Sir David Carter, Chief Executive of Cabot Learning Federation and recently appointed Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) for the South West, has answered some questions originally published in the run up to the Education Select Committee hearing on 13 May.
The panel of witnesses provided answers to some of the questions - and one was answered in a comment in the original post.
However questions about academy finances, which were discussed on Twitter, were not covered.
The greatest interest appeared to be in the charges made by multi-academy trusts (MATs) for the services they provide to their schools.
Sir David addresses this and other questions but pointed out that his answers reflect the fact that his role as RSC does not start until September and as such rely specifically on his experience at Cabot Learning Federation.
Q&A
Q: Judging by the Twitter exchanges the question of greatest interest was on the charges made by MATs for central services, how this varies between MATs, whether that variation matters, and whether it should be measured. You might not be able to speak for other MATs but if you can shed any light on this topic I think it would be appreciated.
DC: The charges for central services will vary between multi academy trusts and will depend on what services are provided from the centre and which are provided in the academies. The principle however is related to the fact that most MAT are single entities and have to act as one company and are subject as a whole to company legislation, regulation and audit. They are also single employers of the whole workforce. So in order to show compliance with statutory requirement, and to ensure that staff are treated equally and in as fair and consistent manner as possible it is essential that systems, structures and processes are focused in the centre and not in the academies. The centre provides the strategic corporate direction and rigour of the MAT and needs to have appropriately qualified professional staff in order to do this effectively. Some MATs also provide support services to their academies which are funded through a central charge.
In the CLF, the following services are part of our menu:
Financial management and advice
HR processing for Payroll
HR case work
Recruitment
IT network support
Project management
Facilities management support
Educational support at leadership and classroom level
For these services the academies pay a contribution of 3.75% per annum in 2013-14. This is a fairer and more transparent way to do this as a single flat rate contribution would favour large secondary schools and dis-advantage smaller primaries and we have both. I am not sure how this compares to other organisations who may have higher or lower overhead costs but I would anticipate a contribution between 2.8% and 5% to be around the norm in the current financial climate although I believe some chains have charged more in the past.
Q: Whether MATs deal with deficits at their schools in the same way - can they all lend money, give money, to member schools in difficulty - and to what extent can they be expected to put other schools in the trust at risk when they do so?
DC: The underlying principle of the CLF is that grant funding that is provided to support the education of children in Academy X is not used to fund the education of children in Academy Y. There have been no examples since our MAT was set up in 2009 where funding surpluses from one academy have been used to resolve a financial problem in another. Our funding comes into the central federation, and once the charge for central services is deducted, the academies receive exactly what they have been allocated and expect to receive. Where individual academies face financial challenge, we would expect the Principals to work with the CLF Chief Operating Officer and the CEO to manage any looming deficit some considerable time before it would impact. Good risk management executed by the executive team of the CLF and the CLF Board means that we are adept at recovery planning and one of the reasons why we employ highly qualified accountants and HR managers is to ensure that we do not get into such difficulties. The key from our point of view is strong medium term planning that focuses on financial risk 2-4 years ahead.
Q: Are there, or should there be, mechanisms and rules in place to ensure family connections do not cause problems?
DC: We are required to demonstrate that we have transparent and fair processes for all appointments, and make the appointment which is going to have the most positive impact on our student outcomes. Family relationships are irrelevant as long as interests are declared and there is a clearly independent appointment process. Inappropriate related party transactions are a matter for appointed auditors in terms of reporting, and internal audit in terms of reviewing the adequacy of our internal control systems.
In the situation where my wife was appointed to lead the CLF Teaching School, I took no part in the process and delegated the entire process to one of my Principals who was responsible for the development of the teaching school. The delegation meant that my colleague worked with the chair of the CLF Board to write the JD, the Person Specification and design and conduct the interviews. The role was advertised nationally and there was a competitive process leading to her appointment. The same transparency is applied post appointment, and for that reason I have no line management or performance management role with her. Our external auditors and legal advisors checked our processes and gave us feedback on this process.
·
No comments:
Post a Comment