Colleagues,
One question that keeps coming up as we work through the Development Plan is where we draw the line between Trust-wide consistency and individual school autonomy.
There are some areas where I think consistency is clearly beneficial — safeguarding processes, core data definitions, financial controls and certain aspects of curriculum expectations.
Equally, I don't think we should create a situation where schools are required to operate identically simply because they belong to the same Trust.
I'd be interested in views on where colleagues think the boundaries should sit.
In particular, are there areas where we've pushed for consistency when allowing more local flexibility might actually produce better outcomes?
David
I'd distinguish between consistency of outcome and consistency of process.
For example, I don't think every school necessarily needs to use exactly the same intervention model for attendance. But we should be able to look at the same headline measures and understand whether the approach is working.
Where I'd be more cautious about local variation is in areas where inconsistency creates additional risk or makes Trust-level oversight difficult.
SEND is probably a good example of where I'd favour flexibility.
We need a consistent expectation around quality of provision, but the actual way that provision is organised will inevitably depend on the school's cohort, staffing and existing expertise.
I'd be concerned if "consistency" gradually became interpreted as everyone using the same resources or intervention model.
I agree with both points, although there is a practical issue.
Every exception creates another conversation about whether it really is an exception.
We've sometimes spent more time explaining why a school is doing something differently than we would have spent agreeing a common approach in the first place.
I wonder whether we need to be clearer about which areas are genuinely Trust standards and which are simply Trust recommendations.