This is why academization is a scandal ....

[Mischance]

Extract from a letter to The Guardian ........

Take my home town of York as an example: where once the 63 state schools were maintained by a director of children’s services on circa £110,000 and an assistant director of education on circa £80,000, we now have six Mats whose focus is increasingly drawn outside the city boundaries. Together they now employ six CEOs on salaries ranging from at least £130,000 to more than £160,000, six CFOs and several executive heads, and sport a combined wage bill for “key management personnel” that exceeds £7m – money the former education authority could only dream of. Meanwhile, more than a third of the city’s schools remain under the local authority.

With school attendance tanking, young people’s wellbeing in the doldrums and a special education needs system in crisis, public money that should be going into the classroom is instead going on duplicated roles and high individual salaries. This, and the lack of any meaningful local accountability, is the real scandal that needs addressing if we are to resolve the financial perils of an education sector that is no longer fit for purpose.

It is a quote from the article.

Many charity CEOs earn more than the Prime Minister. Nearly 700 civil servants earn more than the Prime Minister. The PM's salary isn't some kind of ceiling, and the fact we underpay our PM should not be used to limit the pay of others.

As highlighted in one of my earlier posts, many MATs are able to spend a lot more on their schools than the government pays them. If the CEO is able to generate significantly more funding for schools than the MAT receives from the government, shouldn't that be recognised?

Note that I am not saying this particular CEO's salary is justified. I don't know enough about the case, but I certainly wouldn't trust the NEU on this. They have an anti-academy agenda and have form for making statements about school finances that are untrue. It may be that their statements are correct in this case, but I would want to check them out myself before believing them.

Then it is not correct.

There is some analysis on CEO pay here: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/revealed-the-academy-ceo-pay-premium/

Some earn over 200k. Most don't.

I wish LA staff earned more than the PM, if that is the reachable benchmark. Not the case however.

Would school staff strike on ‘untruths’, really???…lose their pay…

Let’s just disregard the union eh…not worthy to question large CEO salaries to the detriment of money to educate children…

If the CEO, in this case, is raising loads of extra funding, why are the finances not available? Surely HH (CEO) and the trustees would be proud to show the amount of money HH and his board have raised. Surely, the staff in these MAT schools schools would be seeing the benefit for their pupils.

You have misunderstood, again…did you read the article!

The quote is about this CEO’s salary… "CEO pay has increased to a whopping minimum of £245,000 – a 75 per cent increase in four years."

I wish LA staff earned more than the PM, if that is the reachable benchmark. Not the case however.

They do. The PM gets £167k. There are over 1,000 council staff paid over £150k and over 250 paid more than £200k.

Would school staff strike on ‘untruths’, really???…lose their pay…

They have, yes. I can, for example, point to a strike where teachers believed the union line that their employer was in good financial health and could well afford to meet their demands, when it was apparent to anyone who understood accounts and bothered to read them that their employer was in anything but good financial health and needed to make savings.

Surely HH (CEO) and the trustees would be proud to show the amount of money HH and his board have raised

In 2023/24 this trust received £82M from the government and was able to spend £88M on its schools. It is right there in their accounts.

Of course I didn't read the article - I didn't want to accept the mandatory cookies. Your quote was posted without any context so will be read as a stand-alone statement.

For those who didn't read the Guardian letters on the questionable value of school executive roles:

One headteacher of a secondary school said this, "multi-academy trusts (Mats) spawn even more newly created, costly and superfluous positions, sucking in more and more schools to enhance and justify the inflated executive pay. And, inevitably, the services provided by the local authority diminish for everyone else as schools leave to become academies.
The principal losers, of course, are the young people these schools are meant to serve – but also all those demoralised teachers who are not motivated by the same venal values and who struggle on with larger class sizes and fewer support services."

Another person wrote, "I have knowledge, from a family member, of a high school becoming part of a multi-academy trust. They saw changes that were supposed to be of benefit to the children, but actually are more like benefits for the senior leadership.
One example is trips abroad, requiring long-haul flights, by senior school staff to “observe” overseas teaching methods. Another example is senior leadership meetings taking place in expensive settings, with expensive catering."

