Can the multi-school, top down approach work?

“Pupil outcomes in Tasmania are the worst of any Australian state bar the Northern Territory. To counter this, Tasmania has launched a trial of multi-school organisations (MSOs ) across three primary schools in Hobart. This involves running groups of schools, led by one executive team, modelled on an approach developed in England, called multi-academy trusts (MATs). That ’ s where a single organisation assumes responsibility for running multiple schools and securing pupil outcomes. Taking inspiration from England, Tasmania’s Department for Education, Children and Young People reports the model is internationally proven despite there being no proof that the English approach is any more effective . It seems Tasmanian decision makers believe the hyperbole and have all too willingly engaged with confirmation bias. They are engaging with an inaccurate but popular refrain that aligns with their lofty aspirations to be nation leaders . When Tasmanian representatives travelled to England to speak with leaders of some very high profile multi-academy trusts (MATs) – organisations whose survival depends on growing their offering as evidence of their success – the narrative has repeatedly been positioned as transformative. Why was this structure chosen? How successive English governments arrived at the decision to adopt and impose the structure of multi-academy trusts (MATs) on all publicly funded schools, however, is dubious. By torpedoing the funding for England’s previous structure, namely local authorities, successive English governments paved the way for a model that was given every chance to financially succeed. Under the guise that schools would manage their own affairs, its subsequent iteration was a school grouping model, the multi-academy trust. While the requirement for schools to be part of a MAT was initially dependent on pupil outcomes, successive political parties have pursued a preferential discourse, whereby all schools must join one despite long-standing objections from educators. Tasmanian educators and unions are now waging a similar fight against MSOs. But progress since January 2026 suggests that what started out as a pilot in Tasmania was most definitely not, with all schools now being required to work in groups. Deliberately opaque practices Tasmanian MSOs are reportedly providing opportunities for schools to pool resources, centralise administrative functions and align practices related to the curriculum and teaching . While sounding like an attractive prospect from a teacher workload and management point of view, England’s approach should provide some genuine glimmers into Tasmania’s future if it follows this course, with consistency and sameness across schools, to include curricula, considered to be hallmarks of effective practice . While Tasmania maintains that its schools will retain their identities and autonomy, my PhD into the prescriptive and deliberately opaque practices of England’s MATs told a very different story. Relying on the insights of teachers working within these structures, there was a reported lack (by those who lead MATs) of regard for the diverse communities in which schools operated. Instead MATs involved mandated one-size-fits-all-curricula and prescribed classroom pedagogies. Indicating that all of this diminished the need for teacher expertise, contribution and/or consultation, teachers spoke of the ways in which children’s interests and life experiences were irrelevant in pursuit of school data, wider organisational outcomes and ultimate survival. Pockets of excellent practice Finding what I considered to be pockets of excellent practice, I examined MATs that appeared to adopt a contrary way of working. These MATs understood the importance of school heterogeneity and teacher expertise, with a genuine appreciation of the communities in which schools worked, irrespective of proximity. Flying beneath the radar, these MATs didn’t feel compelled to raise their profile, steal the limelight and wax lyrical about their supposed effectiveness, but they’re the ones that Tasmania should have been seeking out. Sadly, when the noise compels you to follow the echo, an unvarnished view is never likely to be sought. Swept up by the hyperbole and economic efficiencies yielded by funding agreements that focus on high level accountabilities, Tasmanian decision makers only ever wanted to hear one version of events, selecting high profile English MATs to inform their narrative. One can only hope that the rest of Australia seeks to challenge the on-brand commentary, and that none of us, irrespective of where we live, lose sight of what should always matter most in education, namely pupils. Stephanie Flower grew up in Tasmania, initially studying a BA (Hons) degree at the University of Tasmania. She has lived in England since 1996, where she trained as a teacher and worked for three different multi-academy trusts (MATs). She now works as a senior lecturer in education at Oxford Brookes University. Her PhD, completed in 2025, shed a much-needed spotlight on some of the deliberately opaque practices of England’s multi-academy trusts and what could be learnt from those working at the heart of the system, namely teachers. You can find her on LinkedIn . This article was originally published on EduResearch Matters . Read the original article .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of Education Review AU. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on www.educationreview.com.au.