The schools bill – government鈥檚 proposed blueprint to reform the academy system and lay the groundwork to finish off its multi-academy trust revolution – has finally been ditched. What happens now? Schools Week investigates… It鈥檚 official. On Wednesday the education secretary announced the sinking of the schools bill. But while Gillian Keegan said it 鈥渨ill not progress鈥, she also said she remained 鈥渃ommitted鈥 to its aims 鈥 and signalled various measures that would make a comeback. The government still hopes to introduce powers and duties over home, private and illegal schooling, teacher misconduct, council attendance work and pupils not in school. It will also seek to revive plans removing barriers to faith and grammar schools joining multi-academy trusts, and push national funding formula reforms without legislation. But the remaining academy reforms that required new laws have been ditched. New academy standards, trust intervention powers and support for councils that want to force school conversions en-masse are among the major casualties. Ministers now face attempting to drive academy take-up with their credibility shattered and powers constrained. The DfE had said the bill would 鈥減ave the way鈥 for all schools to join strong trusts, with rules aiming to drive up standards and steer more schools into MATs by 2030. The DfE itself had dubbed existing academy rules 鈥渃omplex,鈥 鈥渋nconsistent鈥 and 鈥渋neffective鈥. Regulatory review continues The , set up to decide what new academy standards should look like and shape future powers, will now simply define what a 鈥渟trong trust鈥 looks like. A recent MAT trustee poll by the National Governance Association showed most supported more stringent trust standards and inspections. Cathie Paine, the chief executive of REAch2, said the sector needed clarity and transparency about how trusts should grow, collaboration to be 鈥渉ardwired鈥, and high performance to be defined. Paul Tarn 鈥淲e all know there are schools performing well in key stage 2, and yet their curriculums are neither broad nor balanced.鈥 Paul Tarn, the chief executive of Delta Academies Trust, said trusts鈥 control over academy clusters should be kept under review, using local feedback and metrics that included not only academic outcomes and ratings, but also attendance, exclusions and how they spend funds. Poor performers 鈥渟hould be asked to hand over those academies鈥 after five years. But Leora Cruddas, the chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts and review adviser, warned the government must not 鈥減in down the definition鈥 so as to curb trust innovation and creativity. And others believe such work is now useless. Hugh Greenway, the chief executive of the Elliot Foundation, said defining trust strength was a 鈥渨aste of time and money鈥. Intervention without new powers Even if ministers can agree on a definition of a 鈥渟trong trust鈥, they face an uphill struggle promoting it without legislative powers. Schools Week recently reported on the DfE鈥檚 inability to intervene directly in one trust, despite its four 鈥渋nadequate鈥 ratings in six years. But the growing use of non-statutory guidance faces resistance from unions, including the leaders鈥 union ASCL, while many maintained schools can simply ignore pressure to academise. Leora Cruddas MAT inspections are under consideration, but might also require legislation. Greenway warned they would encourage 鈥減erformative compliance 鈥 behaving like strong trusts without actually being one鈥. Some in the sector fear trust standards could alternatively be shoe-horned without legislation into the trust handbook, which trusts must comply with or risk losing schools. A new taskforce on cutting red tape 鈥 likely to be welcomed in principle 鈥 could also similarly provide a backdoor route to greater intervention. But the widening of the handbook beyond finances last year sparked a sector revolt. Mark Lehain, an ex-DfE special adviser and now head of education at the Centre for Policy Studies, said one option was publishing a catalogue of metrics 鈥 encouraging improvement and helping schools choose trusts. But Cruddas noted the government had already 鈥渋ntimated鈥 the definition could instead inform regional director decisions over which trusts take on schools. Proposals in the schools white paper that do not require new laws 鈥 such as the 鈥渆xpectation鈥 all schools have a 32.5 hour day 鈥 also remain. Momentum towards 2030 The other big question for ministers is how far the bill鈥檚 demise 鈥 on top of the summer鈥檚 political chaos and Labour鈥檚 surge in the polls 鈥 undermines the white paper vision for all schools to join trusts. A key relevant bill reform 鈥 letting councils request ministers academise their schools en-masse irrespective of governors鈥 consent 鈥 is also dead. Julie McCulloch One government source suggested non-legislative measures may still emerge to facilitate bulk conversions and council-established MATs are likely to go ahead as they do not require legislation. But political uncertainty now means 鈥渜uite a lot鈥 of maintained and standalone academy leaders will now continue to say 鈥渓et鈥檚 wait and see鈥, according to ASCL鈥檚 Julie McCulloch. Dr Mark Fenton, the chief executive of the Grammar School Heads Association (GSHA), said the bill鈥檚 demise was 鈥済ood news鈥 for the survival of strong single-academy trusts. Other ‘incentives’ needed for schools to convert Even Cruddas, who supports the all-MAT vision, said: 鈥淟et鈥檚 not fight about 2030.鈥 Nigel Genders, the chief education officer at the Church of England education service, said the government needed 鈥渟ome other way to incentivise鈥 stronger schools to convert 鈥 or risk insufficient trust capacity to take on those deemed underperforming. He voiced his disappointment the bill had not progressed on removing various barriers to church schools joining MATs, but welcomed Keegan鈥檚 commitment to prioritise this. Fenton also said GSHA remained committed to working with the government to tackle grammar school concerns about their status within MATs. John Jolly, the chief executive of the parents鈥 charity Parentkind, also said reforms must 鈥渦rgently鈥 address an 鈥渁ccountability gap鈥 between MATs and parents, backing new duties to consult parents. But the key question is whether ministers can now revive credibility at all. As Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, wrote on Wednesday: 鈥淭heir schools bill was to be their flagship legislation on education. And today it鈥檚 gone.鈥