MAT Governance: What Multi-Academy Trusts Need to Get Right

MAT governance is how one academy trust provides strategic leadership, accountability, assurance and engagement across all its academies. The trust board is collectively accountable, holds executive leaders to account and oversees delegated work. Effective governance connects decisions, local knowledge, risk, finance, safeguarding and evidence without transferring the board’s ultimate responsibility.

This guide focuses on what the governance system must achieve in practice. For members, trustees, committees, local governing bodies and executive reporting lines, use the detailed multi-academy trust governance structure guide. Keeping that structural explanation in one place helps this page concentrate on assurance, oversight and evidence.

This distinction matters when a trust grows, leadership changes or an academy needs additional support. Unclear delegation can produce duplicated work, decisions made at the wrong level, gaps between local concern and trust action, or records that do not explain who was accountable. Clear governance creates a traceable route from information to challenge, decision, action and review. It also helps trustees connect educational performance, safeguarding, finance and risk instead of considering each as a separate reporting exercise. The strongest evidence is not a polished diagram but a shared understanding supported by current documents, useful reports, accurate minutes and followed-up actions.

This guide is for trustees, accounting officers, CEOs, governance professionals, executive leaders, committee members and local governors who need to test how their trust’s arrangements work in practice. It introduces the core building blocks before examining the trust and local role distinction in detail. It is a governance-readiness resource, not a substitute for professional guidance. Trust leaders and governors should use their funding agreement, articles of association, the Academy Trust Handbook, their own governance documents and current DfE guidance to confirm the duties and delegations that apply.

Turn accountability into an assurance cycle

The trust board sets direction, holds executive leaders to account and maintains oversight of education, safeguarding, risk and finance. It needs reporting that shows both trust-wide patterns and material academy differences, with clear thresholds for escalation. The MAT governance structure guide explains where each tier fits; this guide tests whether the resulting system produces useful challenge, decisions and follow-through.

Make the scheme of delegation work in practice

A scheme of delegation is not simply an organisation chart. It is the operating map for governance: what trustees retain, what the CEO or executive team can decide, and what is delegated to local governing bodies or academy leaders. It should align with the articles, committee terms of reference and financial delegation framework.

Trustees commonly retain matters such as strategic direction, trust-wide policy, executive appointment and performance oversight, major financial decisions, risk framework and decisions reserved by law or the trust's governance documents. Local bodies may be delegated monitoring, local stakeholder engagement, academy-level challenge and other responsibilities that the trust defines.

Test the scheme with real decisions. Ask who approves a policy, who reviews a safeguarding concern trend, who holds the headteacher to account and who signs off a budget variation. If the answer differs between people, the trust has a possible governance gap that needs clarification and a recorded decision.

Meet DfE accountability expectations

Academy trusts receive public funding through their funding agreements and work within the Academy Trust Handbook framework. Trustees should ensure that governance information, financial controls and reporting arrangements are current and understood. The trust's published governance arrangements should match the way decisions are actually made.

The accounting officer has an important personal role in ensuring that the trust meets its obligations and uses resources appropriately. That role works alongside, not instead of, trustee oversight. Strong governance gives the accounting officer access to challenge, clear escalation routes and a reliable audit trail for significant decisions.

Use a board calendar to map recurring reports, policy reviews, declarations of interests, accounts, budget oversight and committee business. Record when evidence was received, what challenge was raised and what action followed. A consistent record helps trustees see whether assurance is timely, rather than merely presented at the end of the year.

Separate trust-level financial oversight from local visibility

Financial oversight is a trust-board responsibility, even where an academy has a local budget holder or a finance-focused local committee. Trustees need a clear view of financial position, controls, reserves, related-party matters, procurement risks and the performance of each academy. Trust-wide reporting should make material variance and intervention needs visible.

