Academies Financial Handbook 2018 Published

Academies Financial Handbook 2018 Published

What you need to know about the changes

The new Academies Financial Handbook 2018 entered into force on 1 September 2018 and applies to transactions and operations after that date. The Funding Agreement with Department for Education requires academy trusts to comply with the terms of the Handbook. Failure to comply could trigger a Financial Management & Governance Review or a Financial Notice to Improve.

The key changes of emphasis in this edition are:

  • More emphasis on the critical role of the Board and the Chair of trustees in ensuring high standards of governance
  • More detailed requirements about regular and clear financial reporting to the Board
  • Greater scrutiny of transactions with related parties (i.e. trustees, senior managers, their family members or businesses in which they have an interest) and any subsidiary companies of the Trust.
  • Tightening the rules around setting of executive pay following recent media stories about excessive pay.

Turning to the specifics, the key changes are as follows:

  • 2.1.2 – If a Board meets less than 6 times a year, it must describe in its governance statement accompanying annual report and accounts how it maintained effective oversight of funds with fewer meetings.
  • 2.3.2 – The Trust must submit to ESFA a budget forecast return by 21 May and a 3 year budget forecast by 30 July. In setting the budget, the Trust board should have regard to latest DfE guidance including these key metrics to check:
  1. Staff pay as percentage of total expenditure
  2. Average teacher cost
  3. Pupil-to-teacher ratio (PTR)
  4. Class sizes
  5. Teacher contact ratio
  6. Proportion of budget spent on the leadership team
  7. 3 to 5 year budget projections
  8. Spend per pupil for non-pay expenditure lines compared to similar schools
  9. School improvement plan priorities and the relative cost of options
  10. List of contracts with costs and renewal dates
  • 2.3.3 – Budget monitoring – the Trust must prepare management accounts every month setting out its financial performance and position, comprising budget variance reports and cashflow forecasts with sufficient information to manage cash, debtors and creditors.
  • Management accounts must also be shared with the Chair of trustees every month.. and with other trustees six times a year. The Board must ensure that appropriate action is being taken to maintain financial viability.. including addressing variances between budget and actuals.
  • The Trust must select key financial performance indicators and measure its performance against them, including an analysis in its annual report. The Accounts Direction for 2017/18 listed some examples:

“Key financial performance indicators and, where appropriate, an analysis using other key performance indicators including information relating to environmental and employee matters. For example. this could include, but may not be limited to, Ofsted inspection outcomes, examination / key stage results, pupil attendance data and pupil recruitment data, in addition to financial and investment performance. It could be presented as both achievements against objectives for the current accounting period, and as trends over time.”

  • 2.3.6 – The Trust must have an investment policy to manage and track its financial exposure and ensure value for money – and it must be reviewed regularly. A Trust must exercise care and skill in investment decisions and take professional advice, ensure that exposure to investment products is tightly controlled: security of funds must take precedence over revenue maximisation.
  • 2.4.4 Executive Pay – the Board must ensure there is a process for determining executive pay which is agreed in advance and documented. Levels of pay must be defensible relative to the public sector market and the documentation setting out the rationale must be retained. There is a presumption that non-teaching pay should not increase at faster rate than teacher’s pay.
  • Transactions with related parties – no member, trustee, local governor, employee or related individual or organisation may use their connection to the Trust for personal gain. There are no payments to any trustee, unless permitted by the Articles or the Charity Commission and permitted by the Secretary of State. This will apply if payments are made to a business entity which employs the trustee, is owned by the trustee or in which trustee holds a controlling interest. The ‘at cost’ requirement must be complied with for payments over £2500- the payee must provide evidence that services have been provided ‘at cost’ i.e. without a profit element. This issue recently came to prominence in the media after an investigation by Panorama into the affairs of Bright Tribe academy trust.
  • 3.10.4 – All transactions with related-parties after 1 April 2019 will need to be reported to ESFA using online form. ESFA prior approval will be required if the contract exceeds £20k (or cumulatively with other contracts it would breach that limit). (NB this excludes payments under a contract of employment through Trust payroll).

The Academies Financial Handbook 2018 is amplified by the Academies Accounts Direction. Whilst most of this is a technical document, there are four significant changes to flag:

  • There is now clear guidance that purchases of alcohol or excessive gifts with academy funds are examples of irregular expenditure (para 9.1.22).
  • There is a new requirement to include information on trade union facility time to comply with the Trade Union (Facility Time Publication Requirements) Regulations 2017. This requirement only applies where trusts have more than 49 full-time equivalent employees throughout any seven months during the reporting period.
  • Financial statements will need to include information on:
    • The number of employees who were relevant union officials during the period
    • The number of employees and their percentage of time spent on facility time
    • The percentage of pay bill spent on facility time
    • Details of paid trade union activities
  • Accounts must also now include a section dedicated to the Trust’s fundraising practices, to comply with the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016. This requires details about:
    • The Trust’s approach to fundraising
    • Details of any work with, and oversight of, professional fundraisers and commercial partners
    • Confirmation that fundraising conforms to recognised standards
    • Details of the monitoring of fundraising carried out by agents
    • Any complaints received
    • How the public, including vulnerable people are protected, from unreasonably intrusive or persistent fundraising approaches.
  • Apprenticeship levy costs should be included as part of social security costs note to accounts. Where apprenticeship levy-funded training is received in year, this should be recognised as notional income and notional expenditure. The 10-per-cent top-up funding provided by the government should also be recognised in this manner. (para 8.13)

If you have any questions about any aspect of academy governance please get in touch.

