One conundrum remains, however. Who funds any SEN provision these children? In theory, statements of SEN are available to these children but in practice there can be difficulties identifying the responsible local authority. Forces families can be very mobile, staying only a matter of months or one or two years in each location. Usually (for non-forces families) the child’s home LA is responsible for funding SEN provision but confusion can arise as to whether this is this the LA where the parents are currently stationed (if  in the UK), or where the parents own a home or, if the child is in boarding school, where the parents last resided if both abroad? (The Belonging Regulations are, of course, notoriously opaque.)

In one case, the needs of a boy from a service family were assessed while the family were in England prior to being posted abroad. His mother was in the armed forces. Their local authority provided a statement, but when the mother returned to England after a tour of duty, she relocated within the UK and the new authority refused to accept responsibility for the statement. This is a fairly common experience for all families with a statemented child. The forces family, however, were then posted abroad again before long and the situation became even more complicated. Eventually there had to be arbitration between authorities. This was an unusual case some time ago, and we would not wish to suggest that there is an endemic problem, as there are other systems in place (see later) but the case illustrates a legal difficulty caused by moves, an issue which particularly affects service families.

The experience of independent schools making SEN provision for service children is mixed. Some find that LAs readily grant a statement of SEN to children of service families in the knowledge that the MoD will ultimately fund the SEN provision. In other cases, the funding of provision has been shared between an LA and the MoD, perhaps the MoD funding a boarding school place and the LA topping-up for the SEN provision. The parents might also bear part of the cost of the boarding placement.

The observation of the ISC SEN expert group is that the needs children from service families rarely warrant a statement of SEN (in-line with the population at large), and service personnel can rely on the MoD’s Children’s Education Advisory Service to fund provision to meet special educational needs.

In this regard a new problem has emerged. Since April 2011, all applications for CEAS support for SEN must be accompanied by a report by an educational psychologist accredited by Dyslexia Action. As far as we can tell, this is whether or not their learning difficulty falls under the “dyslexia” umbrella.  This gives rise to several concerns, apart from the obvious inappropriateness of dyslexia assessments in some cases:

• Children have to be taken to a DA centre for assessment and are not assessed in their school environment;
• The arrangement cuts across longstanding working arrangements between schools and psychologists who work with pupils in school;
• It cuts across existing arrangements for continuity of advice during phase transfer;
• Psychologists are already required to be registered with HPC (Health Professions Council). The MoD’s requirement is not “joined-up” with Department of Health quality measures or the DfE’s SEN Code of Practice;
• Schools find the reports can be formulaic and unhelpful.

On the other hand, we understand that the MoD arrived at this policy because they believe:

• the DA reports provide impartiality, and provide a more reliable benchmark for the MoD;
• service families can receive independent advice and have the benefit of a free consultation before embarking on a full assessment;
• the reports identify a strategy for withdrawing support once the child is working independently;
• costs are consistent, and
• assessments can be carried out at a time to suit parents, including holidays;
• the MoD is reassured that DA assessments are scrutinised and monitored for quality and consistency.

The Minister’s October statement assured service families that “There will be no changes in our provisions for special educational needs or day school allowances.” While this was intended in a positive way, ISC’s SEN Expert Group would encourage the MoD to reconsider its assessment policy and return to accepting reports from all properly qualified, HPC registered educational psychologists.

Schools of the ISC associations who wish to know more can find a copy of our exchange of letters in the Member zone of the ISC website, or email legal@isc.co.uk.

Related posts:

1. Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Independent Schools
2. “How to prevent poor children becoming poor adults” (Frank Field)
3. SEN pupil gets support needed at independent school

The event kicked off with a panel discussion about free schools and academies. With the first free schools due to open this September, this was a very hot topic for the delegates to get their teeth in to. Lord Hill focussed his introductory remarks on the freedom that free schools and academies can offer. He talked about how the initiative to start free schools had been bubbling up from parents and talked about how there was a great potential for the Independent sector to become involved. Richard Smyth, who had made the transition from working in an Independent school to an academy, made the point that he now had the ability to effect change in an academy. His particular school has 930 pupils who come from all manner of different backgrounds and he talked about the “extremes of culture” in his school. Anastasia de Waal talked about the other side of the coin and explained that there was still a pressure to achieve the coveted A*-C grades in academies and that it was hard to measure their success in improving student’s work. She went on to explain that Independent schools were accountable to the parents but who were academies accountable to?