Local governing bodies can add valuable context. They may review how a school's plan, staffing choices or premises needs affect pupils and delivery, within their delegated remit. They should know what information they receive, what they challenge and when an issue must be escalated to the trust board or executive team.

SFVS applies to maintained schools, not academy trusts. Trusts should use the current Academy Trust Handbook, their financial delegation and the applicable accounts timetable. ESFA closed on 31 March 2025; its functions moved to the DfE.

Keep safeguarding and performance oversight connected

Safeguarding remains a core governance responsibility across the trust and at each academy. The trust board needs a consistent view of safeguarding oversight, material risks, learning from concerns and assurance that local arrangements are working. A local safeguarding link governor or equivalent local role can provide focused scrutiny within the delegated model.

Performance reporting should be concise enough to support challenge, but detailed enough to show differences between academies. Combine trust-wide trends with academy-level context. This prevents a strong overall picture from masking a local issue that needs support, intervention or a revised plan.

Use consistent reporting definitions, dates and escalation thresholds. When the trust accepts a risk or delays an action, minute the rationale and next review date. The result is a stronger scrutiny trail for trustees, local governors and executive leaders.

Prepare for inspection conversations at trust and academy level

Ofsted inspects individual schools, not the trust itself. However, inspectors may need to understand how the trust is governed when they inspect an academy. They may consider the trust board's strategic role, the way leaders are held to account and how governance arrangements support the academy's improvement.

Keep a short, current governance pack for each academy. It can include the scheme of delegation, local terms of reference, membership, meeting cycle, reporting routes, key decisions and relevant trust contacts. The pack should explain the structure clearly without creating a separate, conflicting version of trust policy.

Inspectors may ask how governance operates in practice at both trust and academy level. The strongest answer is evidence: current documents, clear meeting records, challenge in minutes, follow-up actions and a shared view of accountability. Use a governance calendar, a governor development plan and a school governance risk register to maintain that discipline.

Work through the MAT governance cluster

Use the MAT governance hub to choose a guide for the next task on your agenda:

• Scheme of Delegation Checklist for MAT Trustees
• Trust Board vs Local Governing Body: Who Is Responsible for What?
• Academies Accounts Direction Compliance Checklist
• How MAT Central Teams Evidence Oversight to the DfE
• MAT Policy Management: Keeping Policies Consistent Across Schools

The MAT and academy policy readiness workflow shows how Edvance makes trust-wide expectations, local ownership and academy publication evidence reviewable together.

Edvance helps governing boards and trust leaders track governance obligations, evidence compliance, and stay inspection-ready year-round. Explore Edvance for UK schools.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does good MAT governance look like?

Good MAT governance provides strategic leadership, accountability and assurance, and strategic engagement across the trust. Trustees understand their collective responsibility, hold executives to account, use reliable evidence, manage risk and ensure delegated work remains connected to board oversight.

What is academy governance?

Academy governance is the system through which an academy trust's trustees direct and oversee the charitable company. The trust board is accountable for every academy, works through executives and committees, and may delegate defined functions to local committees without delegating its overall responsibility.

What governance records should a multi-academy trust maintain?

A MAT should maintain current trust board and committee minutes, schemes of delegation, local governance records, policy approvals, risk and assurance records, safeguarding oversight, and finance evidence. Records should show how trust-level and local responsibilities connect.

Who is responsible for governance assurance in a MAT?

Trustees retain accountability at trust level, while committees, executives, governance professionals, and local governing bodies carry delegated responsibilities. The scheme of delegation should make ownership, escalation, and reporting routes clear.

How often should a MAT review its scheme of delegation?

The trust should review the scheme regularly and whenever governance structures, responsibilities, or regulatory expectations change. The board should record approval of the current version and communicate changes to every affected body.

What evidence may inspectors or regulators seek from a MAT?

Requests may include minutes, delegation records, safeguarding and finance assurance, risk reporting, policy approvals, and evidence that local issues are escalated and resolved. The exact evidence depends on the review context and current official framework.