As a result of new guidance this week, there’s now greater transparency about why trusts will be allowed to grow, and how they can make the case for growth. In this article, Michael Pain writes that trusts need to work hard to ensure their evidence base is strong and is clearly articulated, whilst not losing sight of the culture, community and creativity that is the fundamental underpinning of thriving trusts.
This week saw the Department for Education publish more detail on its approach to trust growth, with guidance on ‘commissioning high quality trusts’. The documentation is encouraging in that it provides much greater transparency around the decision making process for permitting trust growth and the taking on of more schools, more clarity about what is expected from trusts in order to grow, and demonstrates a clear intention to take a rounded view of a trust’s position. For example, it recognises that taking on challenging schools is hard work and takes time, and also takes into account the impact of pandemic on data and performance. The documentation also, almost unnoticed, moves away from the terminology of a ‘strong’ trust – a label that we at Forum Strategy and many of our members had real reservations about and which we have articulated at a system level for a number of months now. It seems this has worked – and we now have ‘high quality trusts’ instead. This is a positive step and should be acknowledged.
One of the most important aspects of the documentation for trust leaders is Annex B, which focuses on Trust Quality Evidence. The document aligns with and underpins the Department’s five pillars of trust quality, and will be used to determine a trust’s ability to take a school(s) on and to grow. It is therefore a crucial document in planning for trust development and growth.
Whilst it is helpful in ascertaining the range and type of evidence the Regions Group will review in order to make its decisions – most of which is not surprising, it also raises questions for trust leaders about how well they know their trusts and areas where they, perhaps, need to be better at articulating their approach and ensuring they have the necessary evidence of impact. This is particularly the case in areas such as staff workload and wellbeing, teacher and leader retention, system leadership work, the impact of CPD, financial management and evaluation of governance, and – a huge one – articulating the trust’s school improvement model and strategy in clear terms and with evidence of impact over time.
N.B. Substantial parts of the Trust Quality Evidence document refer to ‘examples’ of verifiers and qualitative information, which implies this is not yet the whole story. There is certainly more to come and more work to be done by the Department on this guidance. I strongly encourage you to read the source documentation alongside this article for the full range of evidence referred to in it.
The five pillars and the categories of evidence
Let’s begin with the five pillars of trust quality, these are:
- High-Quality and Inclusive Education
- School Improvement
- Workforce
- Finance and Operations
- Governance and Leadership
There will be three categories of evidence considered by Regions Group: Headline metrics (“help us build our hypothesis and prompt further questions”); Verifiers (“provide more in-depth data for a richer understanding of the trust”); and Qualitative evidence (“enables us to explore areas where data is not easily available or where it does not tell the whole story”). The Department is working towards having headline metrics for all pillars. For now, however, Regions Group will rely on verifier and qualitative evidence for Workforce, and on qualitative evidence to assess the quality of a trust’s governance.
The guidance states that the “approach to evaluating evidence is not algorithmic or linear. It is informed by data rather than determined by data. Each commissioning decision is based on professional judgment. Regions Group will assess the relevant evidence to the particular commissioning scenario. They will consider the needs and characteristics of the schools, the trust, and the local area in order to form an objective judgement. No single metric is determinative of trust quality. Instead, we use a range of metrics to provide a holistic picture of trust quality.” So far, so good…
Considerations will begin with financial performance and governance compliance
The commissioning guidance is clear that “Regions Group will perform an initial objective assessment of financial performance and governance compliance for any trust or trusts under consideration for growth. This will identify if a trust is in receipt of a Notice to Improve, or where concerns exist regarding the trust’s compliance with the financial and/or governance requirements set out in the Academy Trust Handbook and/or its Funding Agreement. Regions Group will consider any contextual information when performing this assessment. Trusts that fail to meet these conditions would be ruled out for further growth at that time.”
Then… determining pillar one – high quality and inclusive education
If no concerns have been identified when performing early finance and governance checks, Regions Group will then examine headline metrics related to the High-Quality and Inclusive Education pillar to form a hypothesis about the trust’s quality. The headline metrics are drawn, in part, from the multi-academy trust performance tables. The metrics can be used to compare trusts both nationally and locally – depending on where the trust operates. Of course, trusts of less than three schools in the same phase or those schools that have not been in the trust for three years will not feature in the multi-academy trust performance tables. In this situation, it seems that consideration will be given instead to the school-level data available for each trust.
This focus on performance tables, it appears, is not at the expense of nuance, however. First of all the guidance states that “we will continue to use performance data with caution following the impact of the pandemic, which we know affected individual schools, colleges and pupils differently.” Decisions will continue to be informed by a range of factors and not simply a single year’s test or assessment results.
