SchoolsWeek are running a story about the breakup by the DfE of a multi-academy trust that was seriously in deficit last August, when it closed its account year for 2024-25. Arthur Terry: Trust with £8m deficit to be broken up

 I suppose this is the sort of story that is best released just before a school holiday – what at one time was known as a ’Jo Moore’ story. Now there’s a surprise | John Howson

The fact that the Aruther Terry Learning Partnership (ATLP) can go from a deficit of £4.5mn in August 2024 to a deficit of £8.3mn in August 2025, and who knows what by May 2026, (page 83 of accounts filed at Companies House) raises serious questions about whether abolishing the Funding Agency and brining its functions back into the DfE has worked? THE ARTHUR TERRY LEARNING PARTNERSHIP filing history – Find and update company information – GOV.UK

The ATLP had 25 schools and a teaching hub under its management in August 2025. I make that a deficit of not far short of £320,000 per school.

SchoolsWeek informs readers that the issue has been around the decision to purchase iPads for all 11,000 staff and children. At current retail process that would amount to expenditure of somewhere between £3.6mn and £12mn, including VAT which would be recoverable.

Assuming some form of education discount, say 10%, the bill would be in the region of £2.5mn to £9mn depending upon the model selected. Opting to pay over a couple of years, would reduce the annual bill even more. As a result, although this might be a contributory cause, it doesn’t look like the whole cause of the crisis – unless I have underestimated their spend on additional software and other extras.

This is a MAT where they haven’t been paying excessive salaries to the senior staff. A top salary of £160,000, although more than any local Director of Children’s Services might have been receiving in August 2025, sadly isn’t way out of line for MAT CEOs.

The DFE has decided to wind up the MAT, and presumably force other MATs to take on schools in their localities. I assume, with some guarantee over any losses transferred with the school.

This is scandalous in terms of the oversight of public money. In my mind it demonstrates that lack of local political scrutiny means all the oversight rests with the civil service. Indeed, there is no reason for MATs not to rack up deficits if all that happens is the schools are transferred to another MAT, and the DfE funds the bill – presumably from the funds that might otherwise go to schools that manage to keep their finances in balance each year.

I wonder whether an ATOL type scheme might be appropriate, levied on all MATs, and used to pay off deficits that cause any MAT to become unviable? Of course, it will only work if the DfE is willing to take swift action. Any MAT with a debt amount of x per school should be wound up. The ATOL scheme, lets call in the MBOS (MAT Bail Out scheme) should have a board comprised equally of finance directors of MATs and finance directors of public companies, overseen by a financially astute, but neutral chair.   

Even if this sort of scheme isn’t attractive to government, there does need to be better oversight of MATs finances, especially as falling rolls will put pressure on all school finances. There might even be a similar scheme for local authorities, especially as local government re-organisation might mean the risk of lax internal audit regimes for a couple of years across large swathes of rural England.