The following checklist focuses on the major challenges at the revival’s start-point. It doesn’t include many of the unexpected events that can happen, even in the best ordered schools:

• substantive Head of 22 years had been on paid leave of absence since the beginning of November 2015
• Ofsted had designated that Leadership and Management required
• improvement in mid-November (while the rest of its judgement was ‘Good’)
• a large majority of staff felt very badly let down by the Governing Body
• trade unions expressing concerns and threatening strike action
• staff concerned about the future direction of the school
• parents petitioning for the Head’s return
• spate of negative media coverage
• inexperienced but hugely conscientious Acting Head keeping school on track and preparing post-Ofsted action plan
• Chair of two months had resigned, as had his predecessor and a longer-standing Vice Chair
• Governing Body riven and factionalised
• multiple failures in governance compliance
• no resident qualified finance or HR expertise on Board or staff
• two large building works in train, absorbing the entire £1.9m reserve + £300k in-year (with no business case in place).

Faced with complexity and multiple challenges, it is wise to adapt the words of an American lawyer: “The more complicated an issue, the more important it is to define what your simple truths are.”

So we defined our simple goals: Exit RI as soon as possible; Avoid being driven into a MAT not of our own choosing; Embed sustainable stability.

This triggered several essential and immediate actions, without which that trident of aims could never be delivered:

• instruct solicitors and retain HR support
• resolve Headship situation
• plug leadership gaps with interim
• resolve governance compliance issues
• re-engineer the Governing Body
• engage with staff, unions, parents, the RSC, DfE, and media.

The deal with the interim executive heads and the leaders of the school was simple. Give me comfort that we’re doing our duty by the pupils and their families. Make sure the finances are robust. Bring in the building projects on time and on budget.

And I will do the heavy lifting on implementing the key actions, sharing with governors and the senior leadership team by e-mail and at monthly boards.

The first full term of recovery was an intense period of the kind that schools should never have to go through. It was like standing unsheltered in a monsoon, any abatement merely a harbinger of another deluge. These are the main actions undertaken:

• briefing teams of lawyers on the school’s position and obligations vis-à-vis the Head, and on resolving multiple compliance issues
• redressing the absence of key skills on the Governing Body (and the replacement of a number of designers)
• building rapport and common cause with all stakeholders through meeting staff, unions, parents and the media
• ensuring the interim executive heads delivered on what the Governing Body required
• monthly governing body meetings, with a significant information flow in between
• management of the legal team
• investigating and determining two legacy safeguarding issues.

In particular, it was critical that parents and staff were reassured that their school was in safe hands. Unions were understandably anxious, and (rightly) pursued the statutory processes required to protect their members’ interests. All these engagements, conducted both face-to-face and in writing, were designed to minimise boat-rocking and maximise goodwill. They were conducted within a perimeter of red lines that included the protection of the Head’s employment rights, a commitment to openness, transparency and honesty, and a new culture of decisive leadership linked to agreed and attainable objectives.

By the end of the term, the school was already in a much better place. The Head’s proffered resignation was accepted at a special board in April. At the same meeting, governors agreed that, in principle, joining a multi-academy trust afforded a better opportunity to secure sustainable stability than remaining as a stand-alone, in RI.

These key decisions were taken in a collegiate atmosphere where all governors and leaders were fully briefed beforehand and could participate in a full – and egalitarian – discussion about the pros and cons of our choices.

The storm didn’t really abate after those two momentous decisions. A ‘beauty parade’ of three prospective MATs was devised. Before that, staff were informed about the core decision to seek a MAT with a strong cultural fit. It was an article of faith that it wouldn’t happen unless the right match could be made.

Throughout the year, it has been made very clear to all stakeholders that the number of zero-risk options was, precisely, zero. So one key element of the entire process was to explain the risks and rewards of our various choices and options. Transparency was key to embedding collective ownership of decisions that fell, ultimately, to the Governing Body to take.

At the end of the initial process, governors and senior leaders had agreed on a preferred choice. Staff and unions received a one-page distillation of the advantages and disadvantages of joining with the selected MAT or staying on our own. A full debate took place with unions present, and our school affirmed its choice formally at the July meeting of the Governing Body.

In parallel with this, we sought a replacement Head, ready for a September start. The single most important task for school governor is the choice of Head. I’d been through the process of replacing the Principal of a sixth form college (twice) but not of a primary. The simple route would have been to find an experienced head or deputy from another primary, and that was certainly the advice from those in the sector. But, instinctively, it felt wrong.

The weaknesses identified by Ofsted were in leadership, management and governance. Despite those failings, the pedagogy of the school emerged as Good. Appointing a head from, say, a maintained primary school, risked them trying to make an immediate impact in teaching and learning. Unless they were coming from an academy, they may not fill all our most pressing needs: leadership, strategy, management, finance, HR and commercialism. And the risk of disruption and jeopardising the morale of our dedicated workforce was not one the school could take.

