A Multi Academy Trust IT strategy example should not begin with a wish list of devices or a decision to move everything to the cloud. It should begin with the operational reality: several schools, different levels of maturity, finite funding, safeguarding responsibilities and an expectation that teaching and administration will continue without disruption.
For trust leaders, the challenge is to create consistency where it protects pupils, staff and budgets, while allowing schools enough flexibility to meet local needs. The strategy below is an illustrative model for a growing trust of eight primary and secondary schools. Its principles apply just as well to trusts consolidating after growth, replacing an expiring IT contract or strengthening cyber resilience.
The starting point: one trust, uneven technology
The example trust had inherited a mixed estate. Some schools used centrally managed Microsoft 365 accounts, while others retained older local file servers. Wi-Fi quality varied by building. Device purchasing was handled independently, which created incompatible models, uncertain warranties and a growing support burden. Several sites also relied on informal administrator access, with no consistent record of who could access what.
This is a common position for Multi-Academy Trusts. Local autonomy can keep a school moving in the short term, but it becomes costly and risky when technology is not planned at trust level. A single phishing incident, failed backup or unsupported server can affect more than one site and draw leadership attention away from education.
Before setting objectives, the trust completed a baseline review. This covered infrastructure, software licences, asset records, cyber controls, connectivity, supplier commitments, support demand and known site risks. The output was not a technical report left on a shelf. It was a prioritised register showing what needed urgent action, what could be standardised and what required a longer-term investment decision.
A Multi Academy Trust IT strategy example in practice
The trust agreed a three-year strategy with one clear purpose: provide secure, reliable and equitable technology that supports teaching, operations and sustainable growth. It was organised around five outcomes rather than a catalogue of products.
1. Establish a standard digital foundation
The first objective was to make core services consistent across every school. The trust standardised identity management, email, collaboration tools, endpoint security, device configuration, backup expectations and service desk processes. Staff could use the same approved tools regardless of school, and joining or leaving the trust no longer required rebuilding accounts from scratch.
Standardisation does not mean every classroom must look identical. A secondary school may need specialist curriculum software or more powerful devices than a primary school. The strategic distinction is between a controlled core and justified local variation. The core should be centrally governed; exceptions should be documented, costed and reviewed rather than becoming permanent by accident.
The trust also introduced a supported device catalogue. Schools retained a choice from approved laptops, desktops and tablets, but purchases had to meet agreed specifications for security, warranty, management and lifecycle. This reduced procurement delays and gave finance leaders a more credible replacement forecast.
2. Put cyber security and safeguarding into everyday operations
Cyber security was treated as an operational responsibility, not an annual compliance exercise. The trust applied multi-factor authentication to all appropriate accounts, removed unnecessary administrator rights and introduced managed protection for user devices. Critical systems and backups were reviewed to ensure recovery could be tested, not merely assumed.
A security-first approach also needs people and process. Staff received role-appropriate awareness training, with clear routes for reporting suspicious emails or lost devices. Heads and business managers were given a straightforward incident process: who to call, what information to preserve and how decisions would be made if a system became unavailable.
For schools, security decisions have a safeguarding dimension. Access to pupil information, classroom systems, CCTV platforms and visitor management tools must be controlled carefully. The strategy assigned ownership for data and access decisions, with regular reviews of privileged accounts and former staff records. This creates accountability without expecting every school leader to become a cyber specialist.
3. Improve resilience before expanding capability
The trust found that some of its most pressing issues were unglamorous: ageing switches, inconsistent Wi-Fi coverage and single points of failure in connectivity. These problems had a direct effect on lessons, assessments and office productivity. Its first-year capital plan therefore focused on resilience at the sites with the greatest exposure.
Each school received a documented minimum standard for network capacity, wireless coverage, firewall management, backup and recovery. Sites below the standard were prioritised using risk, pupil impact, condition and planned building works. This is more defensible than distributing investment evenly, because equal spending is not always equitable spending.
The strategy also set recovery targets for key services. Not every platform needs the same restoration time. A temporary delay to a non-critical archive is different from losing access to safeguarding records, finance systems or staff communications. Agreeing these priorities in advance helps the trust spend wisely on backup, cloud services and connectivity.
4. Deliver support through a clear operating model
Technology improvements fail when responsibility is fragmented. In this example, the trust created a central IT function led by a trust IT manager, supported by a managed service partner for monitoring, specialist projects and escalated support. Each school appointed a named technology liaison, usually a member of the senior leadership or business team, to raise local priorities and support communication.
The service model made clear what was handled centrally and what remained local. Central IT owned security policy, core platforms, supplier management, asset standards, monitoring and major projects. Schools owned day-to-day requests, local curriculum requirements and the communication of planned changes to staff.
Service performance was reviewed monthly using practical measures: response and resolution times, recurring incidents, patching status, device age, backup results, phishing reports and user satisfaction. The purpose was not to produce data for its own sake. It allowed trustees and executives to see whether IT was reducing risk and disruption.
5. Make investment decisions transparent
A strategy needs a financial model as well as a technical plan. The trust separated predictable operational expenditure, such as licences, support and security monitoring, from planned capital expenditure for networks, devices and major upgrades. It then built a rolling lifecycle plan so that replacement costs were spread over time rather than appearing as emergencies.
There will be trade-offs. Extending the life of a device estate may release funds for urgent network work, but only if the older devices can still be supported securely and used effectively. Moving a service to the cloud may reduce local infrastructure work, but recurring costs, data requirements and internet dependency must be understood first. A good strategy makes these choices visible to decision-makers.
The delivery roadmap
The first 90 days focused on control: complete the asset and risk baseline, secure high-risk accounts, formalise backup checks, appoint owners and establish service reporting. The trust then addressed urgent network and Wi-Fi weaknesses, consolidated identity and device management, and introduced its supported device catalogue during the first year.
In years two and three, the emphasis moved to planned lifecycle replacement, deeper use of collaboration and learning tools, improved data reporting and a repeatable onboarding process for any new school joining the trust. This sequencing matters. Introducing new digital initiatives before the foundations are reliable can create more work for staff and undermine confidence in the programme.
The roadmap included change management at every stage. Staff were told what was changing, why it mattered, what they needed to do and where to get support. Pilots were used where classroom impact was high. Technical teams also scheduled disruptive work outside teaching hours wherever possible, with contingency plans for critical periods such as examinations and census returns.
Governance that keeps the strategy alive
The trust board approved the strategy and reviewed strategic risks and investment progress each term. An executive technology group met more frequently to make decisions on priorities, exceptions and projects. This group included education, finance, operations and IT representation, because technology choices affect all four areas.
A strategy should be reviewed annually, but it should not be rewritten every time a new product appears. The trust measured progress against outcomes: fewer major incidents, higher compliance with core standards, predictable replacement costs, improved staff experience and faster onboarding for new schools. If a proposed project did not support one of these outcomes, it was challenged before funding was committed.
For Multi-Academy Trusts across Cambridgeshire and the wider South East, the right approach will depend on estate condition, trust growth plans, internal capability and budget profile. The enduring principle is simpler: make the essential services secure and dependable first, then use technology deliberately to improve the experience of every school. A proactive IT partner can provide the specialist capacity and accountability needed to keep that plan moving when internal teams are already stretched.
