As academy trusts respond to the stronger emphasis on collaboration in the Academy Trust Handbook, an old concern is likely to resurface.
If schools are expected to work together and trusts are responsible for deploying expertise and resources across their schools, does that inevitably lead to greater standardisation?
It should not. Collaboration and standardisation are different choices. Some common approaches are necessary in any trust, particularly where statutory duties, safeguarding, financial control or the fair treatment of pupils are concerned.
But a trust can be coherent without requiring every school to use the same programme, timetable or teaching materials.
The distinction matters because schools serve different communities. Their pupils may have different needs, their staff may have different strengths and their local partnerships may create different opportunities.
A practice that succeeds in one school cannot always be lifted intact into another. Insisting on surface consistency can weaken professional judgement and, paradoxically, make it harder to achieve equitable outcomes.
Trust-wide directives vs school autonomy
A useful starting point is to agree what every pupil or member of staff should be able to expect across the trust.
That might include timely support when barriers emerge or access to a broad range of experiences or high-quality professional development. This is a shared entitlement: a statement about the quality and outcome the trust wants to secure.
Schools can then decide how best to deliver that entitlement in their context. One may draw on local organisations, another may use specialist staff across year groups and another may work with a neighbouring school. The route can vary while the commitment remains common.
This is more demanding than either complete autonomy or blanket standardisation. Leaders must define the elements that genuinely need to be common and be equally clear about where schools have freedom to adapt.
If everything is non-negotiable, local leadership becomes implementation. If nothing is shared, the trust cannot guarantee a meaningful common standard.
Decisions should be based on evidence
The decision should depend on evidence and risk, rather than personal preference. A common approach may be justified when inconsistency exposes pupils to harm, creates unfairness, prevents reliable comparison or repeatedly produces weak outcomes.
Safeguarding procedures are an obvious example. Trust-wide assessment principles or attendance definitions may also be needed if leaders cannot otherwise understand performance across schools.
Standardisation is less persuasive when several approaches produce strong outcomes or when local conditions materially affect delivery.
In those cases, the trust’s role is to help leaders learn from variation. Schools can compare practice, test adaptations and explain why a particular approach is suited to their pupils.
Variation should not be protected simply because it is traditional. Nor should consistency be imposed because it is easier to monitor. The question is whether a common method will improve quality, equity or efficiency enough to justify limiting local choice.
Make collaboration reciprocal
The culture of the trust also matters. Collaboration fails when expertise is assumed to flow in one direction, usually from a larger or higher-performing school to those deemed to need support. Every school has knowledge worth sharing.
A school facing significant challenges may have developed particularly effective work with families. A small school may be highly skilled at using community resources. A school with strong outcomes may still have much to learn about inclusion.
Reciprocity changes the conversation. Instead of asking which school has the approved model, leaders ask what each school knows, what evidence supports it and who else could benefit. That approach protects dignity and makes colleagues more willing to expose problems early.
Do your choices improve provision?
Trust leaders need a disciplined way to review the balance between common expectations and local discretion. They might ask: what must be consistent because it protects pupils or fulfils a trust-wide commitment?
Where is adaptation necessary because communities and needs differ? What evidence would prompt us to change the balance? Can staff explain which decisions belong to the trust and which remain with the school?
The answers will differ between trusts and across areas of their work. There is no such thing as an ideal percentage of standardisation. The test is whether the trust can explain its choices and show that they improve provision.
A coherent trust is not one in which every school looks identical. It is one in which schools understand what they owe to every pupil, contribute to the success of their peers and retain the professional space to respond well to their communities.
Collaboration should make that possible.
Professor Michael Green is head of quality improvement planning at Buckinghamshire New University. He posts on X as
Ìý
Ìý