The next session focussed on “innovation in teaching and learning” and how to get pupils involved. Kevin Stannard said that Independent schools have a “moral duty” to lead and innovate. He explained that schools need to decide what skills they want to embed in their curriculum and how innovation can help. He said that having “subject specialists” as teachers wasn’t enough anymore and that they need to find a way in which education and learning can be nurtured in teachers. He finished on the point that innovation was as much about renewal as it was about change.

Entrepreneurship was the focus of the next panel discussion and we were all treated to some very special speakers. Richard Cairns introduced the discussion and described that it is now compulsory in Brighton College to learn about entrepreneurship. It is often the case that Independent schools are seen to be the places where bankers, doctors and lawyers come from, but not many business owners. Luke Johnson spoke about how a successful business was like an “engine for change” and that running your own business should be seen as just as respectable as other professions. Tom Bewick spoke about his initiative Tenner Tycoon (http://www.tenner-tycoon.org/) and encouraged heads to get their pupils involved in it. Robert Devereux explained that entrepreneurship can’t be taught in the traditional sense but had to be nurtured by creating that culture within school. The main points that I picked up from this discussion was that entrepreneurship can only be a good thing for pupils as it teaches them how to take risks and if they fail, how to pick themselves back up again.

I found the talk that Ian Yorston gave about “why schools don’t need ICT” a great pick-me-up before lunch. Ian has a great way of engaging the audience and we all had a good laugh when he demonstrated Google’s ability to calculate the “speed of light in furlongs per fortnight”. He revealed some great resources for everyone to use such as Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/), Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/) and iTunesU. His parting remark was that schools don’t need to spend copious amounts of money on ICT because the pupils already have their own personal devices.
After lunch, we were treated to a double header of talks about subjects. Professor Justin Dillon talked about the negative attitude towards science, not just in this country but throughout the world. He referred to the gender divide and how male pupils had a more positive feeling towards it than female pupils. In his studies, he found that pupils thought science was repetitive; when they join the school there is much excitement when learning about  molecules and elements but by the time this has been repeated throughout their school life, it can get quite monotonous. He also explained about a recent study undertaken by TISME ((http://tisme-scienceandmaths.org/) which tracked 10,000 pupils and interviewed them and their parents about their attitudes to science. Then, much like my own school days, history followed science and we were treated to a talk by Niall Ferguson about how learning history can be improved in school. He described the paradox that exists with history in that it’s such a popular subject outside, yet inside schools it is so unpopular. He blamed the fact that children are able to give up history at the age of 13 and that, because it is taught in “bits and pieces” it didn’t give a full picture of what happened in our past. Niall outlined his five proposals to improve the teaching of history and these included; more hours of teaching for more years, history teaching needs to have more structure to it, pupils need to be taught British and world history in equal measures, history shouldn’t be taught towards the exam and finally better course materials should be available.

The penultimate session was presented by ISC’s Rudolf Eliott Lockhart who talked about the number of acceptances and admissions of ISC and non-ISC pupils to universities and why pupils from ISC schools do so well. A press release covering Rudi’s speech can be found here (http://www.isc.co.uk/publication_4_0_0_26_921.htm) and coverage in the media can be found here (http://www.isc.co.uk/DailyNewsSummary). To finish the day, Professor James Tooley gave an enlightening talk about private education in the developing world. He described how federations of small independent schools could be found in deprived areas in far flung locations such as the Gansu province in China. These schools were not set up for the rich and were attended by children of the poor families who wanted to give them the best start in life.

Overall, I found the day incredibly enlightening and inspiring. There was an excellent program of speakers who captivated the audience with their talks throughout the day. Having been one of those pupils described by Niall Ferguson who dropped history at 13 years old, I made a point of watching his Civilisation show on 4OD as soon as I got home in the hope of improving my knowledge of it!

Related posts:

1. Admissions Conference 2011 – Equality Act technical issues
2. Science teaching at prep schools
3. ISC ICT Conference: Collaboration, engagement and confidence

The review has recommended that the functions of the CRB and Independent Safeguarding Authority be merged into a single agency and that criminal record checks should be portable between jobs and activities. In other words, we can hope to see the “one-stop shop” for which we and others lobbied.

Employees will be able to view and challenge the information disclosed about them before it is published, protecting the rights of individuals, and systems will be put in place to enable employers to check on-line for updated records giving the efficiency and simplicity that schools require.

To protect children and vulnerable adults, schools’ referral duties remain as do the barring functions of (what is currently) the ISA. Two criminal offences will remain: working with children and vulnerable adults while barred and knowingly employing a barred person in a regulated activity role.

The devil will be in the detail, of course, but it is not too early to welcome the core recommendations and the clear direction of travel. The e.t.a. of V.B.S. mark II will be sometime in 2012 but this version should not cause the havoc with visiting Olympic teams which the last one threatened.

*Quotations all from the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006

Related posts:

1. The Red Tape Peril
2. At last some common sense on safeguarding from Ed Balls

It is younger children who are particularly vulnerable to safeguarding risks when online, so education in online safety must start early. Teachers may need training too – especially anyone who doesn’t know what an ‘app’ is, or thinks a ‘tweet’ is the noise a bird makes. Teaching resources for all ages of children are available on the CEOP site, and DigitalME has just launched a social networking safety awareness programme aimed at primary schools, called Safe: www.digitalme.co.uk/safe/ Don’t forget that as a school, as teachers, as someone working in the education sector – you owe a duty of care to your pupils to keep them safe. Doing nothing is not an option.

That said – cyberspace poses a great many opportunities – including creating content (eg. through blogs or tweets), discovering new experiences (eg. a book or music), research for homework or other projects, a platform for self expression and joining like minded groups, to name a few. The educational potential of cyberspace is huge. And social networking sites like Facebook know this. Facebook actually markets itself on its ability to be used as an educational tool – for example, you can create a group which would allow a class to share information instantly and in a way that students are very comfortable with. Social networking sites have also been useful in helping children to build up relationships with foreign students prior to exchange visits. For more on the educational potential of Facebook, you may like to take a look at the Facebook in Education page: www.facebook.com/education

The iTunes U service set up by Apple is another example of a new online tool that could facilitate teaching and learning in the 21st Century: www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/  Currently this is mainly used by universities to share their educational materials worldwide, in an accessible way that young people are already using, and to showcase and promote their establishment. In a schools context, such a tool could be used to share educational resources with non-pupils and thus further charitable aspirations to deliver public benefit…

Related posts:

1. Cyberspace: facing up to reality (I)
2. The Appropriate Relationship between staff and pupils in cyberspace
3. UK Kids Online – What you ought to know about your pupils’ online behaviour

Communicating in cyberspace comes naturally to today’s generation of youngsters – online experience is in fact an integral (and indivisible) part of their lives. This view is backed up by recent research conducted by the LSE, which revealed that half of all children surveyed (23,420 9 to 16 year olds across Europe) find it easier to be themselves online than in ‘real’ life.

In a move that has further blurred the distinction between the virtual and ‘real’ world, Facebook went live in the UK with their location-sharing service, Places, last month. Facebook Places allows users on mobile devices to ‘check in’ wherever they are, broadcasting their location to online contacts. Places allows your friends to check you in as well, which raises further privacy issues. Users have to opt in to the service, but children who do so may not realise the risks they expose themselves to, including the potential for would-be child abusers to build up a very detailed profile of them, bullying and other safeguarding risks. Neither would they necessarily realise that location data can be used to enable companies to target them in their advertising. Children need to learn how to manage the risks and how to distinguish between credible and disreputable information.

Some schools have chosen to minimise the risks by banning use of social networking sites in school. Whilst this decision may be taken for sound educational reasons, it does not equip children to manage online risks better, and it may encourage pupils to suffer in silence if something does go wrong. School life cannot be separated from the cyberworld, and some children are likely to access social networking sites on their phones, laptops and handheld devices during school hours whether you like it or not. (Oh, and if you work in a primary school, don’t think social networking is not an issue for you: the LSE’s research revealed that 24% of 9-10 year olds and 48% of 11-12 year olds have a social networking profile, even though you are not allowed to be a Facebook user unless you are 13 or over.)

A good starting place for engaged school staff to learn about online risks is CEOP’s website: www.ceop.police.uk and encourage your pupils to add the CLICKCEOP application: www.facebook.com/clickceop

The LSE’s research – part of a project called EU Kids Online, can be accessed here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline

Look out for part 2 of this blog coming soon…

Related posts:

1. Cyberspace: facing up to reality (Part 2)
2. The Appropriate Relationship between staff and pupils in cyberspace
3. How to get adverse material removed from a Facebook page

The MPs in whose constituencies the axe has fallen argue vociferously that children need school buildings of quality if they are to learn effectively, that deprived areas need investment, that Michael Gove is attacking the poor.

Of course the quality of facilities and the environment in which children are educated impact on learning, but quality of teachers and teaching impact more. If cuts are the order of the day, and they most certainly are, the Department of Education has to make some tough choices as to where it should spend its limited funds. In an ideal world, children would be educated in shiny new buildings by highly qualified professional teachers, dedicated to inspiring a new generation with a love of learning. In the real world of 2010, I would rather see the limited resources available directed to improving the quality of the teaching profession, and supporting them in their careers so they can be the best possible practitioners in the classroom. I would also like to see the issue of poor teachers addressed honestly and openly, by a profession which appears to be in denial about the problem (see the Chair of OFSTED backpedalling furiously as I write this). The GTCE failed to tackle the issue, yet any teacher knows that most schools have within them substandard colleagues, who are fundamentally unsuited to teaching. Deal with this, then sit back and watch the impact of children’s attainment.

Related posts:

1. Building Schools for the Future blog
2. Embracing the future of learning

On education there are several policies that are common threads across the party spectrum – the promotion of academies, the enhanmcement of teacher status, and the introduction of a pupil premium for children from disdvantaged backgrounds. We can therefore expect that action in the first instance will focus on these areas of agreement. But there are other areas where action by the new government is urgently needed and consensus needs to be built.

Chief among these is regulation and inspection. While the parties inevitably focused their manifesto commitments on the maintained sector, here is an issue that independent and maintained schools have in common. The views of both sectors need to be heard on this and action taken in parallel. Over the last few years government often seemed to be working from the starting point that schools were dangerous places for children, that heads, teachers and administrators could not be trusted, and that the system therefore needed to be regulated, controlled and monitored as much as possible. The result has been a diversion of effort and resource away from the prime task of education into bureacracy, form-filling and box-ticking. ISC and its associations have joined with maintained schools and unions in urging the government to improve outcomes by simplifying the regulatory regimes, focusing on those at risk, and channelling inspection resources into educational improvement. These are vital preconditions for raising standards across the schools sectors, and if they are not addressed first then whatever new reforms are introduced elsewhere will be rendered ineffective.

For the independent sector this means turning Sir Roger Singleton’s call for a clearing of the regulatory thicket into action by devising a single set of simple, clear standards for all settings . This would free up the time and money currently spent on low-value compliance, and allow schools, aided by a single inspectorate (ISI) to focus on improving outcomes. Give heads and governors back their independence so that they can focus on  the educational needs of their individual pupils rather than on process.

Related posts:

1. Ofsted regulation.. hands off!
2. Is Ofsted slimming down its inspection framework?
3. Fears of ‘bogus’ students in pre-election season

In order to understand why schools are charities, these preconceptions need challenging.  Take a typical dictionary definition of charity: “a system of giving money, food or help free to those who are in need because they are ill, poor or homeless … any organisation which is established to provide money or help in this way”.   This emphasises the role of charities in assisting people in poverty and carrying out altruistic works.  By this yardstick alone, almost no school would qualify.  But then neither would, for example, the National Trust; or the British Museum; or the RSPCA, RSPB or RHS; or, in fact, many of the other 190,000 or so registered charities in England and Wales.  So there must be something more to being a charity than simple philanthropy.

This short blog is not meant to be a full critique of the Charity Commission’s approach to public benefit issues.  Instead, it is intended to provide a straightforward answer, based on prevailing charity law rather than the Commission’s disputed guidance, to the question “why is an independent school a charity?”

What is a ‘charity’?
The Charities Act 2006 defines ‘charity’ to mean an institution which is established for charitable purposes only.   It is therefore immediately apparent that the legal definition is focused on an organisation and its purposes, and not ‘charity’ as a concept or value (as described perhaps most famously in 1 Corinthians 13).

What are ‘charitable purposes’?
The Charities Act has a similarly pithy definition of ‘charitable purpose’, incorporating two elements.  First, it must be a purpose falling within a prescribed list set out in the Act.  And secondly, it must be a purpose which is for the public benefit.  

The prescribed list of purposes includes “the advancement of education” so this part of the test is completely straightforward for schools.   The list also includes, for example, “the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science” and “the advancement of animal welfare” – which explains why the national institutions referred to above are also charities.  Significantly, the list separates out “the prevention or relief of poverty” as a distinct charitable purpose, emphasising the fact that dealing with poverty is not a necessary or integral part of all charitable purposes.

But it is really the second part of the definition – that the purpose must be for the public benefit – which has proved so controversial.

What is a ‘purpose for the public benefit’?
Crucially, the Charities Act does not define ‘public benefit’.  Instead, the Act expressly preserves the pre-existing meaning of ‘public benefit’.   In other words, its meaning is unchanged by the Act and must instead be drawn from case law.  The Act does make clear, however, that it should not be presumed that a purpose of a particular description is for the public benefit.  The Act also mandates the Charity Commission to issue guidance on public benefit.   This does not confer upon the Charity Commission law-making powers; merely the responsibility to publish guidance “to promote awareness and understanding”.

What is the meaning of public benefit in case law?
In general terms, ‘public benefit’ comprises two elements, and any organisation claiming charitable status must show that both these elements are intrinsic to the organisation’s purposes: that its purpose is of benefit, and that the benefit is offered to the public or a sufficient section of the public.  Indeed, the Charity Commission’s two general principles reflect this and are largely uncontroversial: that there must be an identifiable benefit or benefits and that the benefit must be to a sufficient section of the public.

In relation to the first element – the benefit – it is apparent that this may encompass both direct and indirect benefits.  In the case of a charity set up to run a school, for example, the direct benefit will be the education provided to pupils of the school.  But there will be other indirect benefits as well, such as the national benefit of well-educated members of society and maintenance of academic standards, and the savings to the taxpayer of not having to fund additional pupil places at state schools.

In relation to the second element – the public – it is important to note that ‘public’ does not mean everyone.  The Commission itself refers to “the public or a sufficient section of the public”, which is the right test.  From case law, one can draw two further elements, one quantitative and one qualitative, to determine whether purposes benefit ‘the public’.  First, the people who are offered the benefit must not be numerically negligible.  Secondly, they must not all form part of a group which might reasonably be regarded as a ‘private’ or ‘closed’ grouping rather than a ‘public’ or ‘open’ grouping.  So, for example, a school established to educate only relatives of a common ancestor, or children of employees of a single company, would be restricting those eligible to apply to a closed grouping of individuals.  By contrast, a charity set up to run a school for boys in Birmingham would have an open – and numerous – pool of potential pupils, and therefore would have a purpose which is for the ‘public’ benefit in both senses of the word.

In summary, therefore, in relation to a typical independent school:

o the principal or direct benefit is the education it offers to its pupils (although there will be many other benefits, both direct and indirect); and
o the public is the pool of potential pupils who are eligible to be considered for a place at the school.

What is the relevance of fees to public benefit?
None at all.  It is long established that charities may charge fees to recoup their costs and generate a surplus.  The majority of charities rely on revenue income, whether the revenue is directly levied on members or users of the charity, or indirectly channelled from other sources such as Government grants or contractual funding from statutory bodies.  Indeed, it would be very unusual for charities with high levels of operating or capital cost, such as schools, to rely solely on investment