For years, much of the debate about accountability in our school system has focused on individual schools rather than the organisations that increasingly shape how those schools are led, resourced and supported.
High-quality academy trusts play a vital role in raising standards and widening opportunity for children.
They oversee key decisions from curriculum to staffing, and they enable schools to share expertise, strengthen leadership, support staff and work closely with their communities.
Introducing MAT inspections
That is why the government’s decision to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to introduce inspection of multi-academy trusts from 2027-28 is both welcome and overdue.
Millions of children stand to benefit from a stronger and more transparent system, with trust decisions subject to clear, independent scrutiny and excellence recognised and celebrated.
Across the system, there is much to be proud of. Many trusts are delivering outstanding work, strengthening leadership and widening opportunity.
But alongside that excellence there remains too much variation, and in some places the improvement infrastructure is not yet as strong or consistent as it needs to be. A system that aspires to be fair and transparent has to be honest about that reality.
The system needs oversight
I recognise that there is concern in parts of the sector about this direction of travel.
Trust leaders have carried significant responsibility without always feeling that the accountability framework reflects how trusts actually operate.
But when trusts educate most pupils in England, and hold responsibility for improving schools, supporting staff, using resources well and promoting pupil wellbeing, accountability has to sit at the level where decisions are made.
That is why I have long argued for trust-level scrutiny. Ofsted previously began experimenting with MAT-led inspection, but this never fully took hold.
If it had been up to me, inspectors would still have gone into schools and worked collaboratively with leaders, while also using regular risk assessments to understand what was happening across the trust as a whole.
It does not take long to see where a problem lies once you have a system that displays data clearly. If a school is underperforming, regulators should be looking not only at the school itself but also at the wider system that sits around it.
MATs are, in effect, the parent bodies that look after schools. When trusts are strong, collaboration thrives, leadership capacity grows and support reaches the schools that need it most. When they are less effective, that, too, has consequences.
Key areas of focus
It is therefore right that trust inspections will focus on leadership, governance and impact, including how effectively trusts improve schools, support staff, use resources and promote pupil wellbeing.
The bill also proposes powers of intervention where trusts are not meeting acceptable standards, alongside recognition for those that are transforming outcomes.
This is a mature approach to system leadership: back those who make a wider contribution and intervene where performance is weak.
It is also welcome that Ofsted will develop the approach in partnership with trust leaders, so inspections do not create unnecessary burdens but focus on ensuring a brilliant education for every child.
The strength of MAT inspection will depend not only on what is inspected but also how. Trusts are complex, relational organisations with a moral as well as operational role in the communities they serve, and inspection needs to reflect that.
There will, inevitably, be difficult conversations. Some fear inspection could constrain innovation or reduce trusts to compliance exercises. Others are wary of being judged at scale without sufficient contextual understanding. These concerns deserve to be heard.
But the absence of trust-level accountability has, for too long, placed scrutiny in the wrong place. If trusts are responsible for school improvement, then it is right that they are accountable for the systems and cultures they create.
What needs to be solved
As this inspection framework is developed, there are several things that the Department for Education must now get right if MAT inspections are to command confidence and deliver meaningful impact.
First, inspection must be genuinely developmental as well as evaluative, recognising trusts that take on challenge and contribute to system improvement.
Second, the methodology must blend trust-wide analysis with engagement in schools, so inspectors understand whether priorities are genuinely lived, not just expressed on paper.
Third, risk assessment should sit at the heart of the model. Regular trust-wide risk scanning would enable proportionate oversight, reduce unnecessary burden and ensure that attention is focused where it is most needed.
Finally, inspection must be anchored in a clear articulation of what good trust leadership looks like: strong collaboration, ethical stewardship of resources, inclusive practice and the capacity to improve schools over time.
If these principles are honoured, trust inspection has the potential to strengthen the system in ways that benefit children, families and professionals alike. Done well, it is not a threat to strong trusts, but an affirmation of the role they play in shaping opportunity for every child, wherever they live or go to school.
Lynsey Holzer is CEO of Active Learning Trust
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get 91¶¶Òõ magazine on and on