Mark Johnson is an independent legal and governance specialist working with academy trusts, schools and not for profits to help them flourish. He serves as the company secretary of 2 MATs in Cheshire and independent audit committee member of a large MAT in Manchester. elderflowerlegal.co.uk 
Read More

Public Law Pitfalls for Academies – Part II

Inadequate Consultation & Other Public Law Pitfalls for Academies

In Part 1 of this post I outlined the public law pitfalls for academies when they exercise their public functions. One of the ways in which academy trusts can ensure they comply is to conduct a fair consultation process before taking major decisions with a public character..

 The crucial importance of consultation

The duty to consult before taking major decisions may be expressly required by specific legislation, such as section 5 of the Academies Act 2010 (where a school is proposing to convert), or Section 10 (where a free school is being proposed), or it may be implied as a matter of good administrative practice. Either way, the decision-maker will expose itself to risk of a claim for a flawed consultation process if it doesn’t follow the correct procedures.  As well as being a legal duty in itself, in some circumstances, the running of a consultation exercise may be seen as a way to improve transparency and enhance the quality of decision-making. Although it may be an administrative burden with some expense involved, it may help to fend off other types of challenges later because it will elicit information and relevant facts that the decision-maker needs to be aware of before proceeding, and will help to show that the decision maker made proper enquiries (for example, around the equalities impact of any proposals, such as the effects on ethnic minorities or disabled persons).

The sort of contentious proposals on which a consultation might be required include choosing or changing a sponsor, joining or leaving a Multi Academy Trust, changing admissions arrangements, changes to SEN provision, or opening a Sixth Form.

Golden rules for a fair and bullet-proof consultation

To avoid the risk of challenge to the consultation exercise itself, or to the subsequent decision which is based on it, the consultation must always be carried out fairly. What is fair will depend on the particular circumstances and the nature of the proposals under consideration. It will always be sensible for decision-makers to take more care if the proposals are likely to be very controversial. If the statute or Government guidance lays down specific requirements for the consultation, then these must be adhered to, but otherwise there will be a broad discretion to design the process as they see fit. The Courts have laid down the following key principles known as the Gunning principles

[1] (named after the claimant in that case), which must always be followed:

  • Consultation must take place when the proposal is still at a formative stage – the decision-maker cannot consult on a decision that has already been made – otherwise the outcome will have been pre-determined. The wording of section 5 of the Academies Act (the duty to consult before creating an academy) gave rise to controversy when anti-academy campaigners sought to argue that a consultation conducted by a Governing Body once the they had already applied to the Secretary of State for an academy order had effectively been pre-determined. Fortunately, the section makes clear that consultation can take place “before or after an Academy order, or an application for an Academy order”. However, the application for an academy order (which is a pre-condition to obtaining the £25k grant funding for set up costs) requires the school to confirm that the Governing Body has passed a resolution in favour of conversion – passing such a resolution before consultation has taken place could be problematic! The resolution may have to be carefully worded to state simply that the Governing Body has resolved to ‘explore the possibility of moving to academy status’. Controversially, the new Education and Adoption Act has removed the requirement to consult when the Secretary of State decides to make an order in relation to an ‘inadequate’ or ‘coasting’ school[2]. Careful choice of words in public meetings and written communications can also be very important. If the trust board is minded to pursue a particular option, it should take care to say that and talk in terms of what might happen if the decision goes ahead, and not give the impression that the issue is a fait accompli. If there is really only one viable option, the trust can state this and provide reasons as to why this is the case.
  • Sufficient reasons must be put forward for the proposal to allow for intelligent consideration and response. Consultees need to be made aware of the basis on which a proposal for consultation has been put forward. They need to be aware of the criteria which will be used in considering the proposals, and what factors will be considered decisive. Equally, the information in the consultation document must not be inaccurate or misleading so as to mislead consultees. It is particularly important when dealing with complex issues to provide access to sufficient background information to educate and inform consultees. The document should set out what is proposed, what the options are and why these changes are needed. In the case of new academy proposals, it would be prudent to provide information about the background to academies, their supposed benefits and governance arrangements, the extra money and resources which might be available, the extra risks and responsibilities involved, the impact on teachers, pupils and other staff, impact on other schools. Be upfront about the reasons for a proposal – in the current climate the driver for change will often be mainly financial – if that is the case say so – don’t be tempted to hide behind other more superficially palatable reasons, because that may risk the exercise being struck down as unlawful.
  • Adequate time must be given for consideration and response. Sometimes the statute may prescribe the time period, otherwise it may be left to the decision maker. If the decision maker has already adopted a documented policy on time periods, it will be expected to adhere to it, unless there are good reasons to depart from it. In the context of schools, a minimum of six weeks would be a reasonable time period, however at least some of the period should be during term time when parents, pupils and staff are on site. DfE Guidance on making significant changes to an existing academy trust[3] recommends a period of four weeks and the Admissions Code requires a minimum of six weeks for changes to admission arrangements. If the decision needs to be taken urgently, the Courts may be tolerant of a shorter time period – though less so if the circumstances are of the academy’s own making.
  • The product of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account. If the decision maker does not properly consider the responses, then it can be accused of having already made up its mind or having failed to take into account a relevant consideration. The decision maker does not have to personally take into account every response – it can rely on a summary produced by officers, as long as it is comprehensive and accurate. It is important make sure there is a paper-trail showing that this was the case.

Who should be consulted?

A key question is to identify the audience of persons who should be consulted. The safest option would be to cast the net wide and, depending on the nature of the proposal, consult with parents, pupils, staff, other affected schools, (e.g. feeder primary schools), nurseries or children’s centres on site, any diocesan or religious authority for the school, FE colleges, local community, local Admissions Forum, representatives of key stakeholders such as the local authority, the EFA, Regional Schools Commissioners, authorised representatives of trade unions and professional bodies. The consultation document should set out the background to the proposals and ask a series of questions and invite consultees to make any other observations they may wish to include. The information should be readily available – post it on websites and make hard copies available to pick up at the school. Consider issuing press releases to local papers. Meetings should be held for parents, pupils and staff and questions recorded and published as part of FAQs document on the website for those that could not attend. Useful guidance about the conduct of public consultations has been published by the Cabinet Office.

