Governors are warning of “dominant” academy chain leaders speaking through meetings and not being scrutinised effectively by trustees.

A National Governance Association (NGA) report, published today, finds little evidence that academy trust board meetings are improving.

The report calls for all multi-academy trusts (MATs) to open themselves up to outside scrutiny through external reviews.

Exclusive: Nobody is fighting MAT schools’ corner, leader warns

Pay: Warning over race to the top in CEO salaries

Academy trusts: Williamson wants more schools moving into MATs

It also says that the sector cannot afford to be complacent on issues such as rogue chief executives, irregular financial activity, related party transactions or conflicts of interest.

However, it says that, since 2019, there have been fewer high-profile cases of trusts operating unethically.

The NGA has produced a new report: MATs Moving Forward, which provides an updated view of the academy trust sector from a report it published two years ago.

In 2019, the NGA had warned of “rare” but “detrimentally high-profile cases of trusts operating unethically, which have led to negative press and public perceptions about MATs”.

Its latest report says the situation has improved but raises concerns about trust governance and levels of oversight.

The report adds: “How a board behaves is a hugely important aspect of effective governance.

“Although progress is difficult to assess when there are so many trusts, there is little evidence to suggest that the way in which board meetings are handled has improved.

“NGA continues to hear reports of dominant chief executives who speak throughout the meeting and/or trustees who are not asking the challenging questions.

“Many trusts are reluctant to thoroughly review their governance, instead choosing safer and less challenging development activities.”

The NGA report highlights the Department for Education (DfE) governance handbook, which says that “an objective independent external review of the effectiveness of the board can be a more powerful diagnostic tool than a self-evaluation”.

The DfE recommends “commissioning external reviews of board effectiveness, particularly at key growth or transition points, to gain an independent expert assessment of strengths and areas for development”. 

The NGA report says: “It has not yet become common practice to open up to an external process and we challenge MATs who haven’t done this within the last two years to make a decision that such a review will be commissioned to take place in 2021.”