This was where Napoleon’s lucky generals principle swung into full force. Our chosen MAT had a recently NPQH-qualified Deputy Head who had run a commercial operation before becoming a teacher and then risen rapidly up the career progression ladder. I was confident she would import all the skills we needed, while mentoring and supporting our new SLT to deliver an outstanding education.

The year recently ended could best be characterised as “business-as-(not very) usual”.

Governors and leaders worked closely together to complete the formalities of co-creating the multi-academy trust, called Chrysalis. In parallel, the hard labour required to embed sustainably exceptional pedagogy, ensure staff commitment to our strategy and deliver on our promise to parents and pupils has – in common with all other schools – been an ever-present drumbeat.

The new head deployed her entrepreneurial skills to begin the process of making sense of the two building projects. Most importantly, staff began to say that they look forward to coming to work, a dramatic change from the dark days of Autumn 2015.

Member, trustee and local governing board positions have been filled, including my successor – a prominent member of the local community – as Chair of Sudbury.

And, in the last week of the academic year, Ofsted returned. The school received a secure Ofsted ‘Good’ grade. The fact that some were disappointed is testimony to the ambition of the school. It was always understood that the grade was acceptable only as a way-station to Outstanding but it was still a great result in not much more than four terms.

It meant that staff had renewed pride in working at Sudbury Primary School. And the new MAT could launch with optimism and confidence.

There are, I believe, several lessons that can be drawn from this story. I divide them into two: academisation, and crisis management.

Academisation

My own view is that the seeds of Sudbury’s problems were planted before academisation in 2012. It appears that the core motivation was not strategic, but rather a desire to leave the local authority. This is not sufficient. Academisation must be grounded in a positive, achievable strategic vision for the school that will enable pupils and staff – and the organisation itself – to do better than would otherwise be the case.

Neither does there appear to have been a plan to equip the Governing Body, leadership and management with the requisite skills to manage the impact of transitioning to full-blown independence. In particular, the role of Chair seems to have been inadequately provided for, with a failure to appreciate that the role in a stand-alone organisation is multi-faceted (part-boss, mentor, consultant and colleague).

So, the key lesson for schools thinking of academising is this. Imagine your school operating as a completely autonomous operation, shorn of all LEA involvement. Then, do nothing without a forensic skills audit across the organisation to see where the gaps are; this includes the serving Head, who will need to morph from headteacher to chief executive overnight. What’s more, existing governors must be able and willing to meet the core demands of the Governance Competency Framework: “robust accountability, oversight and assurance for educational and financial performance”.

Once a school has academised, it is essential the Governing Body understands that it is now responsible for strategy, finance, people and performance. The Chair must lead governors in embracing this new role, while novating a constructive relationship with the Head built round clear lines of authority and an annual review (including target-setting).

These new – much broader – responsibilities demand a skills-set to match, both in management and across the Governing Body. Schools that academise without financial professionals on the payroll and the board are asking for trouble. The same goes for HR. There should also be governors who can understand and challenge educational data and, ideally, one with legal experience.

There is, in fact, an argument that the availability of all these core skills should be a condition precedent to permission to academise or launch a free school; their subsequent disappearance an Ofsted imperative.

Crisis Management

Every institution faces mission-critical eruptions. Sometimes, in hindsight, they will seem inevitable. Alternatively, they may be so unexpected that even the most pessimistic (guilty as charged) will be surprised.

(As an aside, schools with a heightened sense of potential risks – something entirely missing at Sudbury until recently – will be better prepared to prevent a crisis. A formal risk management process to sit beside business continuity planning seems to me to be the very minimum that conscientious and responsible organisations should operate.)

When a crisis does hit, it is important to avoid panic. Take time to think. Sudbury realised that they needed an outsider to heal the wounds at board level and to provide dynamic, decisive leadership. Confronted with a perfect storm, they realised the importance of objectivity, neutrality and the need to identify and then deliver some short-term goals as well as a longer-term vision.

It is also vital to communicate. Nature abhors a vacuum. If it is not filled by trustworthy information, then gossip, rumour and speculation will do the job instead. Tell people honestly what the situation is and how it will be addressed. Admit those things that you won’t be able to talk about. Strive to keep people up-to-date. Wherever possible, do it face-to-face, whether that’s staff, their unions or parents. Allow questions – and be honest when you don’t yet know the answer.

Above all, focus on the core purpose. We – leaders, staff and governors – do what we do because we are committed to securing the best possible outcomes for the children and young adults whose future is entrusted to us.

Lose sight of that in the maelstrom and everything is lost. Keep it permanently in mind, even in extremis, and all can be won.

Ian chaired Sudbury Primary School Academy Trust from January 2016 to August 2017, leading it through a crisis and rapid turnround, and into a co-created multi-academy trust.

In addition to Sudbury, he was Chair at both Woodhouse College (2006-2018), and community primary Dollis from 2019 to 2021, leading the merger of adjacent Infant and Junior Schools and the emergent Primary’s transformation.

Ian Phillips was a National Leader of Governance from 2014 to 2020, and is a Member of three academy trusts.