The current debate around devolution, technical education, accountability and funding points to a wider challenge for school trusts.

How do we build organisations that can continue to deliver purposeful outcomes when policy, structures and expectations continue to change?

Governments will change. Policy will change. Funding models will change.

The purpose of a school trust should not.

Our role is to create the conditions in which children, communities and the people who serve them can thrive.

That means the next phase of digital transformation cannot simply be about infrastructure, devices, systems or standalone AI tools. It has to be about the operating model.

From digital strategy to an AI-enabled operating model

Over the past decade, much of the digital transformation agenda has rightly focused on infrastructure, cloud platforms, cyber security, devices and data.

Those foundations remain essential.

The opportunity now is to think more fundamentally about how work gets done across a trust.

An AI-enabled trust should not be a traditional organisation with an AI product layered over the top.

It should be an organisation designed around better information flow, clearer decision making, reduced duplication and stronger organisational intelligence.

Finance, HR, education, estates, governance and IT should not operate as disconnected functions linked together by spreadsheets and meetings.

The goal should be a more connected operating model where leaders can access the information they need, routine work is simplified or automated, and people have more capacity to focus on the work that requires judgement, relationships and leadership.

The outcome is not fewer people.

It is better use of people’s time.

People

Technology should enable people.

Across school trusts, talented leaders and teams still spend too much time moving information between systems, reconciling spreadsheets, producing reports and completing repetitive administrative processes.

That is an operating model problem.

The starting point should be the work.

What decisions need to be made?

What information is required?

Which activities genuinely need professional judgement?

Which processes exist because systems do not connect effectively?

AI and automation should be used where they reduce friction and release capacity.

They should not replace the human contribution that matters most.

Judgement, creativity, empathy, relationships and leadership remain central to how successful trusts operate.

Place

Place matters.

A rural trust in Lincolnshire will operate in a very different context from a large urban trust in Greater Manchester.

A trust working across several local authorities may experience different approaches to SEND, funding, employer engagement, transport and public services.

That difference should be recognised.

It should not, however, lead to fragmentation.

Trusts should not have to choose between complete centralisation and complete localisation.

A mature operating model can establish common standards for data, identity, cyber security, platforms and governance while still allowing schools and communities to respond to their own context.

There is a simple principle here.

Standardise what should be common. Contextualise what should be different.

Technology can make that balance easier to achieve.

Partnership

The same applies beyond the boundaries of the trust.

If school trusts are expected to act as civic institutions, our operating models need to support genuine partnership.

Education does not sit separately from health, employment, housing, transport, universities, local authorities or employers.

This becomes particularly important when we consider young people who are not in education, employment or training.

Schools can provide excellent education and strong qualifications.

But education cannot create jobs.

If routes into employment are limited, or young people cannot access the opportunities available to them, schools cannot solve that challenge alone.

This is where partnership matters.

Trusts, colleges, universities, employers, local authorities and wider public services need better ways to share insight, understand need and coordinate action.

Technology should help make that easier.

It should support a shift from disconnected systems of record towards better connected systems of intelligence.

Local relevance without local limitation

There is an important distinction to make.

Local employer engagement matters, but vocational education cannot be shaped solely by immediate local labour market needs.

Young people need to be prepared for a much wider economy.

That means developing transferable knowledge and skills, digital capability, adaptability and the confidence to move between sectors, places and opportunities.

The jobs available locally today may not be the jobs available in ten years.

The same principle should apply to how trusts design their operating models.

They should respond to place without becoming constrained by place.

Purpose before politics

Education operates within a political environment.

Different governments will have different priorities, different policies and different views about how public services should work.

Trusts need to be capable of responding to that change without constantly redesigning the organisation around the latest policy announcement.

That requires organisational capability.

Strong governance.

Clear data.

Secure and interoperable systems.

Distributed leadership.

Trusted partnerships.

Responsible use of AI and automation.

These are not political positions.

They are the foundations of a resilient organisation.

A strong operating model should allow a trust to absorb change without destabilising the organisation responsible for delivering it.

The opportunity for school trusts

The future trust operating model should be more connected.

People connected to information.

Schools connected to communities.

Trusts connected to partners.

Leaders connected to the insight they need to make better decisions.

Technology should sit underneath that model, enabling it rather than defining it.

AI has a role to play, but it is not the strategy.

The strategy is to build organisations that are more connected, more responsive and better able to turn information into action.

Digital transformation should therefore be judged by more than whether systems have been modernised.

It should be judged by whether the organisation is better able to deliver purposeful outcomes through people, place and partnership, regardless of the politics of the day.

At the recent CST Data and Digital Transformation Conference, I had the privilege of chairing a discussion with Ather Abbas, Director of Strategy and Transformation at E-ACT, and Tricia Slater, COO at Empower Multi-Academy Trust, exploring a challenge that will be familiar to almost every trust leader: how do we deliver meaningful, sustainable transformation when ambition exceeds the capacity and funding available to us?

