What are the leadership ingredients of successful Trust school improvement? 

Tracy Goodyear, Founder of Trust-wide CPD Leads and Director of Teacher Development at The Mercian Trust

Facilitating school improvement within Trusts presents marked leadership challenges, especially when considering the complexities and nuances of improvement at scale alongside the unique context, age and stage of an individual Trust’s journey. There is a necessity for leaders to accurately and flexibly operate within a rapidly shifting landscape, acknowledging that “the demand for radical and large-scale improvement is too fierce [and] too pressing” (Levin, 2010; Hallinger, 2010). 

This paper will articulate three key challenges behind the leadership of school improvement activities within Trusts and the consequences for development through these challenges. I will use this to demonstrate how the variance in MAT structures presents an imperative for Trust leaders which requires them to accurately and flexibly operate within a rapidly shifting landscape.  

The leadership of school improvement activities across MATs is fraught with complexity. There are three key challenges:  

Challenge 1: The absence of a single model 

As “multi academy trusts have largely taken on the challenge of underperformance” (Department for Education, 2022), it is important that colleagues leading school improvement appreciate that it is “not yet possible to identify and codify a single […] highly specified ‘school improvement model’ or strategy that trusts should follow” (Rowlett, 2024), but instead operate comfortably within a series of conceptual models to drive school improvement.  

This is not helped by how the current size, age and stage of MATs varies dramatically across regions, and that this arguably contributes to some of the “regional disparities” that exist in the system (Cotterill, 2022). Whilst this level of variance does promise “a formal framework for sharing knowledge and experience of all aspects of school improvement” (NGA, 2022), the differences in operating models, central capacity and leadership effectiveness could serve to exacerbate further inequalities in the system. As Francis and Hutchins noted in 2018, in spite of the original mission of academies to “ transform the attainment of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds…there continues to be very significant variation in outcomes, both between and within chains” (Francis and Hutchins, 2018). 

Challenge 2: Existing structures and systems for Trust accountability 

There is a perceived tension between the longer-term implementation of sustainable school development and the need to meet the more urgent demands of satisfying an inspection criterion and shorter-term educational outcomes: “internal quality control in the MAT is focused on the performance of individual schools as measured in Ofsted frameworks, with little development of network-level outcomes that go beyond what is measured”(Ehren and Godfrey, 2017). 

The criticism for the current accountability arrangements is widespread, not least because inspection “work(s) as a subtle influence on school practices” and “does not have to physically take place for a school to be governed by its perceived judgements” (Perryman, 2006). Furthermore, Perryman suggested that schools find themselves in a state of ‘panoptic performability’ and outlines the negative impact that this can have on the longer-term, sustained development of schools.  

Challenge 3: Generic leadership competencies are not fit for purpose for Trust leaders 

It is crucially important to note the limitations of “tired rehearsals” of “competency-based or generic domain-based models typically focused on organisational leadership” to the Trust sector, particularly as Trust leaders have an imperative to “act on, rather than just acting in, the system” (Cruddas, 2020).  

Through undertaking two semi-structured interviews, this paper attempts to identify the key leadership skills, habits and behaviours required for conducting the most effective school improvement activities to help mitigate these challenges.  

To achieve this, this study has outlined two research questions (RQs):  

RQ1: What are the key leadership habits, skills and behaviours required for conducting effective school improvement activities across Multi-Academy Trusts?  

RQ2: What are the leading factors which enable a Trust’s ability to enact these?   

In the next section, this paper will conduct a Literature Review which explores the research behind key leadership models associated with school improvement; it will outline the factors supporting Trusts to enact effective school improvement. The third section, Research Design, will explain the context, methodology, limitations and ethical considerations considered to explore the research questions. The paper’s fourth section, Data Collection, will present the data analysis method then explore the collected data. Finally, the conclusion will consolidate the findings and consider the practical implications for future school improvement work in MATs.  

This essay meets several of the Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours (KSBs) required for the Masters’ Degree Apprenticeship in Educational Leadership. The relevant KSBs are listed in Appendix 1.  

