I speak to a number of multi-academy trusts in my role, and I’m always fascinated when I encounter one that’s fully centralised. I imagine there are plenty out there, but most of the trusts I engage with tend to operate under a more decentralised structure—schools running much of their own affairs and only communicating back in a light way for reporting.
And increasingly, I’m hearing about a third option: a hybrid model. In this arrangement, the central team gains a clear overview, while individual schools are provided with the right tools and a standardised method for managing their daily operations, ensuring everyone remains compliant and follows agreed procedures. I'm coming across this idea more often.
It’s a really intriguing topic. There’s no one-size-fits-all—but no matter how a trust chooses to orient itself, there are very clear trade-offs.
When I meet with trusts that are fully centralised, they often highlight scale as their primary benefit. One told me that their roaming estates team freed local staff from endless paper-based tasks, and that central procurement consolidated contracts to secure better deals.
The appeal is obvious:
Of course, they also acknowledge the downsides. Some governing bodies feel as though decisions are made at a distance, and the system can become slow if every minor repair must pass through the central office. And as Chris Kirk noted in Schools Week, if centralisation isn’t designed carefully, it risks duplication—schools might find themselves “doing the work and paying for the centre to do it too.”
When done effectively, centralisation brings efficiency and consistency. Done poorly, it can come across as a layer of bureaucracy added on top.
There’s another side to the story. I often meet headteachers who tell me how important it is to be able to just get on with things. If a pipe bursts on a Monday, they can usually get it fixed by Tuesday—no waiting for sign-off. In many smaller trusts, that’s a badge of pride. They only get the trust directly involved when the job exceeds a certain threshold in cost or complexity.
This kind of responsiveness is their main draw. Schools also tell me autonomy delivers:
In small, strong secondary-based trusts, this can be extremely efficient. But plenty also admit to the gaps. One COO once told me their compliance reports were “all over the place”—some on spreadsheets, some still on paper.
And this is something I hear often: one school runs on a meticulously built spreadsheet system, another on a purchased software platform, and the next is still using whiteboards and paper in the office. The result? Everyone’s doing things slightly differently, and it becomes hard to be confident that compliance is consistent across the whole trust.
So perhaps it makes sense to sit somewhere in between. The hybrid model is basically full oversight without feeling controlled. It’s about giving schools the right tools and embedding a standardised way of working—so fire door checks, legionella tests, and other statutory duties are logged in the same system. The site team still carries out the work, but the central team can immediately spot if something is not getting done, allowing them to target support where it’s needed.
One person described it perfectly as “coaching, not controlling.” They give their local managers templates, checklists, even a helpline. Schools feel trusted to handle their daily activities, but they also know help is just a call away.
That balance has distinct advantages:
Sector leaders are already framing this as the new normal. Leora Cruddas of CST says the key is to allow autonomy and centralisation to “exist in harmony, leveraging both central and local expertise.” And with what I’m hearing from most trusts, this seems to be where their future lies.
So, some start out fully centralised. Others begin with a high degree of autonomy and gradually pull more responsibilities into the centre as they grow. Many adapt depending on the school’s needs or the wider context.
The trade-offs are clear:
There’s no universal formula, and perhaps there never will be. But if one thing is clear, it’s this: the best trusts aren’t defined by being central or local—they’re defined by how clearly they align their estates practice with their values. And that’s the challenge for every estates leader: not just to manage the buildings, but to shape the model that makes those buildings serve their communities better.
Statlog - The complete solution for premises & compliance management, trusted by educational leaders