This summary provides an overview of CST's proposals on intelligent regulation for school trusts.
There are two parts to effective regulation:
- The prevention of harms (standards)
- The promotion of goods (aspirational framing)
Good regulation is the balance of these two functions.
Regulatory theory provides a way of thinking about the role of baseline metrics (and/or standards) to prevent harms, otherwise it becomes very hard to regulate. However, to promote goods we need more aspirational framing, which is more than a minimum to be met and more an ideal to strive towards.
For further detail, see CST’s proposal on intelligent regulation in Intelligence Systems of Accountability
Why is regulation of the trust sector important?
It is fundamentally important to have strong and intelligent regulation in a system of legally autonomous (and highly specialist) education charities set up to run and improve state schools. The state must be able to act (or intervene) quickly on behalf of children, parents, and the wider public to ensure the highest quality of education, safety and safeguarding, and enforce regularity and propriety in the use of public money.
Where are we now operationally?
We have two halves of a regulator, neither of which is actually constituted as a regulator:
- Education and Skills Funding Agency – regulates governance and finance (mostly but not entirely compliance-based)
- Department for Education regional directors (formerly regional schools commissioners) – regulates performance and standards (mostly but not entirely risk-based)
What does this mean operationally for Trusts?
With two separate agencies, there are two separate lines of accountability for Trusts, two separate conversations, two sets of account management, two sets of data returns. And in practice, trusts that fall into difficulties have issues on both of these fronts. The split in responsibility can hamper the state in taking action on underperformance. BUT regional directors have no formal means of intervening at the level of the trust – the legal entity.
Assessing regulatory burdens and impact – and keeping them in check
Many CST members have told us that there is incremental ‘mission creep’ in the constant adjustment to the Academy Trust Handbook (formerly the Academies Financial Handbook). Good regulation is constantly aware of balancing the burdens of regulation (on the regulated sector) with the ‘good’ regulation is likely to do. This is particularly important in the public sector where the cost of regulation (borne by those who are regulated) is from public funds. Ultimately public resource is used to meet regulatory activity and therefore regulators must be able to demonstrate the benefit of regulation on the public purse. This is why regulation of public sector markets typically involves regulatory impact assessments. And why regulation must be risk-based and proportionate.