A key takeaway for me was that, despite E-ACT and Empower operating at very different scales, many of the fundamentals of successful transformation were remarkably consistent.

The discussion reinforced something I have seen repeatedly through our work with trusts at TransforMATive: transformation rarely fails because organisations lack ambition or ideas. The greater challenge is creating the organisational conditions that allow those ambitions to become reality.

Transformation has to start with people

One of the strongest messages from Ather’s contribution was that strategic transformation cannot simply become another technology programme.

E-ACT describes transformation as cross-functional, distinguishes it from business as usual, and places the creation of the right conditions for innovation at its heart. Perhaps most significantly, its thinking follows the sequence human behaviour > digital > data > AI, alongside an emphasis on collective intelligence and people.

That ordering matters.

It is tempting, particularly as AI develops at such pace, to begin conversations with platforms, tools and emerging technologies. But organisations do not transform because they have purchased better technology. They transform because people change how they work, collaborate, make decisions and solve problems.

Technology can enable that change. It cannot substitute for it.

For leaders, this means creating space for staff to understand why something is changing, contribute to how it develops and build the confidence required to adopt new practices.

Capacity is a strategic consideration, not an implementation problem

Tricia’s reflections from Empower brought this issue into particularly sharp focus.

As a smaller trust, Empower has had to make deliberate decisions about where to focus its resources. Its digital strategy runs from 2025 to 2030 and considers infrastructure, data, cyber security and innovation as part of a coherent approach rather than a series of isolated technology projects.

But having a strategy is only one part of the equation.

Empower explicitly recognises that limited organisational capacity requires initiatives to be prioritised and carefully phased, allowing progress without overextending the organisation.

This was perhaps my biggest reflection from the session.

We often talk about roadmaps in terms of what will happen and when. But a credible roadmap also needs to answer:

Who is going to deliver this, what capacity will they require, and what are we prepared to stop, delay or sequence differently to make it achievable?

Adding another programme to an already overloaded organisation isn’t transformation. In many cases, it simply creates another layer of pressure.

Capacity therefore needs to become part of the strategic conversation from the beginning rather than something we discover halfway through implementation.

Prioritisation doesn’t mean lowering ambition

One of the most useful examples from Empower was how it has approached investment.

The trust pooled Devolved Formula Capital funding to enable collective investment across its schools, making better use of the resources available to it. It also chose to prioritise high-quality devices for teachers before progressing further with student-facing technology.

There is an important principle here.

Transformation doesn’t always require doing more. Often it requires being clearer about what needs to happen first.

Getting the foundations right may feel less exciting than introducing the newest platform or innovation, but infrastructure, security, devices, skills, governance and data capability determine whether the next stage of transformation will succeed.

Good sequencing creates momentum.

Build change with the organisation, not to the organisation

Empower’s approach to digital champions was another example that resonated with me. Rather than selecting technology specialists, the trust identified strong teachers to lead peer-to-peer change, helping create credibility and adoption amongst colleagues.

That reflects a much broader lesson about organisational change.

Transformation becomes sustainable when capability spreads beyond the central team responsible for initiating it.

Digital transformation therefore shouldn’t create greater dependency on a small number of specialists. Done well, it should increase the confidence and capability of the wider organisation.

Empower similarly identifies active staff involvement, confidence-building and collaborative changes in practice as essential to cultural change.

That feels particularly important as trusts consider AI. The organisations that benefit most are unlikely to be those that simply provide access to the greatest number of AI tools. They will be those that develop the judgement, confidence and shared understanding required to use them effectively.

Governance has to connect ambition with reality

The final theme running through our discussion was governance.

Empower positions governance as central to oversight, accountability and ensuring that digital strategy remains aligned with wider organisational priorities.

For me, good governance should continually test the relationship between ambition, investment, capacity and impact.

Are we still solving the right problem?

Do we have sufficient capacity to deliver the next phase?

What evidence tells us the change is having the intended effect?

What have we learned that should influence the roadmap?

And, importantly, should something that appeared important twelve months ago still be a priority today?

A roadmap should provide direction without becoming a constraint. Sustainable transformation needs enough governance to maintain purpose and accountability, while retaining enough flexibility to respond to what the organisation learns along the way.

A reflection for autumn planning

The session reinforced that sustainable transformation is rarely about finding a single breakthrough technology or launching a huge programme of change.

It is about making deliberate choices.

Prioritising investment. Building strong foundations. Sequencing implementation. Creating organisational capacity. Engaging people. Developing capability. And ensuring governance continually connects activity back to organisational purpose.

Empower describes the challenge as balancing immediate operational requirements while building the foundations for scalable, pedagogy-first transformation. That balance is something every trust, regardless of size, has to navigate.