A third person wrote, "CEOs, CFOs and other middle management staff (with salaries ranging from £110,000 to £140,000) can drain away precious resources that should have been used for teaching assistants and teachers in schools with strained budgets.
The services provided cost significantly more than the ones provided by the local authority. For a Mat of eight schools, £500,000 is a lot of money to divert from education, especially in view of the fact that schools are being forced to make teachers and teaching assistants redundant to avoid going into deficit. It is about time that the Department for Education audited the use of general annual grant money by Mats. "

@prh47bridge I wish LA staff earned more than the PM, if that is the reachable benchmark. Not the case however.

So let’s refine this by role. Most similar to an academy CEO, though much more extensive in responsibility and accountability, is the LA Director of Children’s Services. Very, very few, if any will earn more than £167,000. My local LA is huge, one of the largest in the UK, and the salary is less than £160,000.

None (unless circumstances demand - perhaps an interim, short term contract) will earn the same or more than the £250,000 MAT CEO salary.

@aprilwotson Of course I didn't read the article
This is all a bit pointless then.
You have your view, mainly from your one CEO, one MAT.

At this point I would defer to someone who can do proper job evaluations. The jobs of an MAT CEO and Director of Children's Services are very different, as are the remuneration packages. It may be that CEOs of MATs are overpaid. All I am saying is that it is not as simple as comparing a CEO's salary with that of a Director of Children's Services. They are different roles.

Comparison to the PM is moot. PM's know they can earn millions on the back of their short stint in the job, from the public speaking circuit, writing autobiographies, and acting as consultants. Good academy CEOs are in it for the long haul.

AI take.
🧩 Role Focus
Director of Children and Young People’s Services (DCS):

• Broad statutory leadership across education AND children’s social care.
• Leads integrated public services for children (including safeguarding, social work, SEND, youth services).
• Operates within local government and the public sector framework.

MAT CEO:

• Executive leadership of a group of academies/schools only.
• Focused on educational outcomes, school improvement, and trust growth.
• Operates within a charitable company and corporate governance structure.

📌 Responsibilities DCS:

• Statutory lead for safeguarding, corporate parenting, and education across the whole council area.
• Oversees social work, early help, youth justice, and special educational needs.
• Manages relationships with maintained schools, academies, and partner agencies (NHS, police).
• Ensures effective delivery of public sector services for children and families.

MAT CEO:

• Strategic leader of the MAT: responsible for school improvement and education standards.
• Develops and implements the trust’s vision and strategy.
• Oversees finance, governance, HR, estates, and compliance within the Trust.
• Leads trust expansion, performance, and reputation across schools.

⚖️ Accountability DCS:

• Statutory officer under the Children Act 2004.
• Accountable to the Chief Executive of the Local Authority, elected members, Ofsted (ILACS), and local safeguarding boards.
• Must ensure council-wide systems protect and promote children's welfare.

MAT CEO:

• Accounting Officer under the Academies Financial Handbook.
• Accountable to the Trust Board, the Department for Education (DfE), and the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).
• Subject to Ofsted and MAT inspections (e.g., Summary Evaluations).

🧭 Governance Environment DCS:

• Operates within a political and public governance framework.
• Regularly interacts with councillors, government inspectors, and statutory partnerships.

MAT CEO:

• Operates within a charitable company model, under a board of trustees.
• Drives corporate-style leadership and organisational growth.

🏢 Organisational Scope DCS:

• Leads multi-disciplinary services: education, social care, early years, SEND, and safeguarding.
• Responsible for both universal and specialist services.

MAT CEO:

• Leads a school-focused organisation: strategy, teaching and learning, finance, and trust development.
• No responsibility for social care or statutory safeguarding (though schools contribute to safeguarding).

"No responsibility for ... statutory safeguarding"

Your AI tool of choice is hallucinating. You need to give it a thumbs down.

Unfortunately, the sort of people who have time to sit around posting opinions online about how much MAT CEOs earn compared to the prime minister seem to have no clue about the job market. Average senior managers in many medium to large companies earn more than the prime minister. Senior local government employees might earn comparatively less, but they are also less personally accountable when things go wrong, and have more job security, local government pension, etc.