What if the proposal changes?

Is the decision-maker required to re-consult if it wants to adjust its original proposals or if circumstances have changed since the consultation began? The Courts have taken the view that fresh consultation is only required where there is a “fundamental difference between the proposals consulted on and those which the consulting party subsequently wishes to adopt”[4]. A particular example of this might be if the site for a new or expanded school has not yet been identified at the time consultation takes place. The consultation can proceed with new information about site information being provided as it becomes available – although obviously it may then be necessary to extend the time for responses on that aspect.

Whilst there are as yet no reported cases of judicial review of governing bodies in respect of academy proposals (as opposed to admissions or SEN issues), solicitors’ letters threatening litigation and the attendant costs seems to have been enough to delay conversions at Tyndale School in Islington, where the objectors alleged that the governing body failed to carry out an assessment of the impact changing to academy status would have on the wider community, especially in terms of equalities – how it would affect people of different religions, gender and disabilities. A similar threat of proceedings against the governing body based on flawed consultation and inaccurate information being presented to parents also delayed conversion at Tidemill School in Deptford.  It is also noteworthy that the governing body’s failure to consult properly can later be used as grounds to attack the Secretary of State’s decision to approve academy arrangements (even though it is not actually her obligation). This was accepted by the Court in proceedings to challenge the academisation of Downhills School in Haringey[5] (although the challenge ultimately failed on the basis that the local authority had consistently failed to raise standards and there was a pressing need to intervene, the judge accepted an argument that, if a credible alternative strategy had been put forward by parents to improve the school whilst remaining under local authority control, the decision maker would have been obliged to consider it).

Final thoughts

The complex patchwork of legal rules and duties applying to academy trusts is derived from many sources – including education law, company law and charity law. Given the hybrid nature of academy trusts and their special status as private corporations delivering publicly funded services, amid the multiple layers of regulation, it easy for trustees and governors to overlook the public law pitfalls for academies, the most important of which is arguably the duty to properly consult before taking major decisions which affect the school and wider community. As wholesale academisation gathers momentum, we may see more use being made of public law challenges to check and hold to account the decision-making of academy trusts.

[1] R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning, (1985) 84 LGR 168

[2] Section 8 of the Education and Adoption Act 2016

[3] Making Significant Changes to an Open Academy,  DfE 1 March 2016

[4] Silber J in R (Smith) v East Kent Hospital  NHS Trust 2002 EWHC 2640 45ff

[5] R (Moyse) v Secretary of State for Education  [2012] EWHC 2758 (Admin)

Mark Johnson is a highly experienced independent solicitor & chartered company secretary helping schools and academies with conversions, creation of MATs, legal and governance issues. We can help your academy to flourish. Find out more at elderflowerlegal.co.uk.

If you would like to be kept up to date on more topics like this, sign up to receive our regular newsletter.

Read More

Public Law Pitfalls for Academies

Inadequate Consultation & Other Public Law Pitfalls for Academies

Despite the rhetoric about autonomy, independence from state control and privatisation, academy trusts are still treated as quasi-public bodies for some purposes in the eyes of the law. Consequently, they are subject to various public law duties in the way they carry out their public functions. Unlike their specific duties derived from legislation such as the Academies Act 2010, Charities Act 2011 or Companies Act 2006, many of these duties are not written down in black and white. Instead, they are derived from principles of administrative law developed by the Courts over many decades. This lack of clarity means it can be difficult for trustees and governors to understand precisely what the law requires in this area. This is a developing area of the law in the context of academy trusts, particularly as the prospect of more enforced academisation polarises views and seems likely to encourage more protest and challenge to the activities of academy trusts. It is important that trustees and governors understand what the public law pitfalls for academies are to avoid falling into the traps. In this series of posts I will be examining what these duties are and how to stay compliant.

What is public law?

Public law is a body of long-established rules and principles used to check and challenge the decisions and policies of public and quasi-public bodies (such as housing associations or NHS trusts). The Courts have found that academy trusts are subject to public law because (a) they are carrying out functions of public nature (b) they derive their legal existence from statutory powers vested in the Secretary of State and (c) they are funded mainly from state resources. Consequently, their decisions and actions may be susceptible to judicial review in the Administrative Court. The courts will not intervene lightly in decisions of public and quasi-public bodies. Claims for judicial review follow a specific procedure – there is a strict time limit of 3 months from the date of decision being challenged (and the claimant must act promptly). The claimant must comply with the pre-action protocol before issuing a claim. He must obtain permission from the court to bring the claim. A judge will determine if there is an arguable case at a preliminary hearing, usually based on written evidence alone at this stage. If the court grants permission to proceed, the second stage of the proceedings will then go on to consider the merits of the claim. If the claim is successful the court can make various orders – it can strike down the public body’s decision, it can issue a declaration that the decision is wrong and require the decision-maker to re-consider the issue. Although pursuing a case is likely to require a budget of several thousand pounds, which can be a significant deterrent, legal aid may be available for certain types of claims if the claimant is in receipt of means-tested benefits, a very low income or is a child, and it is becoming increasingly common for well-organised action groups to crowd-fund their case. Litigants may also protect themselves against the risk of having to pay the winning side’s costs if they lose by applying for a Protective Costs Order.