As leadership teams move into autumn planning, my reflection from the conversation is therefore a simple one:

A credible roadmap needs to explain not only what will change, but how the organisation will have the capacity to deliver it.

Because sustainable transformation isn’t measured by how much change we start.

It is measured by how much meaningful change we are actually able to embed.

Jonny Wathen, CEO of TransforMATive, said:

“Over the past four years, we have collaborated with CST and leaders across the education sector to deliver masterclass programmes in digital strategy, artificial intelligence, cyber security and privacy. We have also been proud to support CST’s CEO Network, Data and Digital Transformation Community and Annual Conference, bringing trust leaders together to share expertise, challenge thinking and learn from one another.

“Becoming a Platinum Partner formalises our strategic relationship and provides a strong foundation for the next chapter of our work together. We look forward to welcoming more CST members to our free-to-attend thought leadership events and showcasing how our products and services can help trusts address their priorities, improve efficiency and build lasting digital capability.”

We look forward to seeing you in person at the upcoming CST Annual Conference in Birmingham. Come and say hello to the TransforMATive team, share your trust’s priorities and explore how we can support your next steps.

Over the past few years, I’ve sat in countless conversations with trust leaders discussing digital transformation, AI, accountability, governance and school improvement. Whilst the headlines often focus on the latest technology or the next inspection framework, the reality is usually far more nuanced.

Recently, I had the privilege of joining a group of Multi-Academy Trust CEOs and senior leaders at the Red Kite Connect CEO Roundtable. The conversation covered everything from digital maturity and artificial intelligence to Ofsted reform, MAT inspection and trust assurance. My key takeaway wasn’t the diversity of topics, it was the consistency of the message.

Despite the pace of change, trust leaders are remarkably aligned on one thing:

Technology is not the starting point. Governance is.

Digital Transformation Isn’t Really About Technology

We often talk about digital transformation as though it’s a technology challenge. In reality, the most successful trusts aren’t defined by the software they buy or the AI tools they deploy. They’re defined by how clearly they govern them.

The trusts making the greatest progress are those with strong executive ownership, clear decision-making processes, robust information governance and a direct link between digital investment and organisational strategy. They understand that technology should serve the trust’s mission, not become a distraction from it.

Conversely, many of the challenges we encounter when working with trusts stem from fragmented decision-making, duplicated systems, underutilised software and a lack of visibility over what is actually being used across the organisation.

The lesson is simple: digital maturity starts with organisational maturity.

AI Is Exposing Existing Weaknesses

Artificial intelligence is accelerating a conversation that many trusts were already struggling to have.

Questions around data governance, supplier management, risk, compliance and accountability are no longer theoretical. AI is forcing leaders to revisit assumptions about how technology is adopted, monitored and governed.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that AI governance cannot sit solely with ICT teams or Data Protection Officers. It requires leadership involvement, board oversight and organisational understanding. The trusts that thrive will be those that develop a balanced approach, encouraging innovation whilst maintaining appropriate safeguards.

The challenge isn’t whether AI will become part of education.

The challenge is whether our governance models are evolving quickly enough to manage it responsibly.

Accountability Is Changing

Alongside the digital conversation sits another significant shift: accountability.

Leaders around the table broadly accepted the principle that MATs should be accountable for decisions made at trust level. Given the strategic influence trusts now have over curriculum, workforce, finance, estates, inclusion and digital infrastructure, trust-level inspection feels like a logical next step.

Yet significant questions remain unanswered.

What exactly will MAT inspections evaluate? Organisational effectiveness? Educational outcomes? Governance? Financial stewardship? Improvement capacity?

Perhaps most importantly, how do we ensure that trusts serving the most challenging communities are evaluated fairly and contextually?

The strongest message from trust leaders was not resistance to accountability. It was a desire for accountability systems that recognise complexity, context and long-term improvement rather than reducing effectiveness to a set of performance metrics.

The Rise of Assurance

If there was one theme that connected every discussion, it was assurance.

As trusts continue to grow in scale and complexity, boards need greater confidence that strategy is being delivered, risks are understood and impact can be demonstrated.

Assurance is no longer just about compliance.

It’s becoming a strategic capability.

Educational assurance, governance assurance, digital assurance, cultural assurance and operational assurance are increasingly converging into a single organisational view. Trust boards want visibility. Executive teams need confidence. Stakeholders expect evidence. Future inspection frameworks will almost certainly demand it.

The trusts that are investing in integrated assurance models today are likely to be the ones best prepared for whatever comes next.

What This Means for Trust Leaders

The education sector is entering a period of profound change.

Digital transformation continues to accelerate. AI is reshaping expectations. Inspection frameworks are evolving. Accountability is moving upwards towards trust-level leadership. Boards are demanding greater assurance.

Yet the foundations remain remarkably consistent.

Strong governance.

Clear strategy.

