A balanced approach to risk and decision-making is vital for any trustee, and particularly those in education: the Academy Trust Governance Code states that decision-making processes must be backed by effective risk assessment, in order to be “evidence-informed and rigorous”.

But what does this nuanced understanding of risk look like in practice for those steering academy trusts?

We spoke to experts from the Confederation of School Trusts (CST) and Castle School Education Trust to explore their perspectives on this crucial area of responsibility.

The expert view

Simon MacSorley, chair of the board of trustees at Castle School Education Trust, proposes that the culture of a board is a key factor when it comes to making decisions around risk. It’s important to nurture “psychological safety” so that members feel comfortable speaking up.

“There is a high degree of critical challenge on our board,” he says. “It’s always done in a supportive and constructive way, but people are very willing to offer that challenge. I think that’s one of our strengths, which has enabled us to grow the trust effectively.”

It’s really important, he continues, that “board meetings are not stage-managed”, but instead offer people “the opportunity to talk openly”.

“It’s good to try to avoid confrontation, but if there’s something that needs to be worked through, people will do that,” MacSorley says.

More from Trustee Essentials:

• The importance of accountability for trustees
• How to ensure openness in trustee boards
• What does good leadership look like as a trustee?

This all stems from a culture of “collective competence”, explains Catherine Wilson, the governance coordinator and clerk to trustees at Castle School Education Trust. It allows for “different views to be shared confidently” in a way that “supports innovation and consensus rather than hindering them”.

Establishing this culture is not always easy, though.

Samira Sadeghi, director of trust governance at the CST, says that a common issue for trust boards is a lack of comfort around taking risks.

“In education we tend to be a little bit risk-averse because the stakes are so high,” she says. “But actually, there are areas of operations where we can be a little bit more risk-friendly and take a bit more of a gamble.”

But how should a board weigh up which areas to take more risks in? Offering concise and relevant risk information to trustees is vital here, MacSorley advises.

“I was on a board in another sector where the risk reports we received were 80 pages long, with every risk in reams and reams of detail,” he says. “And it’s just counterproductive, because people glaze over and then they’re unable to focus on the real issues that the organisation is facing.”

Instead, he says, the focus should be on ensuring that trustees are kept well informed about immediate and emerging risks, as well as significant strategic risks and those that are not being managed as expected.

This idea of sensible streamlining also applies to the way in which risks are calculated, says Sadeghi. While many trusts opt for software programmes around risk and compliance, she suggests that for others, “an Excel document that’s well managed is good enough”.

Whichever approach a trust opts for, Sadeghi encourages it to keep things simple.

“I feel this way about so many things in governance; let’s scale things down, really be efficient and recognise that the board are actually volunteers,” she says.

The view from the ground

Andrew Levitt, chair of risk and audit at Castle School Education Trust, explains that the trust’s risk-management framework is continually evolving, with the Risk and Audit Committee (RAC) playing a crucial role.

“The risks that appear on the register could come from the operational team, from one of the committees, from the board, and we do the usual ranking based on probability, impact if it happens and so on,” he says.

“The key thing with risk is that the board meetings are not just a review; their aim is to challenge, and the RAC is there to provide assurance to the board that identified risks are being appropriately managed.”

The RAC maintains connections with other committees relevant to specific risks (such as the environment committee for issues related to the building, for example) and this collaboration is a key part of the assurance process: ensuring that relevant committees are aware of and managing their respective risks.

“It’s really important that the RAC doesn’t operate in isolation,” Levitt stresses.

William Roberts, chief executive of Castle School Education Trust, agrees with this, highlighting the “crucial role” that the RAC plays in challenging the executive’s risk assessment and presenting a broader perspective.

“They encourage us to take a step back from what we’re doing day to day and think about the landscape around us,” he explains. “Because education and schools are highly regulated, it’s quite an interesting area to work in. We’re publicly funded and there’s a very specific amount of money that we get to deliver the national curriculum.

“So in many ways we are a delivery organisation, and a lot of the risks are around understanding the sector and what’s going on there and what’s likely to happen.”

That means, he continues, that trustees don’t have to deal with “existential risks in the way that a corporate business would”. He gives the example of the Covid-19 pandemic.

“If something dramatic like that happens, governments will guide us and we have to respond to that. So the risk monitoring is around operational risks, but also opportunities. We see risks not just as negative threats, but also opportunities that we can take.”

At Castle School Education Trust, all risks are assessed using the same matrix, Roberts explains, which was developed specifically for the trust from the ground up and employs multipliers that place a greater emphasis on risks with severe potential consequences.

“I think that’s probably helped us to be a little bit more open to risk,” he reflects. “For example, around growth: there are risks associated with growth, but we’re quite hungry for that - it’s a good thing. Whereas, we’ll be ultra cautious around things like safeguarding.”

Effective risk management for trustees, then, requires a board culture that fosters open challenge and psychological safety, while prioritising the offering of relevant risk information rather than weighty reports.

And perhaps most crucially, a truly collaborative approach can ensure comprehensive oversight that allows boards to recognise risks not only as threats but also as potential areas for growth and development.

For key school and trust leadership insights delivered every month, sign up for the Tes Leaders’ Briefing newsletter