Public law duties

Public bodies must act within their powers and in a fair and reasonable way when dealing with service users and the public. In the context of academies, that means duties towards parents, pupils staff and the wider community. Public bodies must reach fair, rational and reasonable decisions about the rights and entitlements of their service users. If they don’t comply, their decisions can be subject to complaints, challenges before regulators (such as OFSTED or OFQUAL) adjudicators (e.g. the Schools Adjudicator for admission issues), the Education Funding Agency and ultimately court claims for judicial review. Judicial review proceedings are a way of challenging the decisions of public bodies on the basis that the decision-making process adopted by them is so seriously flawed as to be unlawful.

The principle that academy trusts are subject to public law duties and that their decisions can be challenged by a claim for judicial review was established in a case concerning a challenge to the admission arrangements of a City Technology College (the precursors to academy trusts) in South East London in 1995

[1]. Admission arrangements at the Harris Academy in Crystal Palace were found to be capable of challenge by way of judicial review in a case in 2011.[2] Whilst it is clear that the education functions of an academy trust are amenable to judicial review, it is less clear whether its other functions, such as delivery of non-statutory services or decisions to enter into commercial contracts could be subject to review in this way. In a challenge to the decision of Camden Council to establish a new academy in 2009, the claimant Mrs Chandler argued that the decision to select a new academy sponsor should have been subject to an open competition.  Although the challenge failed on the merits, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that an ordinary citizen might, in appropriate cases, have a public law claim for failure of a public body to comply with the public procurement rules (which requires contracts to be advertised and open to competition)[3].

Sound decision-making is vital

In the context of academies, the decisions which have a public law aspect are likely to be taken by the academy trust board, or occasionally the Chief Executive or Executive Headteacher of a MAT, acting under delegated powers. The usual line of attack against decisions or actions by a public body is to allege one or more of the following defects in the decision:

  • Irrationality or unreasonableness– the decision is so outrageous or absurd that no reasonable person would have made it, or alternatively the decision-maker has failed to ask itself the right question, failed to make proper enquiry into the facts, has not taken into account relevant factors, or has taken into account irrelevant considerations. Linked to this is a growing doctrine of proportionality: the action taken by a public body must be appropriate, necessary, and not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective[4]. Heavy-handed decisions which deprive someone of a fundamental right are particularly susceptible to review under this principle.
  • Illegality – the decision-maker must understand the law which regulates them. A public body may have acted outside of its powers (known as ‘ultra vires’) – those powers may be set out in legislation or in the governing document (Articles of Association); the body has failed to comply with a duty set out in a particular statute e.g. the requirement to make SEN provision under the Children and Families Act 2014; the body has unlawfully fettered its discretion – e.g. by adopting a blanket policy on an issue without considering the merits of each individual case; the body has failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision; the decision maker has unlawfully delegated its decision-making to another party when it should have taken the decision itself (for example, an unlawful scheme of delegation).
  • Procedural impropriety – this a defect in the process of decision-making, which breaches the rules of fairness and natural justice: this could include bias from the decision-maker because of an obvious conflict of interest, failure to give someone a ‘fair hearing’ to put forward their arguments, acting inconsistently in two or more similar situations, breach of a legitimate expectation (express or implicit promises made to people, which the decision maker then goes back on; or failure to consult before making an important decision (see more on this later).
  • Breach of Human Rights – failure to respect the European Convention Rights brought into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It has become increasingly common for these grounds to be added into a claim, such as the right not to be discriminated against, right to freedom of expression, right to education, right to private and family life. In this context, the courts often apply a proportionality test – i.e. they have to weigh up the interests of the wider community and the legitimate aims of the state as against the protection of an individual’s rights and interests.

All this points to the need to think about the public law implications of decisions, policies and major changes implemented by an academy trust to avoid public law pitfalls. Examples of the kind of issues which could become contentious include, changing admission arrangements, a decision to merge or amalgamate schools, changes to SEN provision, uniform policies, school meals arrangements.

An interesting question which has yet to come before the courts is whether parents and pupils might use judicial review proceedings to force an academy trust to comply with certain provisions in their Funding Agreement which might be capable of conferring rights on third parties (for example, Clause 2.10 which requires the academy to be ‘all ability and inclusive’, to make available places for children with SEN (Annex para 9), to provide free milk (2.16) and to provide minimum pension benefits for staff (2.7). During debates on the Academies Bill in 2010 the Minister Lord Hill said “I am happy to confirm that parents have always had the power to seek judicial review against either the academy trust for failing to follow its contractual obligations [under the Funding Agreement] or the Secretary of State for failing to ensure that the academy complies with its obligations under the Funding Agreement[5]”. We may in future see claims based on the premise that pupils and parents have a ‘legitimate expectation’ that the terms of the Funding Agreement will be complied with.

Next time we will consider the crucial importance of conducting a fair consultation process when considering new or significant changes to academy arrangements.

[1] R v Governors of Haberdashers’ Askes Hatcham College Trust ex parte T [1995] ELR 351

[2] R (Omotosho) v Harris Academy Crystal Palace 2011 EWHC 3350, per Singh J at para 6

[3] R (Chandler) v London Borough of Camden 2009 EWCA Civ 1011 at para 77

[4] See for example, Pham v Home Secretary [2015] UKSC 19, per Lord Mance at para 96.

[5] Hansard 7 July 2010 Vol 720

Mark Johnson is a highly experienced independent solicitor & chartered company secretary helping schools and academies with conversions, creation of MATs, legal and governance issues. We can help your academy to flourish. Find out more at elderflowerlegal.co.uk.

If you would like to be kept up to date on more topics like this, sign up to receive our regular newsletter.

Read More

The Hallmarks of Good Governance in Academy Trusts – Part 4

A series of posts examining what good governance in an academy trust looks like and how boards can create a framework to deliver their core purpose and properly discharge their duties. In part 3 we looked at Stewardship of Finance and Resources. In this final part 4 we examine..

