Academy Trust (singular)

[Northernisbest]

My son attends a primary school that is an academy but not part of a MAT.

It is also a church school.

He has been there since Year 1 and is now in Year 4. I’m quite confused about their Governance process. Whilst they have a workshop every term for parent reps to attend and bring about any concerns from other parents, they seem rather a closed shop,

For example, they do not publish minutes from their Governor’s meetings. I realise some will be confidential but I’d expect it to be published and redacted where needed. If it makes a difference the Clerk is not a member of staff or parent but does have access to the communication app used.

Also, where should matters be directed after the Governors ? I ask this as the Headteacher and Chair of Governors are clearly very friendly. Can often be seen passing the time at the busy school gate in extended and friendly conversation. (Chair is a parent in the school with a child in Year 5.) Clearly given the setting this isn’t Governor/Head discussions as parents and children within earshot. It’s great that they appear to have a friendly working relationship, but surely there should be more distance to ensure objectivity.

I ask this as recently a couple of decisions have been shared via comms as decisions made by the Head. These decisions do impact families and when a letter has been sent to the Governors, the response received gave no reasoning for decision or insight into decisions making process but merely just stated that the Head’s decision was supported. (Should be clear, a letter in the first instance was sent to the Head and the response received was “Thank you. Your concerns have been noted.”)

I realise these people are the experts in running a school. But I find it astounding that there appears to be no requirement for them to share minutes/decision making process (within reason) nor show how subjective they have been.

Am I right in thinking there is a layer of Governance missing as they aren’t part of a MAT? I realise if safeguarding issue arose, that would be OFSTED related.

For context, I sit on the Board of a small charity and we are answerable to the Charity Commission.

Thank you

There is no requirement that minutes are published. You can ask for them if you want. They may be redacted.

If you have a complaint about an academy trust, you need to go to the DfE - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/complain-about-an-academy/complain-about-an-academy. Have you formally followed the complaints process? That's not clear from what you say. You also don't say what the decision was with which you disagree - the head has delegated authority from the trustees to operationally manage the school. Complaints need to follow the procedure.

The chair and headteacher may well be friendly- that doesn't mean they are behaving inappropriately. The chair is effectively the head's line manager, but also a source of support to the head who does a difficult job. It's a delicate balance. We need to be both support and challenge and sharing a joke at the school gate has no bearing on that.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/academy-trust-handbook/part-1-roles-and-responsibilities

1.50 The trust must make available on request for public inspection:

• the agenda for every meeting of the trustees, local committees/governing bodies and committees
• the approved minutes of each meeting
• any report, document or other paper considered at each meeting

1.51 The trust may exclude from any item any material relating to:

• a named teacher or other employee or proposed employee
• a named pupil or student at the academy, or candidate for admission or referral to it
• any matter which, by reason of its nature, the trustees are satisfied should remain confidential

Hope this helps.

@NorthernisbestThe Advice from @DayInTime is correct. A parent must be able to view the minutes. Many schools put a hard copy in Reception notice board.

Often CofE schools are in the CofE MAT. They are not a single academy and have the CofE diocese education board as the mat. The school must list its governors and how to contact the chair.

However there’s a clear distinction between operational duties (the head) and strategic duties (the governors). There will also be a scheme of delegation where governors agree spending limits for the head, appointment of staff and other matters. Governors set a framework for the school and monitor how the school performs within that framework. They don’t tell the head what to do.

If you could say what the issue is, maybe we could help?

@Northernisbest as a pp said, "the trust must make [minutes] available on request for public inspection". That doesn't mean they have to be routinely published. If you want to see them, just ask for them.

"I ask this as the Headteacher and Chair of Governors are clearly very friendly"
This is usual. The Governing Body are the SLT's critical friends, and the Chair should have a close working relationship with the Head. They are the Head's confidante and sounding board. Their role is to support and challenge the Head.

"the response received gave no reasoning for decision or insight into decisions making process but merely just stated that the Head’s decision was supported."

They are there to support and challenge the school leadership. If they had reason to challenge the decision, they would have done so. Clearly they agreed with the decision and disagreed with you.

"Am I right in thinking there is a layer of Governance missing as they aren’t part of a MAT?"

No, you're not right. Single academy trusts are common and a perfectly valid model.

"For context, I sit on the Board of a small charity and we are answerable to the Charity Commission."

Academy trusts are answerable to the DfE.

Are you sure there’s no Diocese trust?

Also critical friend is long gone! Frutnd is absolutely not there any more - nor critical. It’s about setting strategic girls and monitoring performance. The government gives an overview of the relationship. It’s more like CEO and board or MD and board. Most schools have moved away from head being mates with chair these days. It is a far more professional relationship but small schools can be late to realise this.

The governors don’t set the strategic direction - how could they? They are involved in agreeing it, however. All decisions are made by the head teacher.