Literature Review 

Whilst specific literature relating to Trust leadership is not as developed as other forms of leadership research, there is predictable cross-over between the leadership skills, attributes and behaviours expected of leaders at Trust level and other system leadership roles, though caution needs to be exercised in the application of these to the Trust domain. Considering this, this section will provide a review of current thinking regarding required leadership attributes for Trust leaders.  

There are a series of competing theoretical perspectives of school leadership and the application of a single leadership model into a Trust setting is problematic. In 2018, Gumus et al conducted a review of studies into the number of leadership papers produced between 1980 and 2014, focusing on the development and popularity of leadership models during this time. The three most popular models that coincided with the Trust movement were distributed leadership, instructional leadership and transformational leadership.  

Fig1: Gumus et al table showing the number of papers produced on leadership models between 1980-2014.  

The term ‘distributed leadership’ has been used widely in education since the beginning of the millennium but appears to have been a “novel phenomenon” (Tian et al, 2016). Despite its popularity, one of the criticisms of the model is that it is ill-defined and that there is a “lack of empirical evidence on the practices and effects of distributed leadership” (Tian et al, 2016). The issue here is that current studies seem “unable to define distributed leadership in a universally accepted way or to offer enough knowledge about its effects and ideal forms” (Tian et al, 2016). Many academics have attempted to investigate links between distributed leadership in relation to student outcomes have been unsuccessful, rendering links made between school improvement and this leadership style futile.  

However, the concept of ‘instructional leadership’ has gained greater traction in terms of its impact on pupil outcomes and school improvement. Robinson et al (2009) discovered that “the impact of instructional leadership was three to four times that of transformational leadership” and is a favoured model amongst some MATs. However, the main criticism of this model is that it can lead to apathy and an overdependence on others to lead and instigate change, as highlighted by Marks and Printy in 2003.  

However, transformational leadership is a model that “found a receptive audience in the educational community during the 1990s as part of a general reaction against the top-down policy” (Hallinger, 2003), and tends towards “fostering group goals, modelling desired behaviour for others, providing intellectual stimulation, and individualised support” (Leithwood, 1994). It is a model that is likely to have greater traction in the Trust sphere as it prioritises communal goals, however its limitations are that the success of this model is difficult to measure- “studies of transformational leadership are more likely to include outcome variables such as teacher engagement, teacher perceptions of change and improvement, student engagement with the school” (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999 quoted by Hallinger, 2003). 

The literature and studies referenced above all reveal that there is a lack of conceptual clarity around these existing models and do not acknowledge the greater complexity this holds when applied at scale.  Alma Harris outlines the key issues relating to genuine school improvement, and acknowledges that “ the history of educational change is littered with borrowed or duplicated reform strategies that simply have made little or lasting difference to system performance” (Harris, 2011), Harris suggests that one reason for failed school improvement is due to an “abject failure to consider and undertake, with any rigor or robustness, the process of implementation”. (Fullan, 2011a, quoted by Harris, 2011). 

This lack of coherence and clarity is problematic: in their 2019 book ‘Coherent School Leadership’, Fullan and Kirtman advocate for the need to create ‘coherence systems’ amongst a ‘fragmented and reactive world’ of education, arguing for the need to create coherence in ‘both systems and behaviours’ (Fullan and Kirtman, 2019). But, as demonstrated in the literature, as many widely- referenced educational leadership styles are charged with a lack of clarity in domain-specific application.  

As highlighted by Culpin and Male in 2022, “the environment in which [Trust] leaders operate is more contested and more complex – where institutional culture, agency, history, geography and community potentially collide with the vision and ambitions of the MAT.” Greany and Higham in 2022 also noted that “the system’s ‘stratification, commodification and repositioning are creating a series of tensions, pressures and moral dilemmas that leaders face as a result of operating with the self-improving school system”. As a result, the scope of expectations for leadership are required to be more ambitious than loose competencies for system thinking which are delivered/taught without consideration of domain-specific and context-specific application.  

In her 2020 paper, ‘Systems of Meaning: The Three Nested Narratives of Trust Leadership’, Cruddas presents a compelling vision for the future of Trust leadership, where the system “avoids tired rehearsal of leadership competencies but allows the unthinkable to be thought and as Trust leaders, lead the national and international dialogue on education”. Cruddas’ view is captured by presenting three ‘nested narratives’ for Trust leadership, which widens both the scope and expectation of leaders operating at this level.  

