Michael Pain, Founder and Chair, Forum Strategy
If we can be (almost) sure of one thing in 2026, it is that an education white paper is likely to be published early on in the new year.
In a year where Bridget Phillipson will achieve what for so long has seemed an unfathomable feat for an education secretary – making it beyond two years in the job (not since the dizzy heights of Gove has such longevity been witnessed) – we should ask: so, what has been achieved and where will it all go next?
In my view, this government has moved forward on many defining policy areas before generating – with either the profession or the public – a clear or compelling overall vision for the purpose of the education system. That has been Bridget’s biggest strategic error, and one that has led to a period of too much piecemeal policy, a sector that is already suffering from change fatigue as a result, and very little to show for it all. Trusts and schools meanwhile are generally continuing to innovate and do what they do well, and certainly impressively given the funding pressures. Many are clearly already far ahead of national reforms in areas such as the curriculum and accountability.
This is also a government that has – so far – failed, within this context of change and intractable challenges, to articulate its sense of purpose for academy trusts, and how their structure and identity can be harnessed to help generate cohesion, capacity and ambition in communities across the country. This really does matter – socially and economically, and, some, such as me, would say: now’s Bridget’s chance.
The much anticipated (when are they not?) white paper provides, in my opinion, a final opportunity to do just that in this Parliament. So how could the government harness the trust model to meet the challenges and opportunities of our time?
1. Growth should be about efficiency AND resourcefulness
The white paper could shift away from the crude notion of previous white papers – away from growth articulated simply in terms of ‘numbers of schools’, towards a more rounded ambition, with trusts increasingly expected to grow in depth as organisations at the heart of their communities through locality identity, strategic partnerships and greater stakeholder participation. This means having a healthily sceptical view of the notion that bigger is always better. Some of our most resourceful trusts are not large, but nimble, adaptable organisations with a groundswell of community engagement that brings social and professional capital of enormous and lasting impact. They begin with a resourcefulness that drives long-term and sustainable efficiencies, rather than beginning with efficiencies that ultimately stretch the capacity of the organisation and can potentially make it brittle. There is a key difference here.
Growth of our education and community institutions should not be driven simply by efficiencies – important though these are at the moment – but by the potential to address opportunities and challenges through a greater resourcefulness that leads to efficiencies; not least by using local partnerships to address root causes of rising costs such as growing SEND, behaviour challenges, and staff turnover. The most impactful trusts of the next decade will have a strong locality identity, that can generate the necessary social and professional capital and commitment through place-based leadership, to address – at their roots – intractable challenges through community-enabling leadership and participation (not least that of parents).
FURTHER READING: Summer ‘Long Read’: why we need to re-conceptualise trust growth | Forum Strategy
2. Members with purpose
The government should consider addressing the ‘square peg round hole’ corporate governance model of trusts and consider policy that would move trusts towards a model closer to the co-operative one. The role of Members as it stands is a hangover from trying to squeeze trusts into the standard limited company model. As I said in my speech to this year’s National #trustLeaders CEO conference, role of Members – as it stands – is poorly understood by the public and appears to have little bearing -for the most part – on the life of trusts. The White Paper could open up considerations of moving to a ‘community-ownership’ model, whilst ensuring it is compliant with charity law. If communities have ownership of their trust, it reinforces a sense of participation and that everyone has a stake and role in serving the next generation. This would be hugely symbolic, and also finally cast away the misunderstanding and false criticisms trusts still receive for being ‘business chains’.
3. Recognise and enable pure accountability
Most sectors now recognise that accountability and continuous improvement are inextricably linked. For this to be the case, an element of accountability must also be formative, end user-focused, and not high stakes. We call this pure accountability. These other sectors place at least as much onus on this form of accountability as on regulatory accountability, whereas in education accountability feels incredibly ‘done to’ and ‘top down’. Pure accountability is not proposed as a replacement to traditional models of top/down accountability, but as a balance to it, and it actually shouldn’t be driven by government; but if encouraged by government, more will embrace its huge potential. Pure accountability will define successful organisations in the decade ahead, as the onus grows on end user participation, responsibility and co-creation of solutions. It reinforces the responsibility of communities and the need for trusts to respond to their communities’ distinct needs. It must remain trust led and board owned!
