Structural integration and knowledge exchange in multi-academy trusts: comparing approaches with evidence and theory from non-educational sectors

Figures & data

Figure 1. 5 strategic areas and 5 school improvement fundamentals in MATs.

Figure 2. Framework for categorising MAT approaches to integration and knowledge transfer.

Table

		Curriculum – Decisions about what is taught
		Schools are autonomous (and practices are largely distinct)	Aligned across group (most/all schools work within an agreed framework)	Standardised (prescribed) across group
Pedagogy – Decisions about how students are taught	Schools are autonomous (and practices are largely distinct)	4 above average performing MATs (1 × large, 2 × medium, 1 × small) 2 average performing MAT (1 × large, 1 × medium) 1 below average MAT (medium)	4 above average performing MATs (2 × large, 2 × medium)	1 below average performing MAT (large)
	Aligned across group (most/all schools work within agreed an framework)	1 above average performing MAT (medium) 1 average performing MAT (small)	2 above average performing MATs (1 × large, 1 × small) 2 average performing MATs (1 × large, 1 × medium) 2 below average performing MAT (1 × medium, 1 × small)
	Standardised (prescribed) across group			2 above average performing MATs (small) 1 below average performing MAT (large)

Table

		Description	Advantages	Disadvantages
Family	Purpose and people focus	A family affair: leadership from a tight-knit team with shared values (sometimes shared faith), who set the tone for a strong, shared culture Paternalism: leadership team tend to make decisions on behalf of schools in their best interests	Strong commitment from core team and their staff High trust, values driven culture avoids need for bureaucratic systems	Can feel cliquey to the non-initiated Limited attention to systems and processes, risks to sustainability Paternalism can disempower schools/staff
Kingdom	People and performance focus	Leadership: charismatic leadership, usually from CEO/proprietor, enables rapid and decisive approach, but can descend into leadership by dictat Credibility: A reliance on known and trusted people, often drawn from the founding school, to enact improvement work	An ability to act quickly, with strong leadership and a tried and trusted team A flexible approach that can adapt to different contexts	Lack of attention to consistent systems and processes, risks to sustainability Limited focus on shared values/culture leads to loss of commitment/ motivation Autocratic decision – can lead to activity-driven approach
Machine	Performance and process focus	An efficient and replicable approach: tried and tested systems and processes have been clearly codified and are prescribed for all schools Relentless and hierarchical: focus on trust-wide performance improvement, hierarchical model led by central team with limited school-level autonomy	Sharp focus on performance outcomes, backed by clear systems and processes, supports consistency Application of tried and tested approaches, with shared language and priorities, can support rapid turnarounds	Lack of emphasis on purpose and people can be demotivating and risk burn-out Imposed systems and processes can be disempowering/loss of agency Limited potential for adaptation or contextualisation – how to move schools from good to great?
Institution	Purpose and process focus	Alignment: High level values are translated into practical systems and processes which enact them Diffused effort: emphasis on wider purposes and processes can lead to loss of focus on core performance and outcomes	Emphasis on values and wider outcomes can help to secure stakeholder commitment Alignment between values and processes to enact them supports sustainable improvement	Decision-making can be cumbersome, with lack of clarity around who decides and how outcomes will be assessed Lack of attention to people can feel impersonal