Beyond compliance: the next stage of multi-academy trust governance 

As multi-academy trusts (MATs) mature, it is increasingly useful to compare their governance arrangements with those of other sectors, and one such sector is further education (FE). On paper, both sectors operate within strong regulatory frameworks, both work predominantly with children and young people, and both are closely aligned with the Department for Education (DfE). In practice, however, their governance cultures have evolved in distinctly different ways. 

Structurally, the contrast is obvious. Most FE colleges operate with a single board of governors, supported by committees, holding clear legal responsibility for the institution. MATs, by contrast, typically have at least three layers: members, a trust board, and local governing committees. The existence of members, sitting above trustees, remains an important constitutional safeguard and reflects the origins of the academy movement. Nevertheless, as trusts become larger and more complex organisations, it is legitimate to ask whether the current architecture remains proportionate and whether it always promotes clarity of accountability. 

Compliance dominates much of MAT governance: the Academy Trust Handbook, high levels of external oversight and a growing body of mandatory requirements leave limited room for trustee discretion. Safeguarding rightly sits at the centre of risk management, reflecting the vulnerability of pupils, but the overall governance agenda can often feel heavily weighted towards assurance and compliance. Growth remains one of the clearest areas where boards are expected to exercise genuine strategic judgement, particularly as trusts consider mergers, transfers and organisational scale. Beyond this, many trustees can find themselves operating within a tightly prescribed framework. 

Indeed, the direction of travel appears to be towards greater prescription rather than less. The latest Academy Trust Handbook expects trusts with more than 3,000 pupils to recruit professionally qualified Chief Financial Officers, with any future exception requiring explanation to the DfE. While understandable in the context of public accountability, it reflects a sector in which governance and leadership roles continue to be increasingly specified by regulation. 

FE governance, by contrast, operates with greater autonomy and therefore greater exposure. Despite reclassification, colleges continue to navigate a broader risk landscape encompassing finance, curriculum viability, estates, adult learners, local labour markets and reputation. That freedom demands boards that are comfortable with uncertainty, challenge and long-term strategic decision-making. 

This difference is also reflected in the role of the governance professional (GP). Within further education, the GP typically enjoys greater autonomy, stronger independence from the executive, and a clearer reporting relationship to the Chair and board. In many MATs, by contrast, the GP sits within a wider corporate services structure, often reporting through a CFO or COO. While there are good reasons for this arrangement, it can make it harder for governance professionals to establish the same degree of independent authority found elsewhere. 

A further tension lies in the relationship between boards and executives. Many MAT chief executives have come through headships, where working with local governing bodies is a fundamentally different experience from being accountable to a board of trustees with legal authority. In some trusts, this legacy can create a cultural imbalance, with influence concentrated within the executive and boards adopting a more deferential posture than their legal responsibilities require. Developing stronger governance may feel unnecessary, or even uncomfortable, when existing arrangements appear to be functioning effectively. 

Governance quality itself rarely attracts the same degree of public attention or external scrutiny as educational outcomes, safeguarding or financial management. When governance does become a prominent issue, it is often through debates about executive pay, conflicts of interest, or organisational failure rather than through a broader consideration of board effectiveness. As a result, governance can be viewed as an administrative function rather than as a strategic asset. 

If MAT governance is to mature, the sector may need to confront more difficult questions about power, purpose and accountability. As trusts continue to grow in size and complexity, the challenge is no longer simply ensuring compliance – it is whether governance structures, behaviours and cultures are capable of providing the level of stewardship that organisations of this scale increasingly require. 

Board Governance: Opportunities for Improvement | AQ

If you need support to review how your Board operated, and who is on your board, they are both areas that Anderson Quigley can advise and support with. If you’d like to start a confidential discussion on how we could support your institution, please contact Paul Aristides at paul.aristides@andersonquigley.com.