@Nix32 Of course they do! It’s their job. They are responsible for strategic decisions and the head is responsible for operational decisions. As most heads are on the governing board, they inform the governors and are part of the strategic direction and leadership for the school. It’s always useful to read the latest maintained schools governance guide published by the Government. Strategic direction and leadership is a large section of it.

@TizerorFizzGovernors are not involved in analysing data or performance, writing actions plans or deciding upon the strategic direction. They are presented with the information and then ask questions/agree it. They absolutely do not decide upon what that direction should be. Speaking as someone who has been involved at governor level for the last 25 years.

@Nix32 Read what the government says! It clearly expects strategic direction and leadership Of course they analyse data! I had a summary of huge amounts of data produced by the school. Pages of it. How on earth can governors operate without this info? It’s vital and my LA runs governor courses on it. Do you just drink tea?

I can assure you that you need to review what you do and your training seems woefully out of date. . I’ve also done governance for many years and been a governor trainer. Your model is very out of date. Governors must interpret data and work with the school to formulate an improvement plan. They don’t write it but they do monitor it and ensure they know the strategic plan is on course. Otherwise they are just a talk shop with no focus.

@TizerorFizzThey are presented with data that has already been analysed. Of course they are there to ask questions about it, but they can only see what is in front of them - they do not see the bare facts.

They will know what the content of the improvement plan is, and will be involved in monitoring conversations, but they are much less likely to do the physical monitoring involved with quality of teaching and learning - as is right.

No, critical friend is not long gone. However, it may be absent in some cases.

In a MAT, the board will have the corporate role you describe, and there will often be a Local Governing Body with delegated duties. They provide the critical friend role.

In a Single Academy Trust, those roles may be combined, though it obviously depends on the personalities and circumstances involved.

I do agree that it seems unusual for a church school to be a single academy trust.
@Northernisbest Is it CofE, Catholic, or something else?

It’s long gone for well trained governing boards. Can you find it in the latest Government “handbook”? I think it disappeared 10 plus years ago as the government sought to professionalize gbs with relevant skills and ability to act strategically, clearly a failure in some cases. There is no defined critical friend role defined these days.

It isn't mentioned in our Scheme of Delegation either, but we still provide it. These days it is called "support and challenge" but it is the same thing.

Btw, a quick bit of analysis on Gov.uk data tells me there are 243 church primaries in Single Academy Trusts, so less than 10% of all church primary academies.
164 are CofE
55 are RC
10 are Jewish
6 are Other Christian
3 are Muslim
2 are Sikh

@opleas Support is really not the same as being a friend. It’s constructive challenge and support to SLT. So, not critical friend and chair and head being mates is not good for a professional relationship. The role of the GB is best explained in the Government document I referenced.

@Nix32 some updated information which challenges your view. the governing board’s role in setting the strategic direction of an academy trust:
🎯 1. Establishing and championing the strategic vision

• “The chair leads the board to set and champion a clear strategy for the trust” which aligns with its charitable objectives and outlines ambitions for growth
• “The strategy is set out in a written statement and supports the board’s ambitions for: delivering an excellent education for its current and future pupils through the vision and its values; the level of ambition for the trust’s future growth; [and] the trust’s relationship with other trusts…”

Setting such a clear, documented strategic framework establishes both vision and direction.

🧩 2. Framing and priorities of the strategic plan

• The board’s strategic framework “provides a framework for: setting priorities; implementing and ensuring accountability; monitoring progress in achieving the trust’s vision; addressing strategic challenges and managing risk”
• Additionally, the board ensures “defining medium and long‑term trust‑wide strategic goals, including development and improvement priorities”

These points highlight the board’s ownership of major decisions like growth, risk appetite, and school improvement goals.

📊 3. Overseeing strategic implementation and accountability

• “The board and the CEO review progress rigorously to ensure strategic alignment and effective implementation”
• They also “agree the annual operating plan and budget for the trust, which delivers on the trust’s strategy”, and “agree metrics and process by which progress will be assessed”
• The board must maintain “robust strategic oversight of the operations and performance of the trust including… managing the trust within the available resources and ensuring … value for money”

This confirms that the board plays more than a ceremonial role—they ensure the strategy is embedded in planning, resourcing, metrics, and oversight.

🔄 4. Adjusting strategy and responding to change

• The guidance notes that boards should “monitor and review progress rigorously against agreed strategic goals and their effective implementation”, including “managing risk appetite and tolerance in line with strategic priorities and improvement plans”
• It also encourages strategic planning to consider staff workload and wellbeing, ensuring balance in ambitions versus the trust’s operational capacity

Thus, the role is iterative—they adapt direction based on performance and emerging issues.

💬 5. Ensuring engagement shapes strategy

• The board “draws on and ensures the trust’s connection and responsiveness to its pupils, parents, carers, and the communities it serves”, embedding local insight into strategic choices
• It also “oversees strategic relationships” with stakeholders, including parents, communities—and religious authorities when relevant

This ensures the strategy isn’t top‑down; it reflects the needs and voice of its community.