"No responsibility for ... statutory safeguarding"

It means ultimate responsibility.
For instance a headteacher in a maintained school is responsible for safeguarding pupils in their school, in the same way as a MAT CEO is across the trust, BUT ultimately it is the DSC who is responsible for the safeguarding of all children within the locality.

They have ultimate responsibility for the governance of safeguarding. It will be a major line item on their corporate risk register.

@aprilwotson - if that is a dig at me…Unfortunately, the sort of people who have time to sit around posting opinions online about how much MAT CEOs earn compared to the prime minister seem to have no clue about the job market.

36 years in education, DH 38 years in education. Maintained school, academy schools, senior trust & LA roles. Independent contracted work in a senior consultancy role. Adviser to senior leadership development institutions.

Volunteer as governor, trustees, Board of Directors and MAT CoG between us. Diocesan Trusts, 4 MATS and governance in maintained schools.

And yet you dismissed my view as "mainly from your one CEO, one MAT". Fwiw it's also informed by my LA-level view, and my view of neighbouring LAs that I know well.

In a parallel universe, if academies didn't exist, our MAT CEO would probably be a senior LEA leader on similar pay to what he has now, but a lot more support behind him when things go wrong. There are many good CEOs like him, and you are tarring them all with the same brush. Individual trusts and CEOs that are poor value for money can be named and shamed without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If safeguarding goes wrong in an academy and a teacher is found to have abused pupils, the buck will stop with the MAT CEO. The DSC will not be in the firing line at all. The DSC will only be in the firing line if a child is being abused by parents or carers and Social Services are, or should be, involved with the family. So yes, an MAT CEO has ultimate responsibility for safeguarding in all the MAT's schools.

Discussion about salaries is secondary to the need for discussion about whether the roles are needed in the first place.

The York strike seems to be about "financial mismanagement" at a couple of schools run by one academy chain rather than a general stance on whether CEO roles are needed or not: https://www.yo1radio.co.uk/news/local-news/its-a-last-resort-parents-pack-york-schools-strike-meeting/

Are the NEU hoping to turn it into some sort of national action on academies?

As MATs exist, they need CEOs.

Indeed - I am questioning the need for MATs in the first place.

Our local MAT genuinely is a scandal...

Local primary school joined MAT. I had just become a governor. I asked repeatedly what the advantages , economies of scale were and was repeatedly told it was a great idea, due diligence had already been done, shut up and move on.. fast forward 1 term.. HT retired.. MAT helped us share one with another school.. that lasted two terms and the chap left us as it was too much..

Another 6 months and some finance scandal with CEO of the MAT and OFSTED so they left.. replaced by someone else.. nothing changed.. I insisted they actually come to our school and speak to our parents.. came made promises.. nothing changed..

Quit being a governor and moved my kids..

And therein lies the problem. Management detached from the schools. Managers with no real understanding for the character and ethos of the school "family" who just look at it on paper and move people around with no thought for what is happening on the ground.
One primary near here has managed to wriggle its way out of a MAT that was just moving staff in and out and failing to recognise what this did for the cohesion and for staff team morale.

Schools need to be run in a businesslike manner, but they are not businesses that can be run from a distance. They are living communities.

The MAT model completely fails to recognise this.

When I was COG we were sent many MAT brochures and they were truly creepy .. slick glossy publications full of management speak and lacking in humanity. They felt completely alien from the thriving community we were helping to run.

Agreed. It was all BS and no substance. I've still no idea what the actual benefits were.. even staff training there was never a sniff of..

This is one example of a bad MAT experience. It doesn't help when school leadership teams feel like academisation is being done to them rather than by them. If a Head leaves, that might be good or bad, depending on circumstances.

If the Trust sorts out its leadership and they recruit a new Head, then it can get back on track. If not, then this trust can be replaced by a different trust. In a parallel universe where MATs don't exist it would not be possible for an underperforming LEA to be replaced with a different LEA.