Is it rational to want to join a MAT?

The ifs and buts of multi-academy trusts fascinate me. Genuinely. I’ve studied organisational behaviour for decades. I’ve played with it for some time too. The reformation of the school system in England is intriguing, occasionally frightening and frequently baffling.

The obvious enquiry questions include whether being in a MAT is better than not being in a MAT, whether the system as a whole is better off fully ‘mat-cademised’, and what form of MAT is optimal? I’ve spent some time debating such questions with those inside and outside MATs without ever reaching a firm opinion one way or the other. Perhaps this is because there are no answers to these questions. Perhaps moral concepts like ‘better’ and ‘worse’ are a distraction from the more pragmatic questions of what, when and how.

One thing I am quite sure of is that the current fragmented system is problematic. But we appear to be at a stalemate, with government policy indicating a progression towards all schools being part of a MAT but without a clear strategy for this to be achieved. Persuasion has failed, compulsion rejected, and we are only left with wishful thinking.

The key problem is that good schools aren’t rushing to join MATs. Furthermore, those who try to convince them seem not to have a handle on why this might be. To those of us in such schools, it is pretty obvious: the case for joining must be compelling to warrant the change. However, the benefits are far from clear or certain. This position is often portrayed unfairly. These schools are said to be fearful, self-serving, irrational or ill-informed. In fact, they are quite rational.

Let’s take the example of the view of staff within a school faced with the prospect of joining a MAT. How might they rationally view this?

If staff at the school believe it to be well led and managed at present, they might speculate about what benefit being part of a MAT would bring. They will naturally wonder what the new level of bureaucracy above the headteacher will bring to the party. They may ask the following questions:

1. What will another layer of management add?
2. Could this addition change the way the school is led and managed?

These are sensible questions to ask. If satisfaction with current management is high, the downside risks outweigh the upside risks. In other words, things getting ‘somewhat worse’ would appear more likely than things getting ‘even better’.

Those who work in very effective MATs will quickly identify the many ways that a MAT can make even a strong and stable school better. However, I suspect that staff in a pretty good school aren’t that keen to reach for ‘even better’ at the risk of disrupting what they have. It is far less risk to pursue other strategies for improving the school.

What about a school with a generally anti-management bias? Well, there is clearly the chance that by joining a MAT, someone might come and sort the problem out. But then they might not. Or they could make it worse. These beliefs are not irrational, but rather a bounded rationality. We can only project forward based on what we know, and if what we know is bad management then why should we believe that adding more management will make things better?

These barriers could be overcome if the headteacher championed the cause. However, strong and stable schools often have competent and confident headteachers. Those headteachers who feel comfortable running a school, particularly if it is a single academy trust which enjoys its independence, will balance the potential loss of autonomy for the benefits being part of a larger organisation will bring. They will, of course, weigh up whether it is in the best interests of their school, but they will keep one eye to their own interests too.

I am not suggesting that the staff and headteacher depicted above are correct in their analysis, but I do believe that their thinking is largely rational. The bottom line is that the case for joining must be compelling.

So, what is the case? How exactly does a good school become even better from being in a MAT? What are the things MATs provide that really add value? How much do these things cost? I have yet to find satisfactory answers to these questions. I am not even sure the work is being done to codify and evidence such things. Those who make the case for MATs need to do this work. Those who run MATs have a duty to evaluate and demonstrate impact. We need full transparency. We need proof of concept.

I want these things because I want the fragmentation of our system to be resolved. Either the argument for MATs needs to be made more convincingly or we will just have to force all schools to join one. I would prefer the former.

I am willing to be convinced, but by standard of proof is high. Come on, convince me.