FURTHER READING: In Practice Guide: Pure Accountability | Forum Strategy
4. Repurpose local governing bodies
As with members, there is still a lack of clarity about the role of local governing bodies. LGBs need a clear and consistent role – reinforcing pure accountability and avoiding overlap or duplication with other aspects of trust oversight, which can be frustrating for headteachers, in particular. LGBs can be (and in some cases already are) lynchpins between a community and a trust/school, and can play a key role in being conduits of insight and feedback between schools and local communities. Trust boards should be expected to demonstrate how they listen to LGBs and take onboard their views and feedback, whilst also keeping them well-informed of trust-level direction and decisions.
FURTHER READING: Thriving Trusts Thinkpiece 3; Reflections on thriving governance | Forum Strategy
5. Consider a model of trust to trust support
RISE appears to be very much focused on supporting schools in the most difficult or challenging circumstances, rather than about trust to trust support at a strategic level. Government could also recognise that there aretrusts in the system that have developed deep expertise in key areas such as SEND, attendance, behaviour, AI and sustainability, for example. Government could create a platform and potentially greater incentives for trust to trust collaboration, enabling trusts to identify those who may be able to support them in their strategic development in a context of significant complexity and rapid change. This would also address the risk of costs of reinventing the wheel. As William Gibson says: “The future is already here; it’s just not very evenly distributed”,
6. Investing (and expecting) for school readiness
Finally, and most fundamentally, beyond a focus on trusts, for all the policy and initiatives this government has launched – all in an era of austerity for the sector – it is missing the most profound policy it could take forward: a focus on school readiness.
There’s one policy area that with some investment now could save a fortune down the line, and ensure a stronger foundation for all children and young people, and for schools:
The resourcing for school readiness, together with the reaffirming of the expectation that it is parents who should ensure their children are ready for school, would be a game changer not only for education but for society and the economy. It could give some real definition to this government’s vision for education and securing the foundations for the future. And it could address some of the sector’s most intractable challenges at root.
A shocking statistic: almost half of parents (49%) and 45% of teachers say children are not ready because parents don’t believe it is their job to get children ready for Reception. (Kindred, 2025). There is no doubt that this is contributing significantly to declining levels of speech and language on entry to school, behavioural and attendance challenges, and rising levels of SEN – all of which are causing enormous challenges and rising costs for trusts and schools.
Pure accountability rebalances the focus from all the responsibility and accountability being on schools, even for things they can’t control, to redistributing responsibility and accountability to where it naturally sits. And let’s be clear, the fundamental responsibility for school readiness lies with parents.
The absence of a Surestart style policy that invests in the early years and equips parents most in need with support and guidance, has led to huge costs down the line and enormous pressure – both financial and operational, for trusts and schools. The cutting of Sure Start in the early 2010s was one of the greatest false economies in the history of our country. Penny wise pound foolish. The costs today are enormous.
Rather than telling innovative leaders and teachers how to do curriculum or creating bureaucratic school improvement schemes; government needs to go to the roots and do its bit so that trusts and schools can do theirs.
Each of these policies would, in my opinion, give definition to the government’s vision for education and help to give renewed purpose to the trust model as community-enabling institutions, maximise its structure, reinforce collaboration for improvement, and support better governance.
2026 is such an important year for our system, and, clearly for this government. It’s time for policy with vision, nuance, and impact.
What’s on your wish list for the New Year?
In the meantime, we will continue to work with our national CEO, Operations Leaders and Education Leaders’ networks to support trust leaders within their circle of control and to maximise their strategic impact in an uncertain and challenging landscape. It is in times of flux and challenge that great leaders can make the greatest difference.
Find out more about our networks at: www.forumstrategy.org and join our vibrant, thriving groups of trust leaders in 2026