Effective leadership.

Thoughtful use of technology.

Relentless focus on improving outcomes for children and young people.

The trusts that succeed won’t necessarily be those with the newest tools or the biggest budgets. They’ll be the organisations that create clarity amidst complexity and build systems capable of supporting sustainable improvement.

How We Can Help

At TransforMATive, these are exactly the conversations we’re having with trust leaders every day.

Whether you’re looking to strengthen Trust assurance, digital governance, review your software estate, develop an AI strategy, prepare for future inspection frameworks or simply create greater organisational clarity, we’d love to help.

The challenges facing MAT leaders are becoming increasingly interconnected. The solutions need to be as well.

If you’d like to explore how your trust can build stronger foundations for the future, get in touch with our team. We’d be delighted to share what we’re seeing across the sector and discuss how we can support your journey.

Because successful transformation doesn’t start with technology.

It starts with leadership.

Hearing Ash Mudaliar reflect on Creative Education Trust’s AI journey was both encouraging and reassuring. In a sector often pulled between hype and hesitation, what stood out most was the clarity, pragmatism and maturity of CET’s approach.

What Ash described was not a story about chasing the latest technology trend. It was a story about thoughtful leadership, organisational alignment and creating the conditions for innovation to genuinely improve outcomes for staff and pupils alike.

There were five themes in particular that I believe will help other trusts and school leaders navigating their own AI journey.

1. Begin with the problem, not the technology

One of the strongest reflections from the session was that AI should sit within a wider technology and organisational strategy, not alongside it.

Throughout the discussion, the focus remained on practical problems: reducing administrative burden, improving operational efficiency and supporting staff capacity. Whether it was AI-supported attendance workflows, meeting summaries or adaptive teaching support, the starting point was always a clear organisational need.

That discipline matters. Too often, schools risk implementing technology because it is available rather than because it is necessary.

2. Governance enables innovation

Another important takeaway was the role that governance plays in building confidence.

CET have clearly invested significant time in developing policy, approved toolsets, safeguarding considerations and structured processes for reviewing emerging technologies. Crucially, this was not positioned as a barrier to innovation, but as the foundation that allows innovation to happen safely and sustainably.

In reality, many staff are already experimenting with AI tools. The challenge for leadership is not whether AI will appear in schools (it already has) but whether there is sufficient clarity, guidance and oversight around its use.

3. Staff voice must shape the journey

Ash shared an interesting reflection from their staff surveys: colleagues often sit at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to AI. Some are enthusiastic daily users who already see tangible benefits, whilst others remain sceptical or deeply cautious.

That feels familiar across the sector.

What CET appears to have done particularly well is listen carefully to those perspectives and allow them to shape implementation. Their evolving training, prompt libraries and policy development were all informed by staff feedback and practical realities from schools.

That approach builds trust and trust is essential if meaningful adoption is going to happen.

4. Human judgement remains central

One phrase from the session stayed with me: “Don’t prompt beyond your expertise.”

It is an important reminder that whilst AI can accelerate thinking, support planning and improve efficiency, it does not replace professional accountability or expertise. The human remains responsible for the outcome.

As schools continue exploring AI, maintaining that balance between opportunity and professional judgement will become increasingly important.

5. Collaboration accelerates progress

Finally, what came through strongly was the power of professional community.

CET’s trust-wide collaboration, shared learning structures and open dialogue between schools and central teams appear to have created an environment where innovation can scale responsibly. That collective approach reduces duplication, surfaces good practice and creates a safer space for experimentation.

No trust has fully solved AI implementation yet. We are all learning in real time. But journeys like this demonstrate that with clarity of purpose, strong governance and a relentless focus on people, schools can approach AI in a way that is both ambitious and grounded.

The future of work is not a distant concept. It is already here, and it is forcing us to confront a fundamental tension. Work gives people purpose. It provides identity, meaning and a sense of contribution. At the same time, the economic reality for organisations is clear. We are under constant pressure to drive efficiency, scale and productivity, increasingly through technology.

In January, I attended the Future of Work event hosted by Arbor. What stood out was not just the pace of change, but the clarity of direction. Workflow automation sat at the centre of the conversation. Not as an abstract idea, but as something organisations are actively building into their day to day operations.

AI is accelerating this shift at an extraordinary rate. The advances we are seeing are not linear. They are compounding. New capabilities are emerging continuously, unlocking new forms of value creation that were not possible even a short time ago.

This creates both opportunity and responsibility.

We are moving from static processes to what many are now calling agentic workflows. Teams are no longer just documenting how work gets done. They are designing and building systems where workflows are automated, connected and increasingly executed by AI agents. These agents can act, make decisions and coordinate across systems.

We are seeing teams invest time in mapping processes, integrating systems through connectors and experimenting with emerging protocols such as MCPs. The intent is clear. Build workflows that are not only efficient, but adaptive.