✅ Summary of board’s strategic role
Board RoleEvidence
Sets and champions strategy
“chair leads the board to set and champion a clear strategy…”
Defines vision, values, growth ambitions
“strategy supports… delivering an excellent education… future growth…”
Frames priorities and risk
“provides a framework for… setting priorities… managing risk”
Approves operational plan and budget
“board agrees annual operating plan and budget which delivers on strategy”
Oversees delivery and metrics
“agree metrics…and review progress…rigorously”
Maintains strategic oversight
“robust strategic oversight of operations and performance”
Engages stakeholders in strategy
“draws on…pupils, parents…communities…responsiveness”

📝 Conclusion
Across multiple sections of the official GOV.UK guidance and NGA documentation, it is clear that the governing board (trustees) plays a central role in defining, owning, reviewing, and adapting the academy trust’s strategic direction—from vision-setting to budget approval, stakeholder engagement, performance monitoring, and risk management.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/-governance-in-academy-trusts

Tizer, the only reason the phrase was de-emphasised (in 2015) was because it was considered euphemistic. But the role didn't change, only the language.

@DayInTime you're perhaps missing the fact that the Head is a key influential member of the Governing body. They are also the person who needs to implement the strategy, alongside their SLT so, in practice there is usually a close consultative relationship between Governors and school leaders.

The membership of the Governing bodies can certainly influence the strategy though, especially if it's a Church school with Diocesan reps, or if a school is run by an academy trust with a specific ethos.

The Governing Body appoints the Head, so usually appoints someone who is attuned to their ethos.

@opleasThe consultative nature of the relationship between head and chair is not the same as being best mates. The latter infers decisions are made behind closed doors and not at meetings attended by other governors. A head has delegated powers but is not the chair of the gb and is more of a professional adviser to the GB. Yes, as the professional leader the head does implement strategy but they do not get to make it up by just talking to the chair. The head is held to account by performance review and the governors have no relationship with the rest of slt in terms of setting targets or performance review.

The governors are there to influence and set strategy. The big problem is GBs that are too small and have too many staff members on them or staff from other schools who are co opted or parents. The breadth of knowledge and experience then becomes too narrow.

"Critical Friend" is not the same as being best mates either. But it is a euphemism that can be misinterpreted, as you have demonstrated.

My only concern with the OP's description of "friendly conversation" between the Chair and Head at the school gate is if she is regularly dominating the Head's time so other parents can't get an opportunity to speak with him.

Yep, I know all of that (ex HT, education adviser, governance lead and cog/Trust).

I fully understand the role having worked from all sides.

@opleas Most heads don’t engage with parents at the school gate - and a head probably should avoid this as it’s not appropriate. The chair should not do it either. The head should initiate a parent forum if anyone wants a chat with the head.

Completely disagree. Every primary school Head in my area engages with parents at the school gate, and some secondary Heads engage with their students at the school gate too.

It's very common for a CoG to be a parent or ex-parent, so part of their school community. Even if they're not, they should be in school often, so will naturally be engaging with students (and parents if they're there).

@opleas Not in an ad hoc way that gives some parents more input than others. I don’t know many heads who do this now and certainly it’s bad for a chair of governors to chat with parents about governance matters. If they want to hear views, have a parent forum or questionnaire. Chit chat is not really a suitable way to govern a school but nice to hi to parents. There is a difference between that and listening to views which might not be representative.

A lot of heads meet and greet dc in primary schools but most secondary heads don’t.

Also when visiting a school, a governor must have a purpose for the visit. Often it’s to see a policy in action or see how a subject is taught to inform them of progress on the strategic plan. They are not just there to say hi to dc. Neither should they visit all the time. That burdens teachers and it’s not needed. A degree of professionalism in visits is required because no Governor, parent or otherwise, should visit randomly because they want to.

@TizerorFizz are you a secondary governor or a primary governor? And in an academy or an LA run school? You state your opinion stridently but it is clearly skewed by your own experience.

The OP's observation of the Head at the school gate is very typical for a primary school, specifically so that they can be approachable to parents.

It is also not unusual for a current parent to be CoG (whether for a maintained school or for a local governing body in a MAT or, as here, in a single academy) - though as I said before, she shouldn't dominate the Head's time at the school gate.

And yes, I agree that if they are not a parent, the CoG's visit usually has a specific purpose, but that can include a regular catch-up meeting with the Head as well as more formal visits. They're also sometimes asked to give out prizes to students or do speeches at events attended by parents, so tend to be a familiar face around school. You won't find that ceremonial stuff listed as a duty anywhere, but it's a traditional part of the role so often expected. Governance handbooks and guidance do say that Governors should know their school well and that includes engaging with staff, parents and students.