For some MATs, consistency is key. They want every site to follow the same framework, with menus, layouts, and compliance pages all in the same place.

That doesn’t mean the schools all look identical. In most cases, schools keep their own logo and colours, so the site still feels familiar to their community. Parents benefit from a predictable structure, while the trust gains peace of mind knowing statutory information is covered and easy to find.

On a practical level, it’s also more efficient: one provider, one invoice, one approach to training. The trade-off, of course, is that some schools can feel a little restricted when it comes to showing off their own personality.

Bringing sites together – the ups and downs

When trusts decide to consolidate all their websites under one provider, the benefits are obvious. It reduces costs, governance teams know every site is compliant, and parents don’t have to re-learn where everything sits when they move between schools.

But change is rarely straightforward. Schools often say, “We like our current site, do we really need to change?” or worry about losing the individuality they’ve built up. These concerns are completely valid.

That’s why the process has to be collaborative. Trusts that handle it well involve schools early, show them how their local identity will still shine through, and give them a voice in shaping the final product. Done properly, it doesn’t feel like something is being taken away — it feels like something better is being built together.

When every school goes its own way

At the other end of the spectrum, some trusts give schools complete freedom to design their own websites. Each school chooses its own provider, its own layout, and a design that reflects its identity.

There are clear positives to this approach. A small primary might want a bright, playful design full of local photography, while a large secondary might prefer a more formal, academic feel. Parents often value this individuality, and headteachers feel their school’s culture is represented authentically.

But this level of freedom comes with challenges. Families with children at more than one school can find it confusing when navigation is completely different. Compliance can slip if each school is left to manage statutory updates alone. And from the trust’s perspective, managing multiple providers, contracts, and invoices adds unnecessary complexity and cost.

For some trusts, individuality is worth those trade-offs. For others, it quickly becomes clear that a more joined-up approach saves time, money, and stress.

The hybrid approach (and why it works so well)

The model we see working best is a hybrid one. It gives trusts the consistency they need, without taking away the individuality that schools value.

Take Northern Arch Learning Trust. With both secondary and primary schools in their family, a one-size-fits-all design wasn’t realistic. We built their sites in sections, so the structure — menus, governance pages, statutory content — is consistent across the trust, but each school has control over what’s most visible to parents.

At one school, the homepage features an events calendar. At another, it’s news articles. Both make sense because the schools know their communities best. Parents get the benefit of consistency, the trust knows compliance is covered, and the schools are proud that their sites still feel like their own.

It’s the best of both worlds.