The implication is significant. Smaller, more focused teams, supported by AI agents, will be able to deliver outcomes that previously required far larger structures. This is not about doing the same work faster. It is about redefining how work is done altogether.

However, technology is only part of the story. The real shift sits in the operating model.

The models many organisations rely on today were designed for a different era. They prioritise stability, hierarchy and control. In a world of AI enabled workflows, that approach begins to break down. We need operating models that are more fluid, more modular and more responsive. Teams will need to form around problems, not sit within rigid structures. Capabilities will need to be assembled, not owned.

At the same time, complexity increases.

As organisations adopt more tools, more agents and more integrations, the surface area expands. Managing that ecosystem becomes a critical challenge. Security, data integrity and supply chain dependencies extend well beyond traditional boundaries. Governance can no longer be an afterthought.

This demands a different level of maturity. Organisations must be able to secure and safeguard their systems, understand how data flows across them and maintain clear accountability. Leadership teams need to be across this. AI is not just a technology topic. It is a core part of organisational strategy and risk management.

Alongside this sits the question of ethics.

As AI systems take on more responsibility, leaders must understand the implications. Issues such as bias, transparency, privacy and accountability are no longer theoretical. They are practical concerns that shape trust. The organisations that succeed will be those that take this seriously and embed it into how they operate.

Amid all of this, we cannot lose sight of purpose.

If technology continues to take on more of the execution, then human contribution must shift. Work becomes less about tasks and more about judgement, creativity, relationships and responsibility. This is where people find meaning. Organisations need to be deliberate about how they design roles and environments that support this.

There is also a broader responsibility, particularly in education.

How do we prepare children and young people for this world? The answer is not simply to teach them how to use tools. It is to help them understand systems, think critically and adapt continuously. They will need to work alongside AI, understand its limitations and navigate its risks.

Skills such as resilience, curiosity and ethical awareness will matter as much as technical capability.

So how do we respond now?

We start by being practical. Identify where workflow automation can create value today. Experiment with agentic approaches in a controlled way. Invest in understanding governance, risk and security. Begin to reshape teams around outcomes rather than functions.

At the same time, we need to think more fundamentally. What does good work look like in our organisations? How do we balance efficiency with meaning? What responsibilities do we carry as leaders?

The future of work is being shaped in real time. The choices we make now will define not only how our organisations perform, but how people experience work itself.

This is not about replacing people. It is about rethinking their role. If we get it right, we can create organisations that are more productive, more adaptive and more human at the same time.

That is the opportunity in front of us.

There is something quietly powerful about a room full of education leaders admitting they do not have all the answers.

That, for me, was the thread that ran through this conversation. Not certainty, but responsibility. Not competition, but contribution. And, crucially, not isolation, but connection.

System leadership as a moral responsibility

One of the most striking reflections was the idea of system generosity. Large multi-academy trusts, by virtue of their scale, experience a microcosm of the entire sector. With that comes both privilege and duty.

The privilege is insight.
The duty is to share it.

This is not about showcasing only what works. In fact, the most powerful contribution to system leadership is often the opposite. Sharing what has gone wrong, what has been learned, and what still feels unresolved. In a system as complex as education in England, honesty is more valuable than polish.

There is also a growing recognition that trusts are becoming bridges. Bridges between schools and government. Between policy and practice. Between local realities and national direction. That bridging role is not always comfortable, but it is increasingly essential.

Collaboration is happening. We just need to deepen it

There was a quiet optimism in the discussion. Collaboration is not absent from our system. In many ways, it is stronger than we give ourselves credit for.

Trusts are sharing. Leaders are learning from one another. Networks are forming.

But there is a difference between collaboration within familiar circles and true system collaboration.

The challenge now is boundary spanning. Reaching beyond our own trust, our own region, our own phase or role. Engaging with local authorities, independent schools, further education, industry, and government in more meaningful ways.

If we are honest, education can still be inward looking. The next phase of system leadership requires us to look outwards with intent.

MATs as engines of disciplined innovation

Multi-academy trusts are increasingly acting as engines of disciplined improvement. Not innovation for its own sake, but innovation that is tested, evidenced, and scaled.

There was a helpful reframing here. Less “pilot” and more “prototype”.
Less short-term experimentation, more intentional design for longevity.

Yet we cannot ignore the tension. Education is, rightly, risk aware. Every decision affects a child who only gets one chance.

So the question becomes: how do we create space to innovate without compromising that responsibility?

The answer seems to lie in structure. Clear guardrails, strong professional judgement, and cultures that allow thoughtful experimentation. Not reckless change, but purposeful iteration.

The balance between guardrails and agency

This brings us to one of the most important leadership tensions in the system today: alignment versus autonomy.

Or perhaps more accurately, agency within guardrails.