In terms of the performance tables and data, the headline metrics that can be taken into account include phonics pass rate (%); the percentage of pupils meeting expected standards in Reading, Writing, and Maths (KS2); Progress 8; EBacc entry rate (%); EBacc average point score at KS4; the average point score for students taking A-levels and other qualifications (KS5); and the percentage of schools in the trust with a Good/Outstanding Ofsted judgement.
However, to help with the initial picture, these headline metrics will be plotted against a range of key verifiers which include measures such as average progress in Reading, Writing and Maths; the percentage of disadvantaged pupils; the percentage of pupils with SEND support and ECHP; and the percentage of pupils in the trust with English as an additional language.
In terms of the evidence considered in the qualitative category under this pillar, the guidance suggests reference to Ofsted reports and Regions Group conversations with both the trust and the LA. In terms of the latter, the guidance says “this can establish how well they collaborate in areas such as SEND/AP, admissions, sufficiency, safeguarding and attendance – these conversations will take place on a risk based basis and will be informed by evidence.”
In relation to special schools and Alternative Provision, it states that the principles and processes described above apply to all schools. However, when assessing the quality of a trust to run specialist and AP schools, Regions Group “will look in particular for strong evidence of expertise in managing such specialist provision. We also recognise the challenges in using traditional academic performance metrics to assess the quality of education provision in specialist and AP settings. This means a wider range of metrics and intelligence will be needed to ensure decisions meet the specific needs of the pupils of the school or schools in question, for example: School Ofsted reports, post-16 destination and absence data.” Regions Group will also consider the strategic plans of the relevant local authorities as the body responsible for both commissioning and funding high needs places.
School Improvement
In terms of determining a trust’s ability to take on challenging schools and deliver broad and sustainable improvement in previously underperforming schools, the guidance considers a number of sources of evidence.
It will look at ‘attainment trajectories’, essentially changes in pupil attainment over time in the trust’s schools. Sponsored and convertor schools in a trust will be considered separately and the trajectory of performance pre- and post joining the trust will be analysed. Consideration, it says, will be given to context, such as the uneven influence of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the consistency of impact that the trust has had. The guidance states that the government does not currently have a consistent timeseries of school attainment results which is necessary to create metrics that systematically quantify changes in school attainment over time, and that it will start to introduce these measures from 2024/25.
In terms of verifier metrics, these include changes in Ofsted grading, and will take into account not only the number of instances where schools have improved since joining the trust to good/outstanding, but also allow for taking into account improvement from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, where improvement to Good has not been possible in a single inspection cycle. Regions Group, where relevant, will consider the support that an incoming trust may have given to a school ahead of joining the trust which could have contributed to the change in grading.
Other verifiers the document refers to include attendance in trust schools, how quickly schools improved, the characteristics of schools that have improved, and how recently a trust has improved its schools.
When it comes to the qualitative information, this is where there is less detail currently, and trusts will need to be thinking through for themselves about how ready they are to make their case. Certainly, it will be key that trusts are able to clearly articulate their school improvement strategy, and its impact; their experience with similar schools to the one (or more) they are hoping to take on; and their current capacity to provide the additional school improvement support. I suspect many trusts will be keen to do plenty of work here to ensure their model and its impact are as clear as possible. There’s some really useful reflective questions in this document from Forum Strategy, which may provide a helpful starting point in terms of articulating the school improvement model itself:.7 Pillars of Improvement at Scale | Forum Strategy
Workforce
It is encouraging that the commissioning guidance recognises the fundamental importance of the workforce to a trust’s sustainable success. Indeed, the guidance states “in an increasingly trust-led system.. the role of trusts as employers responsible for training and developing high quality teachers and leaders is significant.”
As mentioned earlier, it recognises limitations to the data and as a result some areas of workforce quality will not feature in commissioning decisions. There are therefore no headline metrics as yet (it says they are due in 2024/24). However, it is encouraging that the example verifiers include data around teacher and leadership retention (it appears benchmarked against national data). It also, interestingly will consider the percentage of teachers with less than three years’ experience.
One area in the document that needs significant development here is around evidencing the trust’s commitment to CPD. The only example verifier in the current document considers the ‘percentage take up of National Professional Qualifications’. This speaks little of quality and impact, of the role of wider CPD and learning opportunities for staff (including those ‘on the job’, non-course based opportunities), or, indeed, trusts’ own role in providing alternative CPD for its staff and the wider system beyond NPQs.
Again, it’s the qualitative data where trusts are really going to need to put the leg work in, if they have not done so already, in generating the evidence and, of course, presenting it. Intelligence around staff engagement, leaver destinations, workload and wellbeing perceptions and experiences, and the impact of CPD will be key in making the case for trust growth. Savvy trusts will go one step further, and ensure they are benchmarking nationally and potentially regionally and with similar organisations within and beyond the sector in these areas.
Finance and operations
Of course, the headlines around financial performance will, as we have seen, be considered upfront. If you’re in receipt of a Notice to Improve or are in financial challenges, don’t expect to get far in making the case for growth.