How to get governance right from the outset

The Department of Education’s view is that effective governance requires the following key ingredients:

  • The right people with the necessary skills, time and commitment, and sufficient diversity of perspectives to ensure internal challenge, all actively contributing in line with clearly defined roles and responsibilities under an effective chair and an explicit code of conduct, and with active succession planning
  • Clear governance structures and documentation with tightly defined remits, particularly in relation to functions delegated to committees or other bodies
  • Clear separation between the strategic and operational in terms of the role of the board and the school management
  • A positive relationship between the board and its school management enabling robust constructive challenge on the basis of a good understanding of objective data, particularly on pupil progress, staff performance and finances
  • The support and advice of an independent and professional company secretary
  • Robust processes for financial and business planning and oversight and effective controls for compliance, propriety and value for money
  • Processes for regular self-evaluation, review and improvement including; skills audits, training and development plans, and independent external reviews as necessary.

“Governors and trustees are engaged and energetic non-executive leaders who are driven by their core strategic functions of setting the vision, holding the Headteacher to account or results and making sure money is well spent; they sit on boards no bigger than they have to be; are curious about what’s going on in the classroom and aren’t afraid to innovate; they focus ruthlessly on what really matters: raising standards”  – Schools Minister, Lord Nash, 2013

Ensuring continuous improvement

Achieving high standards of governance and accountability requires sustained effort and resources – it isn’t easy. With all aspects of good governance, the effectiveness ultimately depends on the skills, knowledge and behaviour of those responsible for operating the system. The board must set the desired values, ensure they are communicated, incentivise the desired behaviours, and sanction inappropriate behaviour. Academy Trust boards can benefit greatly from an external review of their governance structures and/or an independent review of their board’s effectiveness. In response to the growing need for improvements, Elderflower Legal has developed fixed price review packages which can be delivered quickly, confidentially and with the minimum of fuss to help trustees and school leaders get a picture of how they are performing and what areas of practice need to improve. You can find out more about our review packages here.

Final thoughts

One of the difficulties in embedding sound practice is a current lack of clarity about who is responsible in academy trusts for setting up the framework for sound governance and embedding good practice.  CEOs and Executive Principals may not be the best people to lead on this – they are tasked with driving the organisation forward and taking measured risks. Similarly Finance Directors and School Business Managers may be too immersed in the day to day operations and short of time to take an overview of governance. The best person to implement your system is trained governance professional, such as an ICSA-qualified chartered secretary. They have the necessary experience and rigorous qualifications beyond financial and legal aspects to make things happen and help you succeed. Chartered secretaries can work for your trust on an outsourced or employed basis, depending on your budget.

A sound system of governance isn’t a ‘nice to have’, an exercise in box-ticking compliance or even a brake on progress: it is an essential foundation stone on which the whole institution is built. Get it right and it can be enabling and empowering: get it wrong and the academy trust’s whole purpose and even its survival may be compromised.

If you have enjoyed these posts, we have compiled the series “The Hallmarks of Good Governance in Academy Trusts” into a FREE downloadable Special Report.  The report can be downloaded here.

Mark Johnson is a highly experienced independent solicitor & chartered secretary supporting academy trusts, free schools & other education providers with their governance arrangements, legal and compliance matters. He is an independent member of a MAT audit committee. He offers a cost-effective governance review GovernanceCHECK360™ for academy trusts elderflowerlegal.co.uk.

If you enjoyed reading this series of posts on Good Governance in Academy Trusts and would like to be kept up to date on similar topics like this, then why not sign up to receive our regular newsletter.

Read More

The Hallmarks of Good Governance in Academy Trusts – Part 3

This series of posts examines what good governance in academy trusts looks like and how boards can create a framework to deliver their core purpose and properly discharge their duties. In Part 2, we examined the framework of governance in academy trusts. In this Part 3, we examine….

Stewardship of finance and resources

The academy trust board is responsible for the proper stewardship of trust funds, including regularity and propriety, and for ensuring economy, efficiency and effectiveness in their use. The Financial Handbook states “The board of trustees has wide discretion over its use of the trust’s funds, which it must discharge reasonably and in a way that commands broad public support”. This is hinting at the reputational risk of expenditure which could be perceived as inappropriate.

Further, the governing body has a responsibility, under the Academies Financial Handbook, to appoint an Accounting Officer, normally the headteacher or CEO, who has specific responsibilities for financial matters. This role includes a personal responsibility to Parliament, and to the Secretary of State, for the financial resources under the trust’s control.

The Accounting Officer must take personal responsibility (which must not be delegated) for assuring the board that there is compliance with the Financial Handbook and the Funding Agreement. The Accounting Officer must advise the board in writing if, at any time, in his or her opinion, any action or policy under consideration by them is incompatible with the terms of the Articles, Funding Agreement or the Financial Handbook.

Trustees have a number of legal duties that must be met in relation to accounting and financial reporting. These include:

  • keeping ‘sufficient’ accounting records to explain all transactions and show the trust’s financial position
  • preparing an annual report and statutory accounts meeting legal requirements, including the EFA’s Accounts Direction (updated annually) and the Statement of Recommended Practice (SoRP) for charity accounts.
  • considering the need for a reserves policy, managing the level of reserves held and the disclosure of any reserves policy in the Trustees’ Annual Report
  • formally approving the Trustees’ Annual Report and accounts at a minuted board meeting
  • ensuring that accounts are subjected to an external audit
  • ensuring that the Trustees’ Annual Report, accounts and annual return are filed on time with the EFA and Companies House.

