Scheme of Delegation Checklist for MAT Trustees

A scheme of delegation should let a trustee, executive leader or local governor answer a practical question: who can make this decision, on what conditions, and who needs to know afterwards? In a multi-academy trust, that answer may involve the trust board, a committee, the chief executive, an academy principal and a local governing body. A diagram showing those groups is useful, but it does not explain their authority. This checklist helps governance professionals and trustees turn the scheme into a document people can use during everyday work.

It concentrates on designing and reviewing delegation. For the wider structure, start with the MAT governance guide. For a role-by-role explanation, use trust board versus local governing body responsibilities. The checks below are practical review suggestions, not a claim that every trust must use the same template.

Start with the governing documents

Collect the current articles of association, funding agreement, committee terms of reference, financial delegation and approved governance scheme. Record the version and approval date of each. Ask the governance professional to identify inconsistencies before the board reviews individual rows. A committee cannot gain authority simply because a spreadsheet says it has it; the scheme needs to work within the trust's governing documents.

The DfE academy trust governance guide explains how delegation connects the board, committees and executive leadership. The Academy Trust Handbook provides the financial framework. As checked on 10 September 2026, the 2025 edition remains in force; the published 2026 edition takes effect on 1 October 2026. Mark which edition informed the review rather than silently treating a future provision as current.

Separate decisions from advice and assurance

Use distinct verbs for approval, recommendation, implementation, monitoring and escalation. A row labelled “budget: local governing body” is ambiguous. Does the local body recommend an academy budget, approve spending within a limit, or review the effect of the budget on provision? Replace shorthand with an action and identify the final decision-maker.

For each row, check these fields:

The decision or function, expressed in plain language.
The person or body authorised to decide, and any conditions.
Who prepares the recommendation and supplies supporting information.
Who must be consulted before a decision is taken.
The record of approval and the reporting route afterwards.
The escalation route when the decision falls outside the delegation.

Use the same language in committee papers and minutes. If the scheme says “recommend”, the minutes should not describe the committee as having approved the matter. Consistent records make later reviews considerably easier.

Check the financial delegation separately

The board retains overall responsibility for trust funds. The Handbook requires an approved written scheme of financial powers and recommends annual review, with review at the next available board meeting following relevant management or organisational change. Keep this financial document aligned with the wider governance scheme.

Test purchasing, contracts, budget changes and bank authorisations with the finance team. Distinguish an internal spending limit from a transaction needing prior DfE approval: internal delegation does not remove an external approval requirement. Do not copy limits from another trust without checking the applicable Handbook and your own arrangements.

Ask how the process works when an authorised person is absent, a supplier has a connection to a trustee, or several purchases form one larger commitment. The aim is to expose uncertainty before a live transaction. Retain the explanation of how exceptions are handled alongside the approved scheme, using restricted access where the supporting records contain sensitive information.

Make the local governance remit explicit

Local governing bodies, academy committees and academy councils do not all have identical powers. List the remit actually delegated in your trust. Cover the local contribution to educational performance, safeguarding assurance, community engagement and academy improvement, without assuming each function includes decision-making authority.

For example, a local committee might examine whether a trust policy is understood by families and report implementation concerns. That does not necessarily authorise it to replace the policy. Explain where local adaptations can be agreed, who approves them, and how staff receive the current version.

Avoid leaving the principal between two competing reporting lines. State how executive line management and local governance scrutiny relate. Ask the principal and local chair to explain the same scenario independently; different answers are a useful prompt to improve the wording.

Define urgent escalation and feedback

A scheme should work between scheduled meetings. Identify the route for a material concern, the person who receives it and the evidence needed for an initial decision. Keep safeguarding reporting within the trust's established safeguarding procedures; a governance escalation document should never delay an immediate protective response.

For ordinary governance matters, record when the local body can expect an acknowledgement and how the trust will report back. An academy committee that repeatedly raises an issue without hearing the outcome cannot judge whether its scrutiny has made a difference. An escalation log can show the concern, recipient, decision, owner and next review date.

The companion guide to central-team oversight evidence explains how these local signals can feed a trust-wide assurance picture without losing academy-level context.

Test the scheme before approving it

Use a short workshop with trustees, executives, local chairs and the governance professional. Select three realistic situations: an unplanned contract commitment, a persistent academy performance concern and a proposed policy variation. Ask participants to trace authority, consultation, approval and reporting for each situation.

Record unclear answers as drafting issues. These are useful warning signs to investigate, not a list of findings attributed to inspectors or auditors. A sensible review may reveal overlapping committee remits, outdated job titles or an escalation route that ends with somebody who has left the trust. Fix the underlying process rather than adding another footnote to an already confusing table.

Approve, publish and maintain one current version

For the annual reporting cycle, the Academies Accounts Direction checklist helps distinguish preparation, committee recommendation and trustee approval of the accounts.

Give the board a short change summary explaining what has moved, why, and which groups need briefing. Record approval and the effective date. Align publication of governance arrangements with the Handbook, and retire superseded copies from working folders so meeting organisers do not accidentally use an old scheme.

Build induction around the decisions each role encounters. Ask new local governors where they would take an unresolved concern, and ask new budget holders to locate their limits. Schedule the next review and name the person who will bring forward changes following restructuring or leadership turnover.

A useful completion record contains the approved scheme, matching terms of reference, the board minute, the communication note and a dated review action. Return to the MAT governance hub for the supporting roles, accounts and assurance guides. The value of the exercise is a shared understanding that survives changes in personnel and is visible in actual decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should a MAT scheme of delegation include?

It should identify decisions, authorised roles, conditions, consultation, reporting and escalation. Align it with the articles, terms of reference and financial delegation rather than relying on an organisation chart.

How often should trustees review financial delegation?

The Academy Trust Handbook recommends annual review and review at the next available board meeting after relevant management or organisational change. Check the applicable edition and record the board decision.

Can local governors approve a trust policy?

Only where the trust has delegated that authority within its governing documents. Consultation, monitoring implementation and approval are different functions and should be described separately.

How can trustees test whether delegation is clear?

Ask trustees, executives and local chairs to trace a realistic decision through consultation, approval and reporting. Resolve conflicting answers before approving the scheme.