What the Centre Holds
The slippiness and stickiness of centralisation
Whilst reading the Academies Benchmark Report (Bishop Fleming, 2025) - because that’s the way I have to roll nowadays! - I came across an interesting statistic. Apparently, 79% of multi-school trusts In England are now ‘fully centralised’, this being defined as all functions being centralised across all schools [p34].
This fact gave me pause for thought for two reasons, the first of which is that it sounds like quite a lot. The report does not define what it means by ‘all functions’, but it does provide the examples of finance, estates, HR, IT and procurement. It goes on to explain that many schools retain ‘data processors’ in each school, however. What I conclude is that some aspects of each key educational support service are carried out by people based in the central team, rather than in schools. This could look very different in different Trusts. For example, schools could retain almost all functions at a local level but be classified as being ‘centralised’ just by there being someone on the central team with strategic or operational oversight. If the definition of ‘fully centralised’ includes such arrangements, the statistic is perhaps not very helpful.
Other than the statistic being not very helpful, something else bothered me about it. It took some time to realise that the way the term centralised was being used was different to the meaning I ascribe to the term in relation to organisations. In organisational theory, centralisation refers to the concentration of decision-making power at the top of an organisation’s hierarchy. Rather than meaning ‘where the work gets done’ it means ‘ where the power resides’. These concepts may be related, but are distinct and should not be confused.
There is a third use of the term in school trusts which relates to the pooling of resource, such as the centralisation of reserves or funding. Pooling means that the resource is considered to be the property of all rather than of some. It is the removal of ring-fencing for the purpose of ensuring resources are put to best use rather than claimed by part of the organisation. In practice, pooling often leads to centralised decision making over the use of funds, although more democratic decision making mechanisms can be used to allocate pooled resources.
For clarity, let’s define these uses of the term centralisation as follows:
Centralisation of functions
Centralisation of decision-making
Centralisation of resource aka ‘Pooling’
To illustrate the difference between centralisation of function and centralisation of decision-making, let’s consider the approach of three Trusts to recruitment. Trust A has centralised the task of placing job adverts for schools (and has a Trust-wide subscription to a platform to do this) but leaves the decision as to who to employ with the headteachers. Trust B has centralised the decision-making and insists on approving staffing structures and rubber-stamping recruitment, but leaves the school to advertise and run the recruitment process. Trust C both controls which posts should exist and centrally manages the recruitment process.
All three Trusts could meet the accountants’ definition of being centralised because there is some function residing with the central team, but these are very different approaches.
Why is this important? Well, centralisation is one of the key concepts we should be clear and concerned about as our system of school trusts grows and matures. For me, it sits alongside the concept of alignment, and is not unrelated. Alignment is the creation of commonality of process and practice, the opposite of diversification. It would appear that the passing of time has a similar effect on both centralisation and alignment in that the longer Trusts are established, the more they tend towards both. In particular, it is the passing of time and organisational growth that fuel centralisation and alignment. I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing. We can either allow it to happen, or seek to understand why it happens, that it doesn’t have to happen, and how to ensure it is beneficial when it does.
I am going to make two contentions about centralisation. First, that in the absence of intention, there will be a drift towards centralisation. Second, that something centralised is rarely decentralised at a later point. Centralisation is therefore simultaneously slippy and sticky. Like a pebble on a hill, it will gain momentum and won’t roll back up the hill unless pushed.
Underpinning the slippiness and stickiness of centralisation (both of function and decision-making) is the fact that those making the decision to centralise are usually those at the centre. The perspective of those in central teams is therefore priveleged over those on the front line.
Drawing functions towards the centre can make sense economically, politically and emotionally to a central team. The function may be delivered at a lower unit cost, its centrality may increase leverage, and visibility to the central team may provide reassurance that this aspect of the organisation is functioning well. What’s not to like?
However, the perspective of those on the front line can be very different. Centralised functions can feel distanced, impersonal, unresponsive, and sluggish.
Drawing decisions towards the centre also has a logic (albeit a bounded rationality). Frustrations over standards and the pace of change, and the rhetoric of ‘driving improvement’ which is frequently employed in education, tempt central teams into ‘taking control’. The belief that alignment between schools will also bring about more rapid improvement also steers us towards centralisation of decision-making.
The lure of centralising power must be set against the benefits of localism, contextualised decision-making, responsiveness to changing local conditions, the motivating effects of empowerment, and the innovation brought about by diversity. These benefits are mostly felt by those at the front-line and under-estimated by central teams.
How do we mitigate against the slippiness and stickiness of centralisation?
First, Trusts should have a clear and testable rationale for centralisation of function and power. This must go beyond the scheme of delegation, which simply sets out at what level decisions should be made without providing a rationale. Second, this rationale should be regularly tested and reviewed, ensuring that the views of various stakeholders are considered. Third, Trusts should be prepared to decentralise what was previously centralised where there is evidence that organisational effectiveness would benefit.
As Trusts continue to grow, and as the central recharge continues to increase, we will inevitably see more centralisation of function and power. We must ensure that this shift is intentional, controlled, and reversible.