I have now been working alongside colleagues at the Pope Francis Catholic Multi-Academy Trust for the past eighteen months. As the first trust set up by the Liverpool Archdiocese, the PFCMAT has a privileged position in helping to shape the future of Catholic education for decades to come. It has been invigorating, and at times humbling, to have been part of this.

Amidst the political contortions, the financial roller-coaster, the juggling of systems, the pressures of conversions, the relentless amendments and alterations, the management of expectations, I wanted time to stand back and consider some of the weighty principles that might sit at the heart of future Catholic trusts. Indeed, my contribution may be relevant to all trusts, but, for the purpose of this paper, I am particularly looking at trusts through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching.

Out of all those principles, the one that has commanded the greatest bandwidth in all our initial work is that of subsidiarity.

In my experience to this point, the concept of subsidiarity is at the very heart of how to establish a vibrant, flourishing family of schools working in harmony for the benefit of their school communities and the collective trust family. It’s that important. 

In writing this, I am building on – in spirit at least – a body of work being developed alongside the CST (Confederation of School Trusts), in particular the recent joint Church of England, Catholic and CST document ‘Flourishing Together: A Collective Vision for the Education System’(November 2024).

I am in full agreement with the Confederation of School Trusts in how they see Trusts acting as civic leaders, knitting together the fabric of educational excellence and support across a region. More than that, I am of the view that Trusts must show wider leadership amidst an increasingly precarious and fractious social culture.

What is subsidiarity?

Subsidiarity is the principle of allowing decisions to be made by those at the lowest level possible, consistent with their practical and efficient effect. It is a central part of Catholic Social Teaching, but is enshrined in organisations across the world. For example, it is a legal principle in the European Parliament, allowing member states to retain independence on many levels.

Its relevance to educational multi-academy trusts (MATs), and in particular Catholic MATs (CMATs) lies in the degree to which the MAT controls decision-making as opposed to each individual school, or school local governing body. Undoubtedly, there are pros and cons as to where one sits on this continuum. More subsidiarity risks a lack of compliance, less consistency and fewer checks and balances. Too little subsidiarity might lead to groupthink, a lack of innovation, and mediocrity. At worse, it could open the door to excessive authoritarianism. Opponents of the more controlling MATs would argue that this has already happened.

Indeed, in recent years, more control and less subsidiarity has been the prevailing view. A good example has been the phonics cult, where extreme conformity has led to higher fidelity to particular teaching methods and, to its credit, improved results across the country. This has led school policy makers and leaders to try and replicate the approach across other areas of school management e.g. writing, mathematics, behaviour, assessment, often underpinned by research and evidence-based theories. It is probably fair to say that the previous Conservative government were not fans of subsidiarity.

So why bother with it then?

To make the case for subsidiarity, we first need to stare into the heart of the human condition. If we believe that we are all born in the image of God, as I do, and that each person is unique and perfect in God’s eyes, we also believe in the core agency of each human being to direct their lives and have the freedom to give their lives to the greater glory of God. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. Or to frame this in the more secular context of recent Confederation of School Trusts rhetoric: to allow each individual to flourish.

Individuals need to feel they are invested in the consequences of their work. Not that this is always sweet and rosy. Far from it. Many of the consequences of our actions result in stress, they could be linked to failure, or lead to a lack of consensus. However, the crucial thing is that we own that failure, that stress, that problem. With good systems of support, people can address such challenges themselves, and this leads, ultimately, to fulfilment.   

There is nothing more demoralising to the human spirit than to be aware of danger, to encounter problems, or to experience wrongdoing, but then have precious little opportunity to do anything about it! People end up frustrated and defeatist.

Furthermore, human beings do not want to address challenges on their own. They want to find solutions together. We don’t want to exist in individual domains, set in competition with each other. True subsidiarity works hand in hand with another key concept of Catholic Social Teaching, that of solidarity. However, these two concepts should ideally work in tension with each other. Whilst we push decisions as far down the chain as possible, perhaps even to an individual level, we challenge that same individual to make their decision with others in mind, to have one eye (or better still, two eyes) on the common good of society.

To sum up, there is a philosophical dimension to subsidiarity, maybe even a spiritual one. If we get the balance right, it allows all to flourish and to feel empowered in making the changes that benefit the greater good.

Professional Curiosity

A key argument in favour of subsidiarity is tied up with professional curiosity. Withdrawal of agency, where little or no involvement is offered to those who (in the case of education) are involved in both the strategic and operational running of the school, can lead to a failure to think for oneself.

I have experienced other European cultures, and have visited educational systems in Asia and Africa. They all envy the British traditions of free-thinking, individual expression and even eccentricity. I am proud of that heritage myself. We have always questioned authority, never allowing it to wallow in vainglorious hubris. It is, I think, a healthy mark of a society.

What worries me about the past twenty years or so is a drift to conformity laced with righteousness. It has been often backed by concepts such as evidence-based or based on research, and amplified by social media. It is not the sole preserve of education, but education has been caught up in its net. ‘I am right’, and therefore by association, ‘you are wrong’. Too often, I have heard teachers exhaustedly express something along the lines of, ‘Just tell me what to do!’ This is I think unhealthy and will ultimately lead to mediocrity across the system.

I have attended meetings where there has not been one question asked of me. Interactions where there is no appetite for finding out more, or questioning me on what I am saying. The danger here, and this is implicit in organisations that favour a lack of subsidiarity, is of a sort of performative simplicity. As we are in possession of the truth, you would be foolish not to follow our rules, and any dissent is a sign of that foolishness.

What has been so healthy about my own experience, working alongside four schools joining the Trust, is how this vigorous exchange of views is developing entirely naturally and is assisting transparency and trust. People have a thirst for learning. And surely this is at the heart of education, no?

