Why “Internal vs External Support” Risks Becoming a New Source of Unfairness

The 2025 Education Inspection Framework (EIF) brings a major shift in how leadership, governance, and improvement capacity are judged.
Much of this shift is positive: schools should know themselves well, take responsibility for improvement, and build sustainable internal capacity.

However, a growing concern for local‑authority‑maintained (LA) schools is Ofsted’s emerging emphasis on avoiding “over‑reliance on external support.”
At the same time, the exact same support delivered within a Multi‑Academy Trust (MAT) is classed as internal and does not raise the same red flags.

How can this be fair?

For LA schools, especially those who Post-Ofsted will have support brokered through MAT‑Heavy RISE teams, this distinction has significant and potentially unfair consequences. I imagine it also makes them feel that it’s a backdoor (or worse) to being forced into an Academy and why wouldn’t they?

If I were an LA headteacher (I’m not), I would be asking two serious questions:

  1. What is the purpose of LA educational support if Ofsted can simply say “too much involvement” and downgrade leadership?
  2. Why is MAT‑delivered (or RISE‑delivered) support automatically considered safer or better? Where is the evidence for that?

Leadership and Governance: A New Landscape

The new EIF puts leadership, governance, and inclusion at the heart of inspection. Inspectors are now looking for:

  • accurate, honest self‑evaluation
  • clear improvement priorities
  • governance that provides challenge based on its own understanding
  • leadership that can articulate its impact, strategy, and monitoring

In principle, this is entirely reasonable. Schools should know their context, strengths, barriers, and next steps.

But:

Under the new EIF, inspectors will look particularly closely at whether the school itself; not an adviser, knows what needs to improve.

For MAT schools, trust‑provided improvement support is seen as part of the internal governance model. So this will not be an issue, even if the school has massive support from within the Trust.
For LA schools, the same type of support would be treated as external and it seems – therefore – a red flag from Ofsted?

Why MAT Support Isn’t Considered “External” — and Why That Matters

Inside a MAT, school improvement advisers, directors of education, and trust quality‑assurance staff are part of a single organisational structure. They sit within:

  • the trust’s governance
  • the trust’s accountability systems
  • leadership line‑management frameworks

Therefore, Ofsted views MAT support as internal capacity.

For LA schools, support typically comes from:

  • LA school improvement partners
  • traded services – including LA specific services
  • external consultants

None of these sit within the school’s governance structure, even if the relationship is long‑standing, professional, and highly effective.

The result?

The type of support becomes less important than the Ofsted-Lens attached to it.
And that creates a structural inequity and another example of how the inspectorate dictate how the educational landscape operates. Something it should never do. When Ofsted dictate how schools operate we are in real danger of creating a system that is utterly unable to adapt to the varied educational landscape we have. There is NO one type fits all in education.

Key Risks for LA Schools Under the New EIF

Leadership Capacity May Be Questioned

If an LA school relies on external advisers to shape priorities, write plans, or validate judgements, Ofsted may now view this as a sign of:

  • weak internal capacity
  • reliance on external voices
  • lack of strategic leadership

Meanwhile, a MAT school using internal support to do the same work is viewed as internally supported and strategically aligned.

Even when the quality of support is identical—or LA support is stronger?

That doesn’t sit comfortably and I feel we should not just accept this without scrutiny and challenge.

Governance May Appear Less Robust

The new EIF expects governors to:

  • understand the school’s improvement needs
  • articulate strengths and weaknesses without being briefed
  • demonstrate challenge drawn from their own evaluation

MATs have multiple layers: trustees, executive teams, local governing bodies and central teams…
Responsibilities can be distributed and supported.

LA schools typically have:

  • smaller volunteer governing bodies
  • less built‑in expertise
  • fewer layers of internal quality assurance

When I was part of a stand‑alone trust, our governors and governance were brilliant—but we did need to broker expertise externally. This often added strength and excellence – it rarely took it away. Under the new EIF, that could now be interpreted as a weakness.

Risk of Additional Monitoring or Intervention

Where leadership or governance is judged as:

  • Needs Attention, or
  • Urgent Improvement,

the school may face:

  • warning notices
  • additional governors
  • Interim Executive Boards (IEBs)
  • increased scrutiny

If Ofsted views reliance on LA advisers as a sign of weak capacity, the school becomes more vulnerable to formal intervention; even when support is appropriate and effective. If I was a governor in an LA school (I’m not!) I would be deeply concerned that currently – what can WE do? It’s almost damned if we do… and damned if we don’t! Love a Catch 22!

The Rise of RISE: A New System of Post‑Ofsted Support

Weak leadership capacity can now trigger involvement from RISE (DfE – Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence teams).
These advisers:

  • analyse a school’s post‑inspection needs
  • work with the responsible body (LA or MAT) to shape plans
  • broker further support—often from MATs or national hubs

In other words:
A school may be penalised for using external support, only to then have external support imposed on it. Support that as yet has no track record of improvement in the varied contexts they will be in. Having done school support for over two decades I know that as much as there are strengths – there are also risks in this ‘send in the Super Head to sort it all out approach‘ (No matter how much you wrap it up as it’s nothing like this it’s all about support… the reality is another leader from another sector seen as doing this better will be coming in to help you do it better).

That is a contradiction we cannot ignore.

Final Thoughts: A Missed Opportunity and a Potentially Damaging Blind Spot

The new EIF had the potential to create a more coherent, better aligned improvement system across England.
Done well, it could have blended:

  • the best practice within MATs
  • the strengths of high‑performing LAs
  • the expertise of SIPs, hubs, and national leaders

Instead, the current distinction between internal MAT support and external LA support risks widening the system divide.

Many schools continue to choose to remain with their LAs, often because:

  • the support is strong
  • the relationships are deep
  • the track record is excellent

Yet under the new EIF, that very relationship may now be seen as a limiting factor; while being celebrated as internal capacity within a MAT.

That is not a level playing field.
It is structural inequity, born not out of quality but out of organisational form.

A healthy self‑improving system requires all parts of the sector working together. Otherwise, just abolish LA’s altogether and see what happens. WE/YOU need them for so much statutory educational support. Divide and conquer does not work and if reports start punishing LA schools for LA support… … … I have no words. 
LA schools should not be penalised for seeking expertise, and MATs should not be privileged simply because their structures are vertically integrated.

The message from the new EIF should have been:

“Support is good when it helps schools improve.”

Instead, it risks sounding like:

“Support is good…
but only if it comes from within a MAT system”

And that is a problem the system needs to confront; quickly, and honestly. We should be talking about the strengths within our education system and how it can support education across our country (in very challenging times)- rather than doing what we seem to be so good at doing; creating an inequitable system of haves and have nots.