FINANCIAL ANOMOLIES IN MATS
 Currently academy trusts do not, in the main run schools for profit (though one free
school academy trust in Suffolk is run on a profit-making basis).
 Many academy trusts engage in what are called ‘related party transactions’ in which
the trust buys services from companies with whom the Trustees/Governors have a
direct interest. The NAO published a report in 2014 highlighting some of the worst of
these abusive practices. Since then academy trusts have been told that such
transactions must be ‘at cost’ but there is no way of determining what this means in
practice.
 Many MATs have also adopted some of the bad practices of the corporate sector, such
as paying inflated salaries to their CEOs and/or Executive Heads.
 At a time when the school budgets are effectively being cut by the government,
further pressures engendered by the desire to reward executive managers will only
worsen the problem.
 The salary of the
highest paid
academy chain
leader has soared
to £370,000 –
more than twoand-a-half times
that of Prime
Minister.
EduFacts
WORCESTERSHIRE
The Pershore Multi Academy Trust Proposal
The full facts
Decisions of this nature require a full and open debate.
The National Union of Teachers makes no apologies
though for not including in this information bulletin the
arguments made in favour of the formation of a Multi
Academy Trust in Pershore. We trust that they will be
communicated to you by the managements of the schools
concerned.
However, the NUT fears that you will not be given the
counter arguments against the further fragmentation of
the education service in Worcestershire. Therefore we
have included here some of the most important up to
date arguments against the further drive towards the
academisation of our
schools and in particular
the drive by the
government for schools to
form Multi Academy Trusts.
POTENTIAL LOSS OF LOCAL DECISION MAKING
 Joining a MAT risks a loss of a great deal of autonomy.
 Far from giving more “autonomy” to head teachers and teachers, MATs can remove
self-management altogether. When a school joins a MAT it ceases to exist as a
separate entity. Decisions over its admissions, curriculum, budget, school week,
uniform, staff pay and conditions, the appointment of the head teacher and all other
significant matters are ultimately determined, not at school level but centrally by the
small number of members and trustees who make up the MAT.
 The MAT may decide to delegate some of these decisions to local governing bodies
but this is not a requirement and it can retain all governance functions centrally, to be
exercised by the trustees, if it so wishes.
 MATs won’t be required to have parent governors or even governing bodies for
individual schools.
 Schools, even Academies have democratic local governance and reserved places for
staff, parents and local authority representatives.
 A programme originally claimed to be about “choice” will now deny parents, teachers
and schools any real choice and deny parents a voice in their children’s education.
 Once a school joins a MAT, there is no way for it to decide to leave.
A THREAT TO TEACHER TERMS & CONDITIONS
 More MATs means policies agreed between the government and unions nationally will
more frequently be changed locally on a MAT by MAT basis. TUPE does not protect us
in the medium to long term. Local union support including the right to negotiate
changes to policies such as Maternity & Sickness Absence will be under threat.
 Teachers in a MAT in one area could end up with significantly different pay and
conditions to teachers in a Local Authority school, and Academy or even a MAT in a
neighbouring area.
 The NUT wants to avoid the free-for-all in terms and conditions encouraged by the
establishment of more and more MATs.
 Most academies follow the STPCD but won’t do that if it disappears. Schools will be
able to drive down pay and conditions. Working hours and workload will rise.
MYTHS ABOUT MATS & PUPIL ATTAINMENT
 The Government’s claims about the successes of Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) are
contradicted by various studies. A report by the consultancy PwC, published on 9 May
2016, revealed that only three of the 16 largest secondary academy chains could
demonstrate a positive impact on pupils’ progress, while just one of the 26 largest
primary sponsors produced results above the national average. In one academy chain,
two fifths of primary children failed to reach the expected levels of literacy and maths.
 In July 2016 the Education Policy Institute think tank produced a league table of
academy trusts and councils in England based on the extent to which pupil
performance has improved, rather than exam results. This showed that there is little
overall difference between academy trusts and local authorities but also concluded
that at KS4 “more multi-academy trusts are significantly below average than above”.7
 DfE analysis of the performance of primary and secondary MATs in terms of value
added (a measure of the progress students make between different stages of
education) found that in two thirds of MATs the value added was below average for
their secondary schools, with just one third above average.
 In 54 per cent of MATs the secondary value added performance was "significantly
below average".
 For both primaries and secondaries, there was no "correlation between the current
value added measure and the different length of time schools have been within each
MAT”, contradicting the Government’s claim that sponsored academies improve over
time.8
 The impact of MATs on low income students in secondary sponsored academies has
been examined by the Sutton Trust in three consecutive annual reports. All three
reports found “very significant” variation in outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, both
between and within chains. The most recent report concluded that a majority of
chains in the study “are achieving results that are not improving and may be harming
the prospects of their disadvantaged students”.