Read on Twitter
I am all for people putting forward a case, but please can we be honest?
1.The article by Muijs and Sampson is based upon interviews with schools in MATs, asking them about the support they received. By not interviewing maintained schools, it isn't possible to judge the support others received - Our LA did a marvellous job
2.The OFSTED report in 2019 made a series of recommendations on what MATs needed to do to get better. The report had a balance of positive and negative features of current MAT provision. It was not a report which stated that MATs were the best model.
The report states “As a qualitative study, the findings from this research are not intended to be statistically generalisable to the population of schools or MATs.”
3.T. Greany's report is a focus on all collaborative models and has a distinct section on the successful approaches of LA models.
4.Armstrong's 2015 study makes it very clear that the review has “pointed to a paucity of independent empirical evidence relating to interschool collaboration” but that it is clear that there are a range of models. MATs are not the only one.
4.The Chapman and Muijs article from 2013 is behind a paywall but the abstract is clear that the “study has identified 6 broad and sometimes overlapping categories of federations” Therefore, not just MATs
I am all for people putting forward a case, but please can we be honest?
