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

The 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.

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.

Unfortunately, the implementation of large MATs initiatives to centralise functions and adopt ‘GAG pooling’ practices can have a devastating impact on school business managers and the hardworking support staff. The impact of centralisation of school finances and operations within a MAT can have various impacts including job losses, a significant change of responsibilities, loss of autonomy, and increased workload and stress.

As schools’ finances are pooled into a centralised pot, it can also result in reduced autonomy and flexibility at the individual school level, leading to potential cutbacks in support staff positions. This can lead to valued members of the school community losing their jobs, causing upheaval and disruption in their lives.

The negative impact of such initiatives on support staff cannot be understated, and it is imperative to carefully consider the consequences of centralization and GAG pooling on these vital roles in the education sector. This article goes beyond the statistics and delves into the personal and human aspects of the issue.

GAG pooling and centralization can lead to job losses for school business managers and support staff, as decisionmaking power and control over funding are consolidated at the central level. We will also consider the emotional and financial toll of losing jobs, livelihoods, and career prospects for these individuals, who play a critical role in the smooth functioning of member schools.

The trend of GAG pooling and centralisation is on the increase in multi-academy trusts. Recently, one real-world case study of a multi-academy trust has been in the news that portrays the impact of GAG pooling and centralisation on jobs of dedicated school business managers and lowly paid school support teams.

The REAch2 Academy Trust is one of the largest primary school MATs. It recently announced plans to cut up to 26% of front-line office staff across all schools, which could affect a minimum of 57 out of 216 office roles. These roles include school business managers, finance staff, and office roles. According to sources, there are serious apprehensions that actual redundancies could add up to over 100 staff.

The trust plans to take control of school budgets, removing individual school autonomy over their finances. The unions are concerned that these cuts will result in more work for remaining staff and less support for students and parents, as the roles at risk involve parent contact services, school trips management, finance staff, and staff that provide support for the head and teacher workload.

The respective schools and parents were not properly consulted in the decision-making process. The unions highlighted that imposing cuts on schools and singling out front-line, low-paid staff was not an acceptable solution. As a result, the unions paused the imposition of these cuts. Unions are advocating an extended period of meaningful consultation involving all staff, governors, and parents to protect the schools, staff, and students from the potential impact of these changes.

The decision to delay the centralisation plans reflects the ongoing tensions between MATs and unions in the UK education sector, with concerns about the impact of centralisation on local autonomy and working conditions for staff. Reach2 and the unions are expected to continue discussions to find a way forward that balances the need for efficient management with the concerns of the workforce.

On the positive side, centralisation could lead to improved efficiency and consistency in financial and operational processes across schools within the MAT. It may also streamline administrative tasks, reduce duplication, and ensure consistent compliance with policies and procedures.

It is clear that GAG pooling and centralisation can lead to both challenges and opportunities. Here I will use the metaphor of a puzzle to illustrate that school business managers and support staff are integral pieces of the school’s administrative and financial operations. If the process is not handled carefully, GAG pooling and centralisation can disrupt this puzzle, causing pieces to be misplaced or removed, resulting in an incomplete and dysfunctional picture.

As schools navigate this complex terrain, it’s crucial to carefully consider the potential consequences and strike a balance between the government’s vision and the well-being of school communities. MATs have a vital role to play in mitigating the risk of support staff job losses.

While implementing GAG pooling and centralisation initiatives, one key strategy could be to prioritise transparent communication and consultation with all stakeholders, including SBMs and support staff, throughout the decisionmaking process. By involving them in discussions and considering their input, MATs can ensure that their concerns and perspectives are taken into account.

Additionally, MATs can focus on identifying alternative roles or opportunities for retraining and upskilling for support staff whose roles may be affected by centralisation. This may include providing access to professional development programs, offering redeployment options within the trust, or exploring new avenues for career growth.

MATs can also establish effective systems for monitoring and evaluating the impact of centralisation and GAG pooling, with a commitment to making necessary adjustments based on feedback and data analysis.

By prioritising transparency, collaboration, and professional development, MATs can proactively address concerns and minimise the risk of support staff job losses, while fostering a positive and inclusive work environment within the trust.

In the conclusion, I emphasise the need for greater consideration of the human element in educational reforms. There is a need for dialogue, collaboration, and support to mitigate the adverse effects of these changes on school business managers and lower-paid school staff.