The most compelling idea shared was that guardrails are not the enemy of innovation. They are its enabler, provided they are set thoughtfully and not too tightly.

Within those boundaries, professionals need the space to think, to act, and to lead. Not just senior leaders, but teachers, support staff, and ultimately students themselves.

Agency is not something we grant occasionally. It is something we must actively develop. That means helping people build the confidence and capability to make sound professional judgements, even in uncertainty.

If we get this right, leadership stops being something that sits in head offices and starts to live in classrooms.

Networks matter more than ever

Across the conversation, one message came through clearly. Networks are not a luxury. They are essential.

The most effective systems are those where knowledge flows. Across roles, across organisations, across regions. Where ideas are shared in progress, not just when perfected.

There was also a powerful reminder that the most valuable networks are often those beyond your immediate organisation. Spaces where you are not constrained by hierarchy. Where you can test thinking, challenge assumptions, and learn from difference.

In a system under pressure, these networks are where energy, creativity and hope are sustained.

The human challenge: talent, purpose and retention

No conversation about the future of education can ignore the challenge of retaining talent.

Workload matters. Structures matter. Technology can help. But beneath all of that sits something more fundamental.

Purpose.

When educators lose clarity of purpose, or feel constrained by systems that prevent them from doing what they believe is right for children, we should not be surprised when they choose to leave.

Equally, progression pathways need rethinking. Not every excellent teacher wants to become a senior leader. We must create models where expertise in the classroom is valued, developed, and rewarded.

If we are serious about retention, we must make teaching not just sustainable, but deeply fulfilling again.

Looking ahead: what must change

Looking forward, there was a shared sense that the system itself needs to evolve.

Accountability measures need to better reflect the world our young people are entering. Assessment needs to become more intelligent and less reductive. We need to value the human capabilities that technology cannot replace. Resilience, creativity, collaboration, empathy.

There is also a clear opportunity to harness technology not just in classrooms, but at a system level. To create better feedback loops. To connect insight across organisations. To move from reactive to predictive thinking.

But perhaps the most important aspiration was this: that teaching becomes a profession that is not only respected, but truly revered. A career of choice for the very best people, sustained over time because it is meaningful, supported, and human.

From vision to action

The final reflection stayed with me.

We can articulate a compelling vision for the future of education. But progress will not come from grand declarations alone.

It will come from daily decisions.

From leaders asking, in every interaction:
Does this move us closer to the system we want to create?

From creating space to think differently.
From being brave enough to challenge what no longer serves us.
From choosing collaboration over competition, even when it is harder.

The future of education in England will not be delivered by policy alone. It will be shaped by the collective actions of those working within it.

A call to the system

If there is one thing this conversation reinforced, it is that the answers do not sit in any one organisation.

They sit between us.

That is why spaces for genuine dialogue matter more than ever. Spaces where leaders can share openly, challenge thoughtfully, and think together about what comes next.

My thanks to Ben and Steve at EduFuturists for facilitating such a rich and energising conversation. And to Shonogh, James and Gemma, whose purpose, passion and perspective made it both insightful and inspiring.

At TransforMATive, we are committed to creating those spaces.

If this reflection resonates, I would encourage you to join one of our Roundtable networking dinners. They are designed to bring together leaders from across the sector to continue exactly these kinds of conversations. Honest, practical, and grounded in real experience.

And if you want to explore how we can support your organisation or connect you into the wider network, get in touch.

The future of our system will be shaped together. Let’s continue the conversation.

Watch the webinar here

Listening to Jane Simpkins (Head of Teaching and Learning) present Waterton Academy Trust’s teaching and learning framework, what stood out immediately was the clarity and discipline behind it. This is not a collection of initiatives. It is a coherent, evidence-informed approach built on strong foundations such as the EEF, cognitive science and Rosenshine’s principles.

Naturally, I wanted to reflect on this through a digital lens so this post will attempt to converge the Teaching and Learning framework with Porters Value Chain model using technology as an enabler.

At its core sits a simple structure: design, engage, reflect. Clear, practical and rooted in what works.

As trustees, our role is not to lead pedagogy. It is to ensure that what is being implemented delivers impact. That means outcomes for children, not activity for its own sake.

Which leads to an important question.

Where does technology genuinely add value in this model?

---

Technology as an Enabler

There is a tendency across the sector to position technology as a driver of change. In reality, the framework Jane outlined makes something very clear. The driver is high quality teaching, grounded in evidence.

Technology has a role, but it is an enabling one.

From a strategic perspective, every decision around digital should align to Porter’s value chain. It should strengthen how the organisation creates value, not introduce complexity or distraction.

That means focusing on areas such as:

• improving curriculum delivery
• strengthening teacher capability
• enhancing assessment and feedback
• providing better insight for leadership

If a digital investment does not support one of these, it is unlikely to deliver meaningful educational value.

