Any precedent for academy pulling out of one MAT to join another?

[flatasa]

A local academy, which is controlled by a very large Multi Academy Trust, and rated 'Good' by Ofsted, has indicated that it is in talks with two nearby outstanding primaries about forming an alternative MAT. The implication is that it will pull out of the large MAT, though it's not currently clear what the large MAT thinks of that, and whether they will willingly let it go.

Is there any precedent for this?

[straggle]

Academies cannot leave a MAT unilaterally without the sponsor arranging it. They don't technically exist as a legal entity without the sponsor. The education select committee report at paragraph 144 discusses making it possible in future for an outstanding school to leave a chain but this is by no means the law yet.

[straggle]

Also see David Wolfe QC on sponsored academies: 'the "academy" in question has no legal existence free standing from the chain of which it is part (unlike a maintained school which has a freestanding legal existence and can therefore be severed from the local authority which maintains it)'.

Unless this is just about the primaries joining the existing chain? If the primaries are currently LA maintained, the governing bodies might be giving up their current legal status to join the MAT (and maybe also some freedom - under local management of schools LAs don't actually run schools anyway - the head/governors essentially decide what policies they have for the school). The secondary, on the other hand, doesn't have the choice to pull out of one trust and join another.

[flatasa]

Yes, Straggle, that is my understanding too.

However, while the local governors of the secondary academy may not have the 'right' to leave the current chain, if they say they want to, and can show its in the best interests of the school, and the LA backs them on that, then it gives the big chain an interesting dilemma, doesn't it? They can resist, and risk very bad press, or they can smile through gritted teeth and wave it through, in the spirit of granting a once-injured bird its independence.

Either way, it sets a very interesting precedent, assuming it hasn't happened before.

My LA is nothing if not innovative!

[straggle]

It would be an interesting precedent but what is the point of the primaries becoming part of the trust? If the primaries are outstanding and fully subscribed, is there a risk of them being financially disadvantaged in hooking up with a secondary that is 'good' but maybe not so popular? And why is the LA pushing its primaries out?

[flatasa]

The answer to the last question is simple - it's council policy.

I'm less sure about the others. I suspect the primaries are being encouraged to see it as a noble gesture to rescue the secondary and bring it back under local control.

[straggle]

I don't know of an MAT started by primaries to bail out a secondary - whether one forced to academise or in this unusual situation of wanting to jump ship. It's usually the other way round - a secondary has more staff and bigger management team so might be nominated as a sponsor of a failing primary as an alternative to the usual big chains. A primary could get swallowed up in that. It also depends whether other primaries in the LA are going down this route as this might affect them too. Unfortunately in this situation you don't get a parental ballot.

[flatasa]

Yes Straggle, on the surface it looks like a bold move from the primaries, but it is undoubtedly being coordinated by the LA. The primaries will be getting lots of reassurance of continued LA support after academisation. Its a commissioning council, so all of the LA educational services the primaries need are already packaged for off-the-shelf purchase.