Figure 2: An overview of the three nested leadership narratives (Cruddas, 2020).  

But, to what extent do MATs subscribe to a particular style/ way of leadership when considering school improvement?  

Research Design (750 words) 

This section will cover:  

Context 

There were two participants interviewed as part of this study.  

Participant 1 is the Director of Curriculum and Improvement at a 4-school Multi-Academy Trust in the north of the UK. Their career journey has included work as a classroom teacher, head of department, senior leadership, national work in teacher education and now currently holds sole responsibility for school improvement activities within the Trust’s central team.   

Participant 2 is the Director of Education for a 7-school Multi-Academy Trust in the East Midlands. Their career journey has included work as a classroom teacher, head of year, work in senior leadership, Trust-wide working and national involvement in training and development for school and Trust leaders. As a relatively new MAT (formed 2018), she is solely responsible for school improvement within the central team.  

The author has an existing working relationship with both participants, through a national network for Trust leaders, though has never worked for the same organisations.  

Methodology 

Due to the scope and size of this research, it was decided that a qualitative study would be the most effective means to collect data. The chosen method was a semi-structed one-to-one online interview, which was recorded and transcribed and from which discussion themes, topics and strands were analysed. Due to the nature of this study and its associated complexities, it was important that the method selected captured individual experiences and viewpoints and allowed “interviewees to speak more widely on the issues raised… elaborating on points of interest” (Denscombe, 2017). A one-to-one interview was more advantageous as the views and opinions “stem from one source: the interviewee” (Denscombe, 2017).  

An interview schedule was written prior to the interviews (Appendix 2), and additional probe questions were used where further development or clarification was required. Careful consideration was given to the wording of questions to acknowledge the differences in operating models at different Trusts and to invite participants to speak openly about the challenges faced. 

Research limitations and ethical considerations 

This research method was restricted by the fact that both participants work for similar sized (smaller) Trusts, which may have impacted their views on certain aspects and procedures regarding school improvement and, as they are often the only colleague responsible for this work, it may have been challenging for the participants to consider leadership styles for school improvement more objectively. It is not within this research’s scope to gather data at scale, but this could be an area for further investigation across more Trusts of different stages of growth/ who utilise a structured approach to school improvement. 

Ethical considerations 

In conducting this study, British Educational Research Association Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2024) were followed by:  

In order to analyse the content of the semi-structured interviews, the interviews were transcribed and a process of construct mapping/ thematic coding was undertaken (Thomas 2013, 238).  

FINDINGS 

There were three common themes identified from both participants’ responses which are key to answering the research question:  

1) The absence of a centralised, ‘fixed’ model for the leadership of school improvement across a Trust 

Both participants 1 and 2 noted that the skills, behaviours and habits of people undertaking school improvement work across the Trust is currently undefined, but that they feel it is (or will be) important to define these behaviours in the context of system-wide leadership. For both participants, it appeared as though the absence of a fixed model for school improvement and a fixed model for its leadership implementation were linked.   

Due to the smaller scale of the central team at both Trusts, it was challenging to say that there is one fixed model of school improvement and associated leadership behaviours. Though, this response did seem to edge towards a more traditional approach of distributed/ shared leadership: 

Participant 1: “Our Trust is at the beginning of this journey… we don’t have a school improvement model we can articulate at the moment.” (3:04) 

Participant 2: “I can’t think we would advocate for a particular style of leadership, but to me it’s important that things are collaboratively designed” (9:19)  

However, Participant 1 articulated a change in thinking that had occurred that now sees greater importance in identifying knowledge, skills and behaviours associated with the leadership of school improvement:  

Participant 1: “I think we’re now crystal clear and I know our CEO is clear on the need to define those behaviours. You know, because like Johnny Uttley says, all the time ‘if you don’t define them, people will define them themselves’. We’ve got quite far with that work and it took some time to get leaders to even buy into that, that it was important to do it. I think they saw it as a bit kind of wishy washy, but I think we now see the importance of that” (18:41) 

Both participants’ reactions aligned with Rowlett’s view that it is “not yet possible to identify and codify a single […] highly specified ‘school improvement model’ or strategy that trusts should follow” (Rowlett, 2024).  

