MAT Central Team & Operational Reviews

A central team exists to do three things. It should take work off schools that they should not be doing individually. It should provide expertise no single school could afford on its own. And it should give the board the assurance it needs to govern properly.

When a centre is working, heads spend more time on teaching and learning and less on procurement, payroll queries, and compliance returns. When it is not working, the centre becomes another set of deadlines arriving in the school office.

We often hear the same phrase from headteachers during these reviews. They talk about the centre as something they report to rather than something they draw on. That single distinction usually tells us more than any structure chart.

Central cost is one of the most scrutinised numbers in the sector, and one of the least well understood.

Trusts fund the centre in different ways. Some apply a percentage top slice to each school’s general annual grant. Some use a flat-rate charge. Some pool general annual grant centrally and delegate budgets back to schools. Each model has legitimate uses, and each creates a different conversation with headteachers.

Benchmarking studies have found meaningful variation by trust size, with larger trusts typically top slicing a lower percentage than smaller ones, reflecting economies of scale. Analysis of the largest trusts has also shown central charges per pupil rising considerably faster than school funding over recent years, which is precisely why the question is being asked more often.

Our view is that the percentage matters less than the answer to a simpler question. What do schools receive for it, and would they buy it if they had the choice? A trust that can answer that clearly is in a strong position, whatever its top slice happens to be.

Benchmarks are useful but they are easy to misread. Two trusts with identical top slices can be doing entirely different things, because one includes school improvement, SEND leadership, and estates within the centre while the other leaves those with schools.

We compare like with like. That means looking at what is genuinely centralised, what schools still pay for separately, and what the total picture costs, rather than reading a single percentage in isolation.

This is the pressure quietly reshaping trust finances, particularly in primary phase and particularly in cities.

Projected declines in primary pupil numbers over the coming decade mean many trusts will be running the same central team on materially less income. A model that felt comfortable at a certain roll can become unaffordable without anything going wrong operationally.

We help trusts model this honestly. That includes what happens to central capacity at different roll scenarios, whether the funding model still works when some schools shrink faster than others, and how to protect the functions that matter most if the centre has to get smaller.

The conversations are not easy. They are considerably easier when they happen two years early rather than in a deficit recovery meeting.

Trust-level inspection has been placed on a statutory footing through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. Ofsted currently carries out summary evaluations of trusts by inspecting groups of their schools, but it does not inspect the way central teams work. That is set to change.

The Department for Education has said trust inspections will focus on leadership, governance, and impact, with a framework still to be developed by Ofsted based on updated trust quality descriptors. Inspections will be piloted before wider rollout and are not expected to begin before the 2027 to 2028 academic year.

There is no need to panic about a framework that does not yet exist. But the direction is clear, and it points at exactly the things a central team review examines. How the centre is led. How schools experience it. Whether the trust can evidence the difference it makes, rather than assert it.

Trusts that understand their own central model well will find that conversation much easier when it arrives.

There is no correct figure. Benchmarking shows larger trusts typically charging a lower percentage than smaller ones, with a good deal of variation either side. What matters far more is what is included, what schools receive, and whether the model is explained clearly enough that headteachers can see the value. A well-justified higher top slice causes less friction than an unexplained lower one.

It depends far more on what the centre does than on how many schools the trust has. A trust that centralises finance, HR, estates, IT, and school improvement needs a very different centre from one that leaves much of that with schools. We would rather help you define the model first and size the team second.

Cost alone will not tell you. The useful test combines three things: what schools would pay to buy the same service elsewhere, what the centre frees up for headteachers, and whether the expertise it provides is genuinely beyond the reach of a single school. Our reviews look at all three rather than reaching for a percentage.

Trust-level inspection has been placed on a statutory footing, but the framework is still being developed and inspections are not expected to begin before the 2027 to 2028 academic year, with piloting first. Ofsted currently evaluates trusts through summary evaluations of their schools rather than inspecting the centre directly. There is time to prepare, and understanding your own model is the most useful preparation available.

Usually by removing duplication rather than removing people. In most trusts we review, some work is being done twice, some is being done centrally that schools would rather do themselves, and some is being done in schools that would be cheaper and better done once. Finding that pattern is often worth more than a headcount reduction.

Most reviews run over a few weeks, with a short period of on-site and online activity and a report following shortly afterwards. We work around your calendar and keep the demands on central staff and headteachers proportionate.

Typically the CEO, the chief financial officer or trust business leader, central function leads, a sample of headteachers, and the chair or a nominated trustee. Speaking to schools is essential. A review that only talks to the centre only ever hears half the story.

Yes, and small trusts often benefit most. When a centre is only a handful of people, key person risk is higher, capacity is finite, and the decisions about what to centralise carry more weight. The review is scaled to the trust, not applied from a template.

Yes. The report belongs to the trust. We gather views in confidence so that people speak openly, and we present findings in a way that is honest without exposing individuals unnecessarily.