Centralised or Separate School Websites: Which Approach Suits a Multi-Academy Trust?

A Multi-Academy Trust’s website structure affects much more than how information is displayed online. It influences how families find individual schools, how staff publish content, how the Trust presents its identity and how much work is involved in keeping information accurate.

For some Trusts, one central website may be the most practical choice. For others, each academy needs its own website, supported by shared standards and systems. A networked model can offer a useful middle ground, combining a Trust-wide presence with separate school websites that are managed as part of one connected system.

There is no universal answer. The right approach depends on your Trust’s size, structure, identity, governance arrangements, budget and growth plans.

The three main website models

Before comparing the options, it helps to define what each model normally means.

1. A centralised Trust website

A centralised model uses one main website for the Trust and its academies. School information may sit within dedicated sections or pages, rather than on separate domains.

Visitors might start on the Trust homepage and then choose a school from a directory. Each academy could have its own area covering essentials such as contact details, curriculum information, admissions, news and events.

This model can create a clear, unified digital presence. It may work particularly well for a smaller Trust with closely aligned schools, a strong shared identity or a central communications team.

2. Separate school websites

With this approach, every academy has its own website. The Trust may also have a separate central website explaining its vision, governance, leadership and wider work.

The school websites can be completely distinct, or they can share a design system, content structure and technical platform. Separate does not necessarily mean disconnected.

This model gives each academy a high degree of ownership and visibility. It may be suitable where schools have distinct communities, histories, phases, locations or identities.

3. A networked website model

A networked model combines elements of the other two. The Trust has a central website, while each school has its own website within a shared technical and design framework.

The websites may use common navigation patterns, page templates, accessibility considerations and publishing tools. At the same time, each academy can present its own values, staff, facilities, curriculum and community.

For many growing Trusts, this offers a balance between consistency and local flexibility. However, it needs clear planning. Without agreed standards, a network can become difficult to manage and inconsistent over time.

Identity: should the Trust or the school lead?

Your brand architecture is one of the most important considerations.

A centralised website naturally puts the Trust at the front of the digital experience. This can help communicate a clear collective identity and make it easier to explain what the Trust does. It may also support recruitment to central roles and provide a single point of contact for some audiences.

The risk is that individual academies become less visible. Families usually want to understand a particular school, not only the organisation that oversees it. If school content is buried within a large Trust website, visitors may struggle to find the information that matters to them.

Separate websites give each school more room to express its character. This can be valuable where an academy has a strong local reputation or serves a distinct community. It also makes the school feel like a complete organisation rather than a subsection of a larger site.

The challenge is maintaining a recognisable Trust identity. If every school website looks and feels completely different, the relationship between the academies may not be clear.

A networked model can help you establish shared visual and structural principles while allowing each school to retain an individual voice. The key is deciding which parts of the identity must be consistent and where schools have freedom to adapt.

Governance: who owns the content?

Website governance is often more important than the visual model.

A centralised website may simplify oversight. A Trust communications team can manage publishing standards, approve important content and monitor whether key information is being maintained. This can make it easier to establish shared processes.

However, central control can also create bottlenecks. A school may need to publish a time-sensitive update, but have to wait for someone outside the academy to make or approve the change. That can be frustrating for staff and unhelpful for families.

Separate websites place more responsibility with each school. Local teams can publish news, events and updates directly, provided they have the right access, training and guidance. The Trust still needs a clear framework covering ownership, permissions, approvals, tone of voice, branding and content reviews.

A networked system allows responsibilities to be divided. The Trust can manage central content and shared components, while schools control their own day-to-day sections. This can work well, but only when roles are agreed in advance.

Before choosing a model, consider:

• Who can create, edit and approve content?
• Which information must be managed centrally?
• What happens when a school needs urgent changes?
• Who checks that key information remains accurate?
• How will new schools be added to the system?
• What training and ongoing support will local staff receive?

The answers may point towards a particular structure more clearly than the number of academies alone.

Cost: look beyond the initial build

Cost comparisons can be misleading if you only consider the launch project.

