The real question for school trust leaders isn't about structure

The debate about academy trusts has been running for more than twenty years and, at times, can feel as though positions have become fairly entrenched. Supporters point to stronger outcomes, greater collaboration, and the opportunity to build capacity across groups of schools. Critics question whether structural reform is really the driver of improvement. One of the difficulties has always been the lack of long-term evidence that reflects the system as it exists today.

That is why the recent report from the Confederation of School Trusts, Advancing education , is a useful addition to a debate which has often generated more heat than light. Drawing on national data from 2007 to 2025, the report concludes that schools in trusts improved their national attainment rankings more than schools that remained with local authorities, with the strongest gains seen in disadvantaged communities and in schools which entered trusts following periods of significant challenge. 

That has always seemed to me to be one of the strongest arguments for trusts. The value lies less in the legal structure and more in the opportunity to create capacity that individual schools may find difficult to sustain on their own. Strong trusts can bring together expertise, develop leaders, support improvement, and create resilience in a way that is often difficult for individual institutions to achieve in isolation.

Of course, no single piece of research settles a debate that has been running for two decades and the report itself is careful to acknowledge this. Equally, however, it is difficult not to pay attention the significance of findings drawn from such a large body of national data. At the very least, it should encourage us to move beyond some of the more tired arguments that have characterised discussions about academisation for many years.