Financial information should be provided at each trustee meeting which include details of the academy trust’s financial position and performance. The financial information should be sent to each trustee before each meeting and will typically include:

  • the latest management accounts
  • a comparison of budget to actual figures
  • an explanation for variances between forecasts and what actually happened
  • details of cash flow and closing bank balances

The meeting should set aside a specific time within the agenda for discuss of financial matters and allow the trustees to raise any issues of concern.

Systems of internal control

The Funding Agreement contains a range of obligations in relation to accounting and financial records. There is a general obligation to comply with the requirements of the Financial Handbook published from time to time.

The trust’s internal control framework must include arrangements for:

  • co-ordinating the planning and budgeting processes
  • applying discipline in financial management, including managing banking, debt and cash flow, with appropriate segregation of duties
  • preparation of monthly budget monitoring reports
  • ensuring that delegated financial authorities are respected
  • effective planning and oversight of any capital projects
  • the management and oversight of assets
  • the propriety and regularity of financial transactions
  • reducing the risk of fraud and theft
  • ensuring efficiency and value for money in the organisation’s activities
  • a process for independent checking of financial controls, systems, transactions and risks

Executive management and the trust’s staff are responsible for ensuring that the controls put in place by the trustees are implemented. There should be a culture of control embedded in the operations of the organisation; this culture is created by the trustees and senior management, who should lead by example in adhering to the trust’s internal financial controls and good practice.

All academy trusts are now required to include a statement about their governance arrangements in their annual report and accounts and to publish details on their website. New trusts are also required to complete an EFA online financial management and governance self-assessment within 4 months of opening. This includes questions such as:

  1. Has a named individual been designated as the accounting officer and does this person fully understand the duties and responsibilities of the role?
  2. Does the accounting officer, under the guidance of the board, ensure appropriate oversight of financial transactions by having all the trust’s property under the control of the trustees, measures in place to prevent losses or misuse; having bank accounts, financial systems and financial records operated by more than one person; keeping and maintaining full and accurate accounting records; and preparing accruals accounts, giving a true and fair view of the trust’s use of resources, in accordance with existing accounting standards?
  3. Do the board and appropriate committees meet at least three times per year and conduct business only when meetings are quorate?
  4. Does the board receive and consider information about the financial performance of the trust at least three times a year?
  5. Has a chief financial officer, with appropriate qualifications and/or experience, been appointed by the board?
  6. Has the board approved a written scheme of delegation of financial powers that maintains robust internal control arrangements?
  7. Has the board approved a balanced budget for the financial year and has the approval been minuted?
  8. Has the board been made aware of the requirement to obtain approval from EFA where it is considering borrowing funds or entering into liabilities such as leases or tenancies beyond delegated limits?
  9. Has an appropriate internal control framework been established?
  10. Has a contingency and business continuity plan been prepared?
  11. Have the risks arising from your operations been assessed?
  12. Has adequate insurance cover been obtained?
  13. Has the board been informed of the requirement to obtain approval from EFA before making any novel or contentious payments?
  14. Have all trustees completed the register of business and outside interests?
  15. Has the academy trust published on its website the relevant business and pecuniary interests of trustees and members?
  16. Are there measures in place to manage any conflicts of interest?
  17. Has the board approved a competitive tendering policy?
  18. Do senior officers’ payroll arrangements meet tax obligations fully?
  19. Has the board been informed that goods or services provided by individuals or organisations connected to the trust must be provided at ‘no more than cost’, on the basis of an open book agreement and supported by statements of assurance, in accordance with the conditions set out in the Handbook?
  20. Has a set of accounting policies been approved?
  21. Has an external auditor been appointed?
  22. Has an audit committee or a committee that fulfils the functions of an audit committee been established?
  23. Has a process for independent checking of financial controls been implemented?
  24. Has an appropriate committee agreed a programme to address the risks to financial control?
  25. Has the board been informed of the requirement to report to EFA any instances of fraud or theft: above £5,000 against the trust whether by employees, trustees or third parties; or where fraud is unusual or systematic in nature? Full details must be provided in the commentary section where any such fraud or theft has occurred.

EFA Chief Executive Peter Lauener set out further key questions which accounting officers and trustees must be able to answer on an ongoing basis in a letter dated June 2013:

  • Are you confident you are procuring all goods and services in an open and transparent way?
  • Are you ensuring that your cashflow reflects the activity at the trust and that it is properly reconciled at least monthly?
  • Do you have robust controls for payroll arrangements – particularly important in a multi-academy trust – including checks that any amounts paid out are the right amounts and paid to bona fide employees?
  • Do you have appropriate segregation of responsibility in your finance section (i.e. cross-checks and approvals)? And are you providing proper management support to your finance staff to operate in a role where they are well-placed to provide you with a “first line of defence” in terms up upholding propriety, regularity and value for money in the use of public funds?
  • Are you making sure conflicts of interest are avoided and that you are keeping registers of interest up to date?
  • Are you confident senior staff and trustees are not gaining any private or personal commercial or financial benefit as a result of their position, other of course than under their contract of employment?
  • Are you sure that your academy trust is not being exploited for personal/private benefit and that any fees for consultancy work are where appropriate being properly accrued to the academy trust rather than to individuals?
  • Do you have robust procedures for the recording, documenting, evidencing and monitoring of information and especially the reasons for entering into major spending commitments?
  • Do you have properly constituted arrangements for internal audit to give you and trustees a further safeguard that everything is in order?