2) The ethical lens as the most effective lever for school improvement 

Whilst there was an absence of a standardised model for leadership, both participants noted the crucial importance of being ethical in any approach to school improvement. Participant 1 noted that they had realised the importance of this through their own negative experiences being led in non-ethical ways.  

Participant 1: “At that stage in my career, all my experience of leaders had been poor and some of them were really poor. So actually, I’ve found it’s only in the last few years, I would say looking across the sector, I’ve really formed my view of what effective leaders have is actually humility… if you are leading for the right reasons which is always in service of children and communities and staff, everything else can fall into place” (8:20) 

Similarly, Participant 2 was keen to emphasise the importance of a values-led approach to improvement and considered this important as the central team’s improvement capacity expands:  

Participant 2: “I think if we were to expand the team, it’s not really ‘traits’ that you need, I guess it’s the ethos and belief system- the sense that you buy into our values-led approach as opposed to a different approach” (4:50) 

These views seem to be an agreed approach to diffusing some of the “tensions, pressures and moral dilemmas that leaders face as a result of operating with the self-improving school system” (Greany and Higham in 2022).  

3.) The prioritisation of collaborative convergence as a lever for Trust and school improvement 

Both participants were clear throughout of the need to exercise sensitivity to unique contexts across the schools within their Trust.  

Participant 1: “What I did learn about school improvement, that’s kind of stayed with me is that quite often these MAT models that work really well in one or two of their schools aren’t always replicable when you take them into other communities, particularly communities where there are lots of challenges” (4:11) 

Participant 2: “ I see my role to be very much about building capacity of leaders in school… because it’s a system leadership role is to remove barriers so that leaders can be the best they can be in schools and that has to be led by the strategic vision for the Trust” (3:01) 

Both colleagues saw their role as being one that is responsible for building the capacity of leaders in respective schools rather than to advocate for instructional methods to initiate improvement, which appears to align itself more closely with the principles of transformational leadership models. They were keen to stress that they did not believe that a ‘Trust-down’ approach was a successful way to manage school improvement and to sustain effective, trusting relationships with the leaders in their care:   

Participant 2: “ I’m massively of the belief that we shouldn’t specify the changes we expect to see across Trust schools. If we decide collectively that this is the right decision or that this is the correct principles to work towards, then that’s better”.  

Participant 1: “You’ve got to build and create the team of people that can do that and a good leader knows it’s not just all about them. It is about the team. So if you are a big visionary thinker, you need the doers around you, who understand your vision and can deliver it… we’re at a point where we can co-create our model with schools”.  

Both colleagues articulated the challenges of balancing the strategic goals of individual schools, the wider Trust and the day-to-day operational challenges of delivering improvement.  

CONCLUSION  

This research question aimed to investigate the ingredients of successful leadership of school improvement across Multi-Academy Trusts. The research was considered alongside three challenges that are inherent in the Trust system meaning a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to this critical work is not appropriate:  

The responses gleaned from the research showed that a defined school improvement model and the leadership of school improvement were not strictly governed by leadership ‘schools of thought’ or agreed competencies, but instead the selected approaches prioritised sensitivity to the perceived contexts of individual schools with the Trust. This collaborative approach is the mechanism used to make key changes in policy and practice across these organisations to avoid a ‘done to’ model of school improvement. The research demonstrated a preference for a co-owned approach to change, led by somebody who works collaboratively alongside school leaders, rather than sitting above them. 

However, it is important to consider that this research was undertaken with two smaller Trusts where school improvement work is often carried out by one or two individuals in the central team. Both Trusts appeared similar in their approach to leading the organisation- this was not about codified methods of practice, but instead adaptive practices based on declared need.  

A key question for potential further investigation is whether this same reciprocal dialogue and co-ownership of school improvement can be sustained when working across larger organisations of more than 10 schools or with Trusts who were under greater pressure to secure more successful inspection judgements to enable further growth. It would be interesting to consider whether a more instructional and defined approach to the exercise of school improvement would therefore be favoured by larger organisations or organisations where more rapid, short-term improvement was required.  