---

Where Technology Can Strengthen Practice

Jane’s focus on retrieval, spacing, cognitive load, metacognition and oracy provides a strong foundation. These are proven approaches. The opportunity is to use technology to embed them consistently and at scale.

Retrieval Practice

Retrieval is rightly gaining attention because it works.

Technology can support this through:

• simple, low stakes quizzing tools
• consistent retrieval routines across classrooms
• insight into gaps in knowledge

The value is not the tool itself. It is the consistency and visibility it enables.

---

Managing Cognitive Load

Reducing cognitive overload is critical for effective learning.

Technology can help by:

• standardising lesson resources and structures
• supporting modelling through visualisers or recorded explanations
• allowing pupils to revisit content at their own pace

This improves the quality and consistency of teaching without adding unnecessary burden.

---

Oracy and Inclusion

Oracy was positioned as a golden thread across the trust. This is particularly important for disadvantaged pupils.

Technology can support this through:

• tools that allow pupils to record and reflect on their thinking
• collaborative platforms that encourage participation
• support for vocabulary development

The outcome is improved engagement and stronger access to the curriculum.

---

Metacognition and Feedback

Helping pupils understand how they learn is powerful but requires structure.

Technology can enable:

• self assessment and reflection over time
• clearer feedback loops
• better tracking of progress

This supports independence and provides teachers with more meaningful insight.

---

Governance and the ‘So What’ Question

One of the strongest messages in the session was the importance of asking, “So what?”

Technology can support governance by:

• providing clearer, more timely data
• linking teaching approaches to outcomes
• enabling better conversations at board level

The aim is to move from reporting activity to understanding impact.

---

A Strategic Discipline

There is a risk that digital strategy becomes driven by tools rather than purpose.

As trustees, we should remain disciplined. Not every digital decision needs to be a pedagogical one.

Instead, we should be asking:

• Does this improve the quality of teaching?
• Does it reduce unnecessary workload?
• Does it improve consistency across the trust?
• Does it lead to better outcomes for pupils?

If the answer is unclear, then the case for change is weak.

---

Final Reflection

What Jane presented was not complex, but it was rigorous. That is where its strength lies.

Technology should not sit alongside this work as something separate. It should sit beneath it, quietly enabling it to scale, to embed and to sustain.

From a trustee perspective, the priority is straightforward.

Every decision, including digital, should strengthen the organisation’s ability to deliver high quality education.

And ultimately, it should always come back to one question.

What difference is this making for our children?

In the schools sector we often talk about growth. More schools, more scale, more influence. But growth alone is rarely the right question.

Listening to Alan Warboys speak about the proposed merger between Accord Multi-Academy Trust and Maltby Learning Trust was a useful reminder that the real question is always why.

Throughout the two-year process, the leadership teams have kept returning to a single test:

Will this be the best thing for our children and communities over the next ten years?

That framing matters. It shifts the conversation away from organisational mechanics and towards long-term impact.

A merger of equals is harder but healthier

Accord, with five schools in Wakefield, and Maltby Learning Trust, with seven schools across Doncaster and Rotherham, are broadly similar in size and performance. Rather than one trust absorbing the other, the intention has been a merger of equals.

That makes things more complicated.

Governance needs redesigning. Structures need negotiating. Cultural assumptions need surfacing. Compromise becomes unavoidable.

But it also forces deeper collaboration. If neither organisation is taking over, both have to build something new together.

Start with the non-negotiables

One of the most practical lessons from the session was the importance of early clarity.

Before progressing, both trusts defined:

• what they wanted from the merger
• what they would not compromise on
• where compromise would be necessary

Key principles included preserving school identity, retaining key staff, and aligning strategy and governance without destabilising existing improvement work.

Without that clarity, the inevitable complexity of a merger can easily become conflict.

Integration happens at different speeds

Operational alignment can happen relatively quickly. Educational alignment should not.

The trusts began integrating teams early, aligning systems such as MIS and finance, and designing a shared services model. Notably, they intentionally moved away from the term central team. It is a useful reminder that the organisation exists to serve schools, not the other way around.

But when it came to school improvement, the approach was deliberately cautious.

Both trusts already had strong models. Rather than impose one immediately, they designed a three-year integration period. The aim is to identify the “golden thread” between them and gradually align practice over time.

That kind of patience is rare but probably wise.

Governance is the backbone

Another strong theme was the role of trustees.

Sub-committees from each trust worked together. An external review tested organisational compatibility. A shadow board brought trustees from both organisations into joint decision-making.

In many ways, governance led the process rather than simply approving it.

People first

Perhaps the most important message was about people.

Staff consultation has been extensive. Central teams have worked together early. Trade unions were brought into a joint forum. Leadership teams have collaborated across both trusts long before the merger completes.

You cannot merge organisations without bringing people with you.

Purpose, place and the next decade

Ultimately, the ambition is not simply a larger trust.