If these hurdles are overcome, the Regions Group will come back to seek further evidence, including current and future financial trends through looking at the trust’s budget forecast returns and Account returns. They will be seeking to identify either low or very low volatility over time, coupled with stable finances and evidence of financial strength.
They’ll also be looking at a low ratio of assets to liabilities, a widely recognised financial indicator – with higher ratios indicating more debt; and checking whether the trust has any issues of current serious financial regulatory concern that it needs ot be concerns about.
Again the detail in the document on the qualitative evidence they will be looking for to assess a trust’s financial strengths and weaknesses is quite light. It references trusts’ financial effectiveness, financial oversight, and, interestingly, a ‘trust’s system contribution’. Again, being able to set out how as a trust you are ensuring effectiveness against all of these areas – such as being clear about trends across key expenditure categories, maintaining healthy reseverves, overviews of the trust’s financial model and financial oversight approach, and management letter feedback, are all helpful.
Why the authors have chosen to include reference to the trust’s system contribution under financial management rather than, for example, leadership, it is hard to understand – but, alas, it is set out within this category and being able to demonstrate the trusts’ broader system contribution and support across the sector is clearly important. Again, being clear about how you articulate that impact and reinforce it with evidence would be a useful exercise at this juncture. At this point, it would be remiss not to share a link to Forum Strategy and The Brown Collective’s recent thinkpiece on system leadership in the trust sector.
Governance and Leadership
As mentioned above, where there are serious concerns that a board and/or executive is struggling to fulfil its obligations under the Academy Trust Handbook, or where the trust is in receipt of a Notice to Improve in relation to governance, the trust will not get very far in conversations around growth. This will be checked up front.
Yet, if discussions around growth and taking on more schools progress, governance and leadership will be considered more deeply, at least we hope! I say that, because, as we dive deeper into the evidence base that Regions Group will be looking at around leadership and governance it is clear, at this stage, there is much more work to do. Whilst the document highlights sources of qualitative evidence such as ‘scrutiny of board proceedings’, ‘external assessments such as external review of governance’ and ‘conversations with CEO/Chairs/ trustees/members’, it says absolutely nothing about what it will be looking at within this and how a judgement of quality will be made. Yes, there are references to evidence from Ofsted reports relating to leadership and management, as well as drawing on governance data from gov/uk or the trust’s website, but this all feels very rushed and with much more work to do to provide a more rounded and insightful view of how well a trust’s board and leadership are performing. We await to see how this aspect of the document develops.
That said, in the meantime, the document will certainly mean that trusts need to consider whether they have undertake a robust external review of governance, how robust and effective their self-assessment work is – including SRM Self-assessment check lists and board skills audits, and how effective the performance management of the CEO and senior executive team is.
If there is any aspect of the guidance that needs much more work and consideration from DFE, in our view, it is this.
Finally, let’s not forget culture, communities, and creativity
This is all very helpful stuff. It provides a really useful checklist for trust performance and evidence.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story. How do you create a compelling vision and strategy that brings people along with you and ensures resources, people, and partnerships are aligned behind it? How do you ensure pure accountability to pupils, families and communities that is formative in nature, and inspires and informs improvement at scale and over time? How do you ensure the behaviours and practices that underpin thriving governance, and ensures the trust receives clear direction, support and challenge? How do you create and articulate a model of improvement at scale that becomes an organisational habit, and leads to lasting sustainable change? What is it that our employees need and expect from us in order to bring their best selves to work each day and to thrive as part of our organisations? How do you create a culture that seeks to invest resources wisely and strategically, but also ensures compliance and best use of public money? How do you foster and sustain the partnerships that help us to address seemingly intractable challenges for pupils, families, and communities by finding solutions across organisational boundaries and sectors?
This is ‘the how’ not simply ‘the what’. And it’s where the ongoing work and thinking on thriving trusts comes in.
All of these questions are essential in order to build and sustain a trust and a trust system that will have a lasting positive impact in the decade ahead and beyond. They require deep thought informed by experts and leading thinkers within and beyond the sector, professional discourse across the sector, and the ability to draw on resources of high quality thinking and practice over time. They cannot be reduced down to frameworks or regulatory documentation, important though that is.
This is why the work on thriving trusts will continue alongside this. It is the story behind the data, the relationships and behaviours behind the frameworks, it is the hearts and minds that enables trust leaders to achieve the meaningful change and impact that will be reflected in the evidence and the documentation. Because the great work of trusts and the people who work for them is the real story behind the checklists, important though these are going to be for securing growth and wider impact.
You can read all five thinkpiece published so far in the thriving trusts series, here: https://forumstrategy.org/thriving-trusts-thinkpieces/
Michael Pain is Founder of Forum Strategy and author of Being The CEO; the six dimensions of organisational leadership (2019).