Combating Fraud

To reduce the risk of fraud, academy trusts are recommended to consider the following actions:

  • ensure anti-fraud and whistleblowing policies are in place and regularly update these and communicate them to staff
  • conduct regular anti-fraud awareness training events for finance staff
  • highlight to staff that they can also contact theEFA with any concerns of possible irregularity or fraud (the EFA publishes financial management and governance reviews on its website)
  • management communications to pursue identified incidents of fraud
  • ensure financial controls are regularly assessed and are well designed and implemented
  • ensure that there is appropriate segregation of duties in your controls
  • review your processes for references and background checks on new employees
  • scrutinise significant business transactions and personal relationships to avoid possible conflicts of interest
  • install a physical security system to protect the trust’s assets

The most common abuses identified by auditors were set out in a National Audit Office report of 2015:

  • misuse of funds by headteachers using academy funds for personal gain
  • inappropriate expense claims for both staff and trustees and unjustified salary increases
  • transactions in breach of the Academies Financial Handbook and not in line with Parliamentary intentions
  • poor oversight of activities of individual schools in a group, or weak controls at the trust level
  • weaknesses in procurement (that is, non-compliance with EU procurement rules, and employment or contracting with related parties, or both)
  • Related-party transactions (that is, whether they have been entered into on an arms-length basis and are in line with the new ‘at cost’ requirement.

The EFA publishes regular reports of investigations it has carried out into financial mismanagement and governance issues on its website.

Next time – How to get your governance right from the outset.

Mark Johnson is a highly experienced independent solicitor & chartered secretary supporting academy trusts, free schools & other education providers with their governance arrangements, legal and compliance matters. He is an independent member of a MAT audit committee. He offers a cost-effective governance review GovernanceCHECK360™ for academy trusts elderflowerlegal.co.uk.

If you would like to be kept up to date on more topics like this, then why not sign up to receive our regular newsletter.

Read More

The Hallmarks of Good Governance in Academy Trusts

This series of posts examines what effective governance in academy trusts looks like and how boards can create a framework to deliver their core purpose and properly discharge their duties.

With the demise in the role and capacity of local education authorities, England’s state education system is moving inexorably moves towards a school-led system with a diverse landscape of structures, partnerships and institutions entrusted with delivering statutory education with public funds. The need for robust governance and accountability has never been greater. At the same time, schools are subject to so many regulations and reporting requirements, it can be difficult to see the wood for the trees. The spotlight from Government and regulators on sound governance in the education sector has never been stronger. However, trustees face a daunting task in assembling a picture of all the requirements: so in this series of posts we aim to provide a route map, explain and demystify.

What is governance and why is it important?

A system of governance is all about the way organisations are directed, controlled and held accountable to deliver their core purpose over the long-term. The organisation’s structure, practices and procedures should all be organised so that the organisation achieves its core purpose, mission and goals, whilst complying with the law and sound ethical practice.

A sound governance framework will:

  • Set out the shared purpose, vision and values of the trust
  • Enable the trust to develop an agreed strategy to implement the purpose
  • Ensure oversight and monitoring of the organisation’s performance along the way
  • Ensure the organisation remains accountable for delivering its mission.

Positive benefits of good governance in academy trusts include:

  • People will trust and respect the organisation (including pupils, parents, funders, regulators, suppliers and the wider community)
  • The organisation will know where it is going
  • The board will be fully connected with management, the academy’s operations and wider stakeholders
  • Good and timely decisions will be made
  • The board will be better able to identify and manage risks
  • The organisation will avoid mistakes and have greater resilience to cope with problems
  • The organisation should enjoy improved financial stability

“Where governance is strong, standards of attainment are likely to be higher because pupils are known and supported to be their best, the quality of teaching is a constant focus of attention, and the leadership of the academy is held to account for the performance and wellbeing of the children.” – Collaborative Academies Trust, 2014.

The pivotal role of the Board

The academy trust’s board is at the epicentre of the system of governance. They must set out the academy’s vision (what the school will look like in 3-5 years time) its values, the shared moral purpose that should run through all the academy’s actions. In most cases, this will be about improving children’s lives through excellent teaching and learning and preparing young people for the challenges of later life.

The model Articles for an academy trust (the main governing document) usually contain an anodyne statement that its object is “to advance for the public benefit education in the United Kingdom…by establishing, maintaining, carrying on, managing and developing a school offering a broad and balanced curriculum.” It therefore falls to the Board to put the flesh on the bones of this and stamp their particular vision and ethos on the trust.

The Department of Education’s view (Governance Handbook, 2015) is that the Board has three core functions:

  1. To ensure clarity of vision, ethos, strategic direction and structure
  2. Hold the Headteacher to account for the educational performance of the school and its pupils and the performance management of its staff;
  3. Oversee the financial performance of the school(s) and make sure money is well spent.

Those are certainly three key strands to the Board’s work, but there is a lot more besides! One of the key challenges for members of an academy trust board is to think and act strategically. The Board should continually review and evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and consider how best to play to the organisation’s strengths, or bolster the required competencies. Board members are not there to provide operational oversight or ‘second guess’ the executive managers. Nor are they there to represent or advocate for a particular constituency or interest group. The primary consideration must always be what is best for the pupils. The changing landscape and increasing levels of accountability and responsibility will require high calibre trustees with specific skills and attributes, who are able to step out of their comfort zone to lead school improvement, provide a high level of professional challenge and work as team players on dynamic boards. Running an Academy trust is like running a business, albeit one with a social purpose. Board members must understand that they have corporate collective responsibility and can be personally liable in some circumstances in the event of regulatory action or a legal claim (e.g. breach of trust, accounting irregularities, or negligence leading to personal injury).