It is a place-based partnership with greater capacity, stronger leadership pipelines, and improved opportunities for pupils across the region.

That ambition is grounded in three ideas that kept resurfacing during the session:

• People – supporting and retaining the staff who make schools work
• Place – strengthening local partnerships and communities
• Purpose – improving outcomes for children

Scale, when it comes, should serve those things, not replace them.

In a sector where mergers are becoming more common, Warboys’ reflections felt like a useful compass.

Start with purpose.
Be clear about what matters.
Move carefully where it counts.

And always keep the ten-year question in view.

A final thought on digital

One theme that often sits quietly beneath mergers like this is digital transformation.

Aligning systems, integrating data, rationalising platforms, and designing shared services all depend on technology decisions. These choices shape how efficiently the new organisation operates and how easily schools can work together.

It raises an important question for any trust considering a merger:

Who is leading the digital transformation that sits alongside the organisational one?

The technical work often determines how smooth the integration feels for staff and schools.

If your trust is navigating a merger, or considering one, and thinking about the digital implications, it would be great to talk. At Transformative we work with trusts on exactly these challenges, helping leaders align technology, strategy and operations during periods of structural change.

If we can be helpful, please do get in touch.

We recently brought together sector leaders and specialists for a webinar on cyber resilience in education. What emerged was not another technical conversation about firewalls and compliance checklists. It was a much more fundamental discussion about safeguarding.

If we are honest with ourselves, cyber security and safeguarding are no longer separate conversations. They are inseparable. And there are some uncomfortable truths that education leaders need to confront.

1. Cyber incidents become safeguarding failures

A serious cyber incident is not simply an IT problem. It is a safeguarding issue from the moment systems go down.

If a trust loses access to pupil data, care plans, safeguarding records or parental contact details, it loses its ability to coordinate support for vulnerable learners. If the systems that hold what many refer to as the grab bag are unavailable, staff cannot act with confidence or speed. That creates a material safeguarding risk.

Ransomware does not just lock files. It disrupts the operational fabric that protects children and staff. When we separate cyber risk from safeguarding risk, we create blind spots. They must be discussed together at board level, not in isolation.

2. We underestimate operational fragility

Many organisations still believe a cyber breach means a few days without laptops. The reality is far more complex.

A major ransomware attack can affect:

• Cloud-based telephony and critical communications
• Building Management Systems and door access controls
• Payroll and finance operations
• Catering systems and payment processes

If pupils cannot be charged for meals, the financial implications mount quickly. If access control systems fail, that becomes a site safety issue. If payroll is disrupted, staff confidence is damaged.

Modern education is deeply dependent on interconnected digital systems. Over time, workflows become automated and undocumented. When they fail, organisations discover just how much tacit knowledge has been embedded in technology. The gaps that appear are often deeper than expected.

Operational fragility is not theoretical. It is real, and it is growing.

3. Identity and suppliers are the real front line

The biggest risks are not always where we expect them to be.

Identity management has become central to how schools and trusts operate. Single Sign-On simplifies life for users and IT teams. But it also increases the blast radius. If one identity is compromised, access to multiple systems can follow.

We are also seeing compromised student accounts being used to phish staff and peers. That changes the threat model. The attacker no longer appears external. They appear familiar.

Then there is the supply chain. Catering providers, building management suppliers, outsourced services, all connecting devices and systems to the network. Each connection represents a potential entry point.

Too often, due diligence stops at contractual paperwork. Cyber maturity of suppliers is assumed rather than assured. In practice, that can leave an open door into core systems.

If we want to improve resilience, we need to treat identity and supplier governance as strategic priorities, not operational afterthoughts.

4. Compliance theatre is not resilience

Annual training sessions and policy sign-offs may satisfy an audit requirement. They do not create resilient organisations.

Ticking a box once a year is compliance theatre. It gives a sense of control without delivering it.

Real resilience is educational in the truest sense. It is:

• Continuous, delivered in small and regular interventions rather than a single annual event
• Contextual, grounded in real phishing attempts and real incidents experienced by the organisation
• Tested, using simulations and short assessments to identify higher risk users and support them properly

Cyber threats evolve constantly. Our approach to awareness must evolve too. If we treat it as a static compliance exercise, we will always be behind.

Moving from awareness to action

The conversation closed with a practical focus on partnership. Education organisations do not need more abstract guidance. They need accessible, specialist support that understands both safeguarding and cyber risk.

Models that provide enterprise-grade protection at a price point education can sustain are essential. The ambition should be simple. Deliver Tier 1 capability at Tier 3 commercials so that strong cyber resilience is not a luxury, but a baseline.

Transformation in education is digital by definition. Safeguarding in education must now be digital by design.

If we are serious about protecting learners and staff, cyber resilience has to move from the IT agenda to the leadership agenda. That is where real change begins.