Structures

Within the current Archdiocesan strategy, the way subsidiarity is built into the system is largely through a document called the Scheme of Delegation. It is really good that there has been so much debate around this from Archdiocesan leaders, CEOs and clergy. It helps provide a framework to empower schools and local governing bodies, whilst also giving clarity to trust boards and executive teams.

However, I would caution against excessive legalism here. It should be there primarily as a ‘backstop’, to arbitrate when agreement has been impossible to negotiate. Constant reference to rules and regulation stifles action and innovation. Endless meetings deciding whether sub-section 3.1 should be amended is like parking your organisation in a traffic jam on the M6.

But the structures set out by the Liverpool Archdiocese are very clear. Wherever possible, decisions should be delegated to the local governing body and the school headteacher.

Whilst this is consistent with the Catholic Social Teaching principles, it is more complicated to work in practice. And this is where subsidiarity can become messy.

So how to work it in practice?

Aside from the articles of association, the scheme of delegation, how in practice should MATs (and CMATs in particular) find that sweet spot where subsidiarity and solidarity work in tension with each other.

Here are two short examples. The first is the creation of a Maths Hub, the second how we deal with the headteacher’s report to governors. They are my own reflections on dealing with the tensions associated with subsidiarity, and will no doubt change over time. I know that I am not in possession of the truth, and I am open to changing my mind. We are, after all, setting up procedures and systems that will only provide a foundation for Catholic education for decades to come. This foundation will be more cultural and values-driven. Systems and procedures will change and evolve, but always from that firm foundation.

a) Mini-Maths Hub

I say mini, because we are only four primary schools at present. And this is not a model that is innovative. It exists across the country in Maths Hubs, English Hubs, Behaviour Hubs etc etc. There is a very good reason for this – it appears to work. It has been at the heart of a self-improving school system, referenced in academic research, for example Dylan Willian’s 2014 paper entitled, ‘Optimising Talent: Closing Educational Gaps Worldwide’ It is based on the premise that the greatest change that a teacher makes is when he/she is given agency alongside that of his/her peers. Teachers welcome colleagues into their classrooms to debate and discuss how to improve. Leaders do the same, often through national programmes such as ‘Challenge Partners’.

As such, there is a strong emphasis on culture, and this is what I wanted to work on immediately within our CMAT. I wanted that culture to be one of ‘high challenge, but low threat’ as Mary Myatt has coined it. I’ve secured the support of one of the most high-performing academic schools in the area, and based the Hub there. Maths leaders meet to share findings and discuss strategies and pedagogies. I see my role as ‘curating’ these discussions and my intention is to write a conceptual framework where all schools can come to some agreement on broad principles, despite them potentially following different maths schemes, assessment procedures etc.

It can be complicated, and requires a high degree of trust, but I am convinced it is the correct avenue to drive down. The danger is if it becomes a little too comfortable and time is not used productively. Hence the need for someone like me to maintain the focus and ensure momentum.

The alternative is a directed approach which is far easier to manage, benefiting from shared training and fidelity to mantras and schemes. But it runs the risk of withdrawing teacher agency and sedating professional curiosity. It relies on a lot of top-down training and quality assurance, which can lead to a bloated central team and too much time spent checking and ‘weighing the pig’.

b) Headteacher’s Report

This is a great example of how alignment bumps into autonomy. If we were to stick to the principles of subsidiarity, we surely should allow each governing body to hold school leaders to account in their own way, choosing their own report template, distinctive to the character of the headteacher (some like data, charts and graphs, others – like me – prefer long, sweeping narratives) and to the needs of the school.

But ultimately, and crucially, it is the trustees/directors who have the responsibility for the quality of education, the buildings, the safety of pupils, and the finances at each school. They need to see information that is timely and in the same format across each school. Or that is at least what we decided.

However, in the spirit of subsidiarity, headteachers were consulted over the template to be used. It went through four or five iterations to get to a stage where a sensible balance was achieved. And yet, when it came to the writing of it, we experienced some teething problems in ironing out who was assisting with the various sections of the report. There was a robust exchange of views.

And this is exactly how healthy subsidiarity should work. For in these exchanges, dissonance gives way to clarity, leading to a greater understanding of each other, deepening that well of trust, and in doing so we become so much more aware of each other’s innate humanity and goodness.

Ultimately, the quality of relationships and the quality of communication will make this work. And this leads to a productive culture of healthy challenge and support. The alternative, simplistic option of reducing communication to directives and missives will miss out the messy, but crucial, exchange of views which in turn builds strong relationships and enhances learning.

Final thoughts

Subsidiarity plays a significant role in nurturing human dignity and self-worth. It leads to stronger bonds of solidarity, crucial to the success of organisations such as Multi-Academy Trusts.

Whilst an organisation such as a MAT will always need regulations, and a final decision will ultimately rest with the named authority, this should act as a ‘back-stop’ as most decisions will end up being sorted out further down the chain. Executive leaders act as ‘curators’, ensuring quality communication and debate whilst guiding and shaping the development of the organisation. Professional curiosity should be encouraged at every step.

In a society which is typified by a decline in social engagement, CMATs must embrace subsidiarity in an effort to advance the flourishing of all constituents: pupils, staff and our wider school communities.

Multi-Academy Trusts, and particularly in my case, Catholic MATs, have been called to lead the way in this pursuit, I am certain of that. They cannot be faceless, technocratic organisations that mimic the failures of the past. Subsidiarity is a golden key that can unlock the untapped potential of educators at all levels, however messy and complicated it is.

As I have been writing this, a further school has voted to join the Trust, with others actively considering it. They want a seat at the table, and we will welcome them and their contributions. Of course we will lead, but their involvement in shaping the Trust will be crucial.