One central website may appear simpler because there is one platform, one design and one content structure. It may require less initial production work, particularly for a smaller Trust with limited content requirements.

Separate websites can involve more design, content migration, domain management and training. If each academy commissions and maintains its own website independently, costs and administration may increase.

A networked model can create efficiencies by sharing technical foundations, templates, hosting arrangements and support. But it still requires careful investment in the initial system and in the rules that keep it manageable.

You should also consider the cost of staff time. A system that is inexpensive to build may be expensive to operate if it is difficult to update or requires repeated central intervention. Equally, a more sophisticated platform may not represent good value if your Trust does not have the capacity to use its features.

When comparing proposals, ask suppliers to explain:

• What is included for the Trust and each academy?
• How are new schools added later?
• Are updates to shared templates included?
• How are hosting, support and training handled?
• What content work will be required from school teams?
• What happens if your governance structure changes?

The most suitable model is usually the one that provides sustainable value, not simply the lowest initial price.

Local flexibility: how much difference should schools have?

Schools need to communicate information that is specific to their pupils, families and communities. A primary academy and a secondary academy will not necessarily organise information in the same way. Their audiences, terminology, admissions journeys and day-to-day communications may differ.

A centralised model can make local flexibility harder to provide. Shared templates may need to be broad enough to accommodate every school, which can lead to generic content or awkward navigation.

Separate websites offer greater freedom. Each school can prioritise the content and features that best suit its audience. The downside is that this freedom can result in inconsistent user experiences, duplicated effort and varying standards.

A networked model gives you the opportunity to define the essentials centrally while leaving space for local decisions. For example, every academy might use shared approaches for contact information, statutory content, safeguarding, accessibility and key navigation. Schools could then control their homepages, news, photography, welcome messages and community-focused content.

This balance should be agreed through workshops and content planning, rather than left to chance during development.

Which model suits a growing Trust?

Your growth plans should influence the decision.

If you expect to welcome new academies, ask how easily they can be added without redesigning the entire system. A centralised website may become increasingly complex as more schools, locations and audiences are added. Separate websites may provide stronger local clarity, but only if onboarding is well organised.

A networked model can support expansion by providing a repeatable structure for new schools. The Trust can introduce shared standards and templates while allowing each academy to complete its own content and establish its local presence.

You should also consider whether your identity is likely to change. A Trust that is still developing its name, values or brand may benefit from a flexible system that can evolve. Designing a rigid structure too early can make future changes more difficult.

A practical decision framework

To compare the options, score each model against the factors that matter most to your Trust:

1. Trust identity – Does the structure communicate the relationship between the Trust and its academies?
2. School identity – Can each school explain what makes it distinctive?
3. Governance – Can the right people publish and approve content efficiently?
4. User experience – Can parents, pupils, staff and prospective employees find relevant information quickly?
5. Cost and resources – Is the model realistic to build, manage and support?
6. Growth – Can new academies be added without unnecessary duplication?
7. Local flexibility – Can schools adapt their content to their communities?
8. Consistency – Can you maintain shared standards across all websites?

It is useful to involve representatives from the Trust and academies in this discussion. A structure that works well for the central team may not work well for school staff or website visitors.

There may not be one answer forever

Your website model does not have to remain unchanged as your Trust develops. A newly formed Trust may begin with a central website while its identity and governance arrangements take shape. As it grows, separate or networked academy websites may become more appropriate.

The important thing is to choose a structure deliberately. Set out what should be central, what should remain local and how the system will be managed. Your website should support the way your Trust operates, rather than forcing your organisation into a structure that creates unnecessary administration.

A well-planned networked approach can offer a practical balance for many Trusts, but it is not automatically the best choice. The strongest solution is the one that makes communication clearer for your audiences and manageable for the people responsible for it.

Related Services

• School Website Design
• School Website Support & Training

Related News / Insights / Articles

• Should a Multi Academy Trust Have One Website or Separate School Websites?
• Is Your Multi Academy Trust Website Ready for Growth?
• 10 Features Every Multi Academy Trust Website Should Include