The trend now is towards smaller, more strategic and skills-focused board, with less prescriptive structures and a definition of purpose more aligned to the new educational landscape. The National College of Teaching and Learning (Governance of MATs, 2015) has set out the skills and attributes required of trustees. Trustees should:

  • constantly focus on what’s best for the school and pupils by challenging in a constructive manner, asking probing questions, and visualising the strategic picture, in terms of both the trust and the schools within it. See more on developing strategy.
  • understand and effectively carry out their roles, responsibilities and accountabilities, with the ability to take risks and consider dynamic and innovative options
  • be able to analyse data, measure and lead school improvement and drive the necessary changes – useful starting points for monitoring data include the OFSTED data dashboard, Fischer Family Trust Governor dashboard (which measures ‘value added’ by the school based on socioeconomic factors) and the Wellcome Trust Questions for Governors.
  • understand the financial and the business aspects of leading a trust, as well as the legal implications and how the trust and the business work
  • work as part of a team and accept shared responsibility and accountability, as well as undertaking frequent self-evaluation in order to remain effective
  • act with a strong moral purpose, integrity and honesty, and as an advocate for the trust’s values, ethos and philosophy
  • express disagreement in a rational and professional manner
  • adopt an entrepreneurial mind-set in order to see and make the most of opportunities that are outside the day-to-day practices of the trust or schools
  • be innovative, creative and open-minded by engaging in futures thinking and ‘horizon scanning’
  • ensure that they have the commitment and stamina to drive forward the trust, as well as the will to abandon the ‘good’ in order to find the ‘outstanding’.

Composition of the Board

The model Articles state that the number of trustees shall be at least 3, but not subject to any maximum. The Chief Executive / Executive Principal may choose to act as a trustee, but is not obliged to. No more than one third of trustees can be paid employees of the trust. Normally, there must be at least 2 parent trustees (who are parents or carers of a registered pupil at the school) and who are properly elected by parents/ carers. However, (somewhat controversially) in the case of a multi-academy trust, this requirement can be dispensed with, if there is parent representation on local governing bodies. Care must be taken if appointing persons who are employees or councillors of a local authority – their involvement must be kept below 20% of the membership to avoid accounting difficulties.

Beyond that, there is some flexibility to decide the composition of the Board. There will usually be a specified number of trustees appointed by the members and by the external sponsor (if there is one). The Board can co-opt further trustees as it wishes. In practice, trusts have usually adopted one of three models – the traditional model where trustees are drawn from the stakeholder groups such as parents, staff and the community; representation model where there is a group of schools, the board is made up of representatives from each constituent school- the problem is that this can become unwieldy as the group grows and there is potential for inherent conflicts of interest; the third model, usual in sponsored academies, is for the sponsor to appoint the majority of trustees.

The default term of office for a trustee is 4 years, however, trusts may instead opt for retirement by rotation on an annual or bi-annual basis, in which case an annual general meeting of the members may need to be held to deal with appointments. The National Governors Association recommends that Chairs should serve no more than six years and no trustee should serve more than two terms.

The Financial Handbook requires that Board meetings take place at least three times a year (and business can conducted only when quorate), although trusts may consider it appropriate to meet more frequently, particularly in medium-sized and larger trusts with more complex structures, and any undergoing a period of change.

There is no perfect model for the Board, although the trend recently has been toward smaller boards, with an emphasis on getting the right skills mix. The starting point is to get the right people round the table.

Recruitment and succession planning

‘There should be a formal, rigorous and transparent procedure for the appointment of new directors to the board’ – UK Corporate Governance Code

There are various sources of potential new trustees, including the Chamber of Commerce, local charities or housing trusts, or through organisations such as Academy Ambassadors, SGOSS, Inspiring the Future. It is important to cast the net wide and consider what skills the candidate needs to bring.

Succession planning is a key factor which ensures expertise is shared across the system and prevent boards stagnating or individual trustees or governors gaining too much power and influence. Ideally there should be an annual re-election of Board and committee chairs.

The absence of a succession plan can undermine a company’s effectiveness and its sustainability. It can also be a sign that the trust is not sufficiently clear about its purpose, and the culture and behaviours it wishes to promote in order to deliver its strategy

The Chair’s role is pivotal

The Chair of the academy trust plays a key role in giving the board leadership and direction, ensuing that trustees work as a team and understand their accountability and role in the strategic leadership of the schools and in driving improvements.

The Chair must be able to:

  • Articulate the vision, shape the culture, build a team and attract trustees and local governors with the necessary skills, values and principles, ensuring that tasks are delegated, followed up and accomplished, and who can ensure board members feel that their skills, knowledge and experience are used
  • Develop a positive relationship with the CEO/ Executive Principal as a critical friend offering support, challenge, and encouragement, holding the CEO to account for outcomes across the trust and ensuring there is rigour in the management of their performance
  • Pursue a relentless focus on school improvement – this should be the focus of policy and strategy and scrutiny and challenge by the board and its committees should reflect this
  • Leadership – ensuring that systems are in place to meet statutory obligations, terms of Funding Agreement, value for money from resources that board business is conducted effectively, including effective minute-taking and agendas.

You can read more on the role of the Chair here.

Given the increasing demands on trustees and governors, it perhaps not surprising that HM Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw last November called for Chairs and Vice Chairs to be paid for their work. “The role is so important that amateurish governance will no longer do. Goodwill and good intentions will only go so far,” Wilshaw said. He was also concerned about governors who “lack curiosity” and hold “an overly optimistic view” of how their school was performing.

In all their dealings Academy trustees local governors and the Accounting Officer are expected to adhere to the Nolan Principles of Public Life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. See more.

Next time: we will examine the framework of governance in academy trusts.

Mark Johnson is a highly experienced independent solicitor & chartered secretary supporting academy trusts, free schools & other education providers with their governance arrangements, legal and compliance matters. He is an independent member of a MAT audit committee. He offers a cost-effective governance review GovernanceCHECK360™ for academy trusts elderflowerlegal.co.uk.

If you would like to be kept up to date on more topics like this, then why not sign up to receive our regular newsletter.

Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top