to the communities they serve - particularly in the most disadvantaged areas, where context matters and generalisations often fail.
There are system-wide benefits, too. Trust inspections could generate a valuable research base about what works at scale and what does not. They could also provide schools that are considering joining a MAT with better, more transparent information.
At present decisions are often based on reputation and hearsay. A credible inspection regime could make that process more evidence-informed.
Parents stand to gain as well. Most do not understand the role of trusts, and why should they? It is rarely explained. A national framework for inspecting MATs could go some way to demystifying this, helping parents to see how public money is being used to support their children’s education.
For too long those with the slickest marketing or the most vocal social media presence have dominated the conversation about MAT effectiveness. A credible and fair inspection process could redress the balance. It would not silence these voices, but it would provide a counterpoint grounded in professional observation and evidence.
A grown-up conversation
We are still in the early stages of shaping the MAT system.
That process will not be complete until we can move beyond a debate focused on structure to one that prioritises quality.
If MAT inspections are carefully designed and sensitively implemented, they could be a step towards that more grown-up conversation that the sector is crying out for.
Over to you Ofsted….
Seamus Murphy is CEO of Turner Schools multi-academy trust
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on and on
