9 March 2018
Last year a DfE survey asked a representative sample of 326 multi-academy trusts (MATs) and 542 Single Academy Trusts (SATs) to complete a survey that examined the reasons for conversion amongst their schools, use of their autonomy, collaboration, trust management and achieving financial efficiencies.
The full results are available here and make interesting reading, but we thought we’d share and comment on some of the key findings.
The headline findings were:
82% of MATs felt the creation of new opportunities to collaborate contributed to the decision of their schools to become academies.
UHY View : schools can often learn a lot from each other, and collaborating together can usually bring efficiencies and cost savings. LA schools and single academies can sometimes be reluctant to work closely with other local schools because these are seen as rivals for pupils and quality staff. This fear is removed in a MAT structure, encouraging collaboration for the benefit of the schools, their pupils and staff.
All or most of the schools in 82% of MATs and 89% of SATs have procured services previously provided by the LA from another provider.
UHY View : this should come as no real surprise since the freedoms academy status brings is often stated as a driver for conversion. We do still see some academies actively trying to maintain a link with their LA.
The changes perceived to be most important for MATs and SATs relate to improved procurement, which respondents feel lead to efficiencies.
UHY View : the freedoms passed to academies enable them to make their own choices over procurement. Free from the restriction from buying from the LA, academies can usually achieve better value for money in terms of cost or quality of service, and sometimes both. Academies understand the benefits of collaboration.
Virtually all MATs (96%) with two or more academies believe their structure has facilitated collaboration, and most have formal relationships with schools outside their trust.
UHY View : this echos the comments above regarding collaboration, but it is interesting that most MATs have relationships outside of their trust too. In many cases this may relate to the common scenario where MATs provide support to other schools for a period of time before they join the trust. With the new 'try before you buy' associate membership this may be something we see more of.
The vast majority (87%) of SATs support other schools.
UHY view: interestingly the great majority (80%) are providing support they did not provide prior to conversion. The main support cited was joint practice development (e.g. lesson study) (73%), running CPD courses (67%) and developing middle leadership (60%).
Most MATs, especially those that are larger, can provide examples of financial efficiencies achieved.
UHY View: the survey results list a number of different examples of financial efficiencies across a range of staff and non-staff related factors. It’s encouraging to see that MATs are confident that efficiencies can be delivered. Trust boards focus on strategy with operational matters delegated down the accountability structure.
The Trust Board predominantly handles financial compliance, senior appointments, legal compliance, risk management and holding headteachers to account.
UHY View : this is how a MAT structure should work. Trustees with the appropriate skill sets can deal with these top level issues, freeing local governing bodies and headteachers to concentrate on the operational matters which they are experienced in delivering.
The vast majority of trusts (and all larger trusts) have a qualified finance director. The average top-slice to provide central services is 4.6%.
UHY View : in our experience the larger, and to a lesser extent, the more established a MAT is, then the more likely it will have a qualified FD. Newly formed MATs with just two or three academies are often put off by the high salary cost. However the FD role should not be seen as an additional cost overhead, the role forms an important part of the senior management team. Many FDs look to fully centralise the finance function and the cost savings here can often be significant.
Most MATs have some prescription, but allow a degree of flexibility in how individual academies teach and deliver the curriculum.
UHY View : the degree of delegation varies considerably, but there needs to be some local autonomy. Some MATs develop a formal structure where the delegated authorities are graded according to the Ofsted rating of the schools.
The vast majority of trusts feel that the controls placed on them by DfE/ESFA are about right.
UHY View : the Academies Financial Handbook stipulates certain decisions that must be given Secretary of State approval, but all normal day to day decisions are made at trust level. It is right that entering into a finance lease, or agreeing a very large severance payment, for example, needs external approval. Trusts need to remember that in addition to specific scenarios listed in the AFH they are also required to obtain approval for 'novel' transactions. Defined as: “transactions...of which the academy trust has no experience, or are outside the range of normal business activity for the trust“ could capture quite a lot of scenarios. To protect yourself, and to be sure, remember to consider whether any less than routine transactions could be caught by this novel definition.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss any of the comments above then please contact your nearest UHY academy specialist. Alternatively, please fill out our contact form.
