In a newsletter in summer 2026, Jack Mayhew, who is CEO of Learning Partners and seconded to LPCAT, wrote about the proposed merger.
“We are delighted to share more information about the planned merger”
he wrote, as he told about this proposed three-way merger.To my knowledge, this was the first parents had ever heard of this merger. And let’s be honest, does anyone read the LP newsletter? Probably not. I’m not sure my children’s school ever bother to circulate it!
He continued gushing:
“A helpful way to think about the future trust is to look back at how schools worked together before the academy system existed. In Guildford and the surrounding areas, church and community schools have long worked side by side, united by a shared commitment to serving their local communities while maintaining their own distinctive identities. That spirit remains at the heart of the merger and the new trust will proudly be a home for both church and community schools.”
Hmmm.
Let’s pick that apart, shall we Jack?
Because this analogy is cute.
But it’s not quite right.
Before academisation
Before academisation, community schools in Surrey operated within a democratically accountable local-authority framework.
Schools operated within statutory structures. Teachers’ pay and conditions were governed nationally, while support staff operated within local-authority pay arrangements.
Surrey County Council is a public authority. Its councillors are elected by us. Its decisions are subject to local-government law, scrutiny and transparency requirements.
Individual schools had governing bodies whose constitution was itself regulated by law, including requirements for parent, staff and local-authority representation.
Church schools existed within that system too, of course, with different arrangements depending on whether they were voluntary controlled or voluntary aided. The Church had particular rights and responsibilities in relation to those schools.
But the important bit is this: the existence of a CofE school down the road did not give the Diocese a role in appointing the people who ultimately governed the community school.
The schools could collaborate. They could share services. They could work together.
But they remained separate legal entities and separately governed institutions.
A MAT is structurally different
A multi-academy trust is one legal organisation.
Its Members aren’t elected by residents. They aren’t elected by parents. And they aren’t accountable to anyone through the ballot box. They have significant powers, set out in the Trust’s Articles of Association. Those Articles determine, amongst other things, how Members are appointed and how Trustees are appointed and removed.
Most of the time, Members simply appoint other Members in accordance with the terms of their Articles. But note, I couldn’t verify this specifically for LP as the Articles on the LP website are out of date.
Anyhow, below the Members sits the Trust Board.
Trustees are legally responsible for the academy trust. All of it.
Trustees are appointed by members and or other Trustees. Again depends on the Articles.
But in a nutshell, you have a small group of people appointing themselves and another small group of people, who manage the entire MAT. The community and parents have no say in this matter. There are very limited accountability or even transparency measures towards the community or parents.
Individual schools within a MAT are not autonomous legal entities. Local governing bodies or academy committees exercise whatever powers the Trust Board chooses to delegate to them through its scheme of delegation. And the Trust Board can change that delegation.
So this is structurally very different from a CofE school and a community school simply existing side by side within the maintained-school system.
Why this matters
To bring CofE schools and community schools together within one trust, the governance arrangements of LP need to accommodate the rights and protections associated with the CofE schools.
Jack mentions adopting “Equity Articles” in his briefing, as though this is something regular people are supposed to know about.
I certainly didn’t. And I still don’t.
What we’re talking about here is the ‘to be’ Trust’s Articles need to change. In effect, this almost certainly means that there will be powers given to the Diocese changing the governance structure sitting at the very top of the Trust.
And I want to know exactly what is changing.
- What rights will the Diocese have in relation to Members?
- What rights will it have in relation to Trustees?
- Will the Diocese acquire any consent, appointment or reserved rights?
- Are those rights limited to matters concerning the CofE schools, or will they exist at the level of the Trust that ultimately governs every school within it, including the secular schools?
Because if accommodating the church schools requires giving the Diocese rights at the top of that organisation, then I want to understand what those rights are and what they mean for the secular schools already inside it.
Which brings me back to Jack’s analogy
Yes Jack, church and community schools have worked side by side for generations.
But that’s not what is being proposed here.
Before academisation, the Diocese had governance rights over CofE schools.
But through this merger, it is almost certain that the Diocese will be given governance rights within the organisation responsible for my children’s secular community school.
And that’s why I have an issue with this merger.
I’m a secularist. I do not believe the Diocese should have governance influence over any schools. And certainly not secular schools.
Maybe the proposed Equity Articles have been carefully designed so that it won’t.
Great.
Show us.
For the record, I have been trying to get this information through Freedom of Information requests since July. I received a response earlier this week which was, frankly, woefully inadequate.
More recently, I requested the relevant governance records directly from Learning Partners under paragraph 1.50 of the Academy Trust Handbook 2025, which requires academy trusts to make certain agendas, approved minutes and papers considered at governance meetings available for public inspection on request.
So far, that request has been acknowledged but not fulfilled.
Leave a comment