In January our new multi-academy trust (MAT) will hopefully launch. It is the culmination of three years鈥� work, none of which has been plain sailing. However, the new government鈥檚 direction suggests we may be facing headwinds from the outset. It was only just two years ago that government鈥檚 intention was set out for all schools to academise by 2030.聽The small print also included an intention for smaller trusts to 鈥榤erge or grow鈥�.聽 Then that bill was cancelled. Some authorities committed to full academisation, some avoided entering the discussion, and some hedged their bets, leaving us with a two-tier system.聽 Currently, and 55 per cent of pupils attend one. Received wisdom was that we were past the tipping point.聽聽聽 Yet there didn鈥檛 appear to be an official line on where the creation of new MATs fitted into this. Certainly, in my neck of the woods, the message appeared to be 鈥榥o new MATs鈥�. As you can imagine, this was problematic. How does a new MAT with a very clear culture and ethos based on inclusion and a relational approach get off the ground? How could we simply 鈥榡oin another MAT鈥� when none met our expectations? Somehow, we navigated through this difficult channel. Six schools (all previously anti-academisation 鈥� but weren鈥檛 we all?) across two authorities covering primary, special and alternative provision will convert in January. A further three primary schools will join us with partnership agreements. Exciting times. Or so it seemed鈥� On 1 November we received an email explaining the decision to 鈥榥ot award TCAF funding to window 4 applicants鈥�. The Trust Capacity Fund had previously been provided to support MAT growth. This also meant no TEG (Trust Establishment and Growth fund). At the same time, it was also announced that from January there was to be no 拢25,000 conversion grant. Lack of funding suggests that smaller MATs won鈥檛 survive I鈥檓 no conspiracist and I鈥檓 no more paranoid than any other school leader, but it does make me wonder: are MATs no longer in favour? After all, actions speak louder than words. Lack of funding certainly suggests that smaller MATs won鈥檛 survive and that single-academy trusts and new MATs won鈥檛 be able to grow. And what about single-form entry primaries who may want to join trusts but won鈥檛 be able to afford the conversion fees? This isn鈥檛 the same for large academy chains, which will be able to support growth and conversion. Are we entering a new educational landscape where 鈥榓ll academies are equal, but some are more equal than others?鈥� Last week, Schools Week reported that Bridget Philipson is 鈥榦pen to letting academies rejoin councils鈥�. Is this a re-launch of the idea that councils can create their own academies 鈥� an initiative that didn鈥檛 gain traction previously 鈥� or is there to be a reversal on the whole MAT agenda? For sure, the sector is in need of change, and there are plenty of opportunities to do things better. In the northwest, more and more of us are working collaboratively 鈥� not competing as MATs but forming families with a core purpose: to improve the lives of the children we serve. A key barrier is that true collaboration is hard in an education system based on competition. Our model has, let鈥檚 be honest, allowed some schools and chains to appear to thrive while rising suspensions and exclusions indicate a system that is failing a significant number of young people. We all want what Phillipson wants: for all children to achieve, to thrive and to know 鈥渢hat deep down inside, they belong鈥�. Regional improvement teams can help deliver that, but they must not be led by the same people who created the problems we face. If RISE is to work, it needs proper consultation, a clear focus and the right people to drive positive change 鈥� people who are focused on relationally inclusive practice. This isn鈥檛 about local authorities or trusts. If we want a system where every child belongs, then we must create a system where all schools and academies of all sizes feel like they belong.