Whilst the formation of school improvement models of practice lies within the jurisdiction of individual Trusts, there is a necessity to ensure that the fragmentation and disparities that exist in the current system are addressed for the benefit of the children being served. The recommendation shared in 2018 by the Department for Education to promote ‘disciplined innovation’ (the act of enquiry, research and evaluation to inform and assess improvements) and ‘double loop learning’ (modifying goals or decision-making rules in the light of experience) does seem to pose an opportunity for further collaborative convergence between Trusts, in order to ensure the continual improvement of school improvement across Trusts.  

Whilst the research behind leadership methods within Multi-Academy Trusts feels very much in its infancy, it provides an opportunity for those working and learning in the sector to ‘act on and not just in the system’ (Cruddas 2020) to enable the continual improvement of the education sector more widely.   

Bibliography 

Cotterill, B. (2022) Britain’s education system is ‘failing on every measure’ – with ‘shocking’ regional disparities uncovered, Sky News. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/uks-education-system-is-failing-on-every-measure-with-shocking-regional-disparities-uncovered-12634175 (Accessed: 14 June 2024).  

Cruddas, L (2020). Systems of Meaning: Three Nestled Leadership Narratives for School Trusts. Nottingham: Confederation of School Trusts  

Culpin, J., & Male, T. (2022). Examining the competencies required for leadership of multi-academy trusts. Implications for a case study trust. School Leadership & Management, 42(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2088491  

Denscombe, M. (2017a) The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Sixth edition. London: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.  

Ehren, M., and D. Godfrey. 2017. “External Accountability of Collaborative Arrangements; A Case Study of a Multi Academy Trust in England.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 29: 339–362. doi:https://doi-org.bham-ezproxy.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9267-z.  

Francis and Hutchins, The impact of academy chains on low-income pupils. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Chain-Effects-2018.pdf (Accessed: 07 June 2024).  

Fullan, Michael, and Lyle Kirtman. Coherent School Leadership : Forging Clarity from Complexity, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bham/detail.action?docID=5851465.  

Greany, T. and Earley, P. (eds) (2022) School leadership and education system reform. Second edition. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bham/detail.action?docID=6934088.  

Gumus, S., Bellibas, M., Esen, M. and Gumus, E., (2018) ‘A Systematic Review of Studies on Leadership Models in Educational Research from 1980 to 2014’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46 (1) pp. 25-48.  

Hallinger, P. (2003) ‘Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership’, Cambridge Journal of Education 33 (3) pp. 329-352  

Hallinger, P. (2003) Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership, Cambridge Journal of Education, p.329-352  

Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 624-636. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/0957823111117478  

Jane Perryman (2006) Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures, Journal of Education Policy, 21:2, 147-161  

Levin, 2010; Hallinger, 2010:  Levin, B. (2010), “The challenge of large scale literacy improvement”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 359-76  

Leithwood, K. (1994) Leadership for school restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), pp. 498–518  

Marks, H. and Printy, S. (2003) ‘Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership’, Educational Administration Quarterly 39 (3) p.370-397  

National Governance Association(2022) ‘Taking the Next Step: A guide to forming or joining a multi-academy Trust’. Available at: https://www.nga.org.uk/media/4g1ixx52/nga-taking-the-next-step-20220608.pdf (Accessed: 07 June 2024).  

Rollett, S (2024). The DNA of trust-led school improvement: a conceptual model. Nottingham: Confederation of School Trusts  

The Department for Education (2022) The case for a fully trust-led system. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62865295d3bf7f1f433ae170/The_case_for_a_fully_trust-led_system.pdf (Accessed: 10th June 2024).  

The Department for Education (2018) Sustainable School Improvement in Multi-School Groups. Available at: SI in MATs TSAs LAS and feds FINAL report 211118 (publishing.service.gov.uk) (Accessed: 6th June 2024) 

Thomas, G. (2013) How to do your research project: a guide for students in education and applied social sciences. 3rd edition. London: SAGE Publications.  

Tian, M., Risku, M. and Collin, K. (2016) ‘A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44 (1) pp. 146-164