LIVE IT
C E N T R A L I S AT I O N
Counting the costs: The human impact of GAG pooling and centralisation Joining a MAT can provide a chance to pool resources, but this is not always straightforward, as PETER SIRCAR, director of finance & resources, Hammersmith Academy, explains
T
he educational landscape in the United Kingdom is undergoing a significant transformation, with the government’s ambitious target of converting all schools into academies by 2030. As part of this drive, schools are expected to join “strong” multi-academy trusts (MATs) to foster collaboration and improvement. There are approximately 10,146 academies and 1,460 MATs currently managing at least two schools in England. These MATs include well-known names like AET, Harris Foundation, Oasis, E-ACT, Ormiston, Star, Reach2, and United Learning Trust. MATs often embrace centralisation as a strategic move to streamline operations, consolidate resources, and achieve economies of scale. By centralising certain functions such as finance, HR, and procurement, MATs aim to create a more efficient and consistent system across their member schools.
34 Summer 2023
Centralisation can lead to standardised processes, enhanced governance, and improved financial management. However, it is often accompanied by a controversial practice called ‘GAG pooling,’ where funding from individual schools is pooled into a central pot. While proponents argue that it enables strategic resource allocation, critics express concerns about potential loss of autonomy for individual schools, lack of transparency, and potential impacts on staffing levels. THE DOWNSIDES OF GAG POOLING Unfortunately, the implementation of large MATs initiatives to centralise functions and adopt ‘GAG pooling’ practices can have a devastating impact on school business