COLLABORATIVE LEARNING TRUST

1. Industry Classification

Collaborative Learning Trust is a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) operating in the state-funded education sector, classified under SIC 85200 (primary education) and 85310 (general secondary education). As a private company limited by guarantee with no share capital, it has the standard legal form for a charitable academy trust: it has members and trustees rather than shareholders, and any surpluses are reinvested in its schools. The trust’s origins as Otley Prince Henry’s Academy Trust, renamed in 2018, indicate an evolution from a single academy to a collaborative group of schools in Yorkshire.

2. Relative Performance

The available data does not include financial statements, so quantitative benchmarking against sector norms is not possible. However, the trust’s filing profile is consistent with an academy trust that is meeting its statutory obligations: its latest accounts are filed for the year ended 31 August 2025, with no overdue filings, and the next accounts are due by 31 May 2027. This suggests an active, compliant entity. Academy trusts of this type typically receive the majority of income through the Department for Education’s General Annual Grant (GAG), pupil premium, and additional grants for SEND and high-needs provision. Without turnover or balance sheet figures, relative financial efficiency cannot be measured directly, but the presence of full accounts and a current board of directors indicates a governance structure aligned with ESFA accountability expectations.

3. Sector Trends Impact

The trust operates in a challenging and evolving education landscape. Key sector dynamics affecting it include:

• MAT growth and consolidation: Government policy continues to encourage schools to join multi-academy trusts to improve resilience and school improvement capacity. Collaborative Learning Trust’s name and “collaborative” positioning suggest it is seeking to benefit from shared resources, joint CPD, and economies of scale in back-office functions.
• Funding pressures: Academy trusts face real-terms funding constraints, rising employer pension and national insurance costs, and increasing demands on SEND and high-needs budgets. These pressures require strong financial management and effective prioritisation of school improvement spend.
• Teacher recruitment and retention: With national shortages in subjects such as maths, science, and modern foreign languages, the trust’s ability to attract and retain teachers is critical. Its child-centred, inclusive ethos may support staff wellbeing but does not insulate it from market-wide labour market challenges.
• Accountability and inspection: The trust is subject to Ofsted inspection and the ESFA’s financial and governance framework. Maintaining strong audit trails, board oversight, and transparent reporting is essential to preserve its funding agreement.

4. Competitive Positioning

Collaborative Learning Trust is best positioned as a regional, values-driven MAT rather than a national-scale operator. Its strengths include:

• Established local partnerships: Founded on existing school partnerships in Yorkshire, it can draw on local knowledge, relationships with parents, and community trust.
• Governance depth: The board includes multiple current directors, a school development adviser, and dedicated secretaries, reflecting the formal governance structures expected of a MAT. The absence of a single person with significant control is normal for a company limited by guarantee and reinforces its non-profit, collective governance model.
• Inclusive, child-centred identity: This differentiates it from larger, more academically selective or centrally driven trusts, and can appeal to parents and staff seeking a community-focused alternative.

Weaknesses or risks relative to larger competitors include:

• Scale disadvantages: National MATs can achieve greater procurement savings, access to specialist educational services, and more flexible deployment of leadership capacity.
• Limited financial data visibility: Without published financials in the data provided, external stakeholders cannot assess its reserves position, reliance on particular funding streams, or cost efficiency against sector benchmarks.
• Succession and dependency: The trust’s effectiveness may depend heavily on a small group of local leaders and trustees; if key individuals leave, continuity could be challenged.

Overall, the trust occupies a credible position in the mid-tier of the MAT sector: small enough to remain locally responsive, but structured and active enough to meet the compliance and governance expectations of the modern academy system.