The impact of multi-academy trust (MAT) governance and accountability systems on the people involved in the organization: Implications for professional autonomy and agency, local representation, and claims to legitimacy

Since its inception in the early 2000s, the Academies Programme in England has developed apace, with the Academies Act of 2010 encouraging schools to move out of local authority control, and a more recent policy intention for all schools in England to be part of a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) by 2030 (DfE, 2022). This has provoked growing concern over the structures of governance and accountability within compulsory education, and the facility for public scrutiny. With major decision-making increasingly at MAT-level, there are implications for the autonomy of school leaders and local governors. This study aimed to explore the lived experiences of individuals in MATs, and the implications for professional autonomy and agency of the centralization of governance and accountability. In so doing, it also examined what made the MAT legitimate. Using qualitative methods, this longitudinal study was framed within a phenomenological-interpretivist approach, conducting interviews over a period of four years with individuals (CEOs, trustees, local governors, academy leaders and staff and parents) across four MATs in England. Additionally, policy enactment theory was used to frame participants’ experiences within both the national and local policy context. The findings highlighted the fragility of a system over-reliant on the reputation and expertise of the founding CEO, whilst appointing trustees who often lacked education knowledge and understanding of local issues and priorities. A lack of plurality and representation on the trust board, together with limited agency for academy leads, the reduction in local governor autonomous decision-making powers and parental reluctance to be involved in the new system, all pointed to a diminishment of space for the local voice. Future policy formation on MATs needs to address the following issues. First, the development of a more participative system of governance and downward and lateral systems of accountability, which would address the value of including the local voice and recognise the importance of restoring local professional agency and autonomy. Second, improving representation and appropriate expertise on trust boards to be a truer reflection of the academy communities they serve, to prevent the charge of MATs appointing ‘people like us’, and to ensure they can provide effective, intellectual scrutiny and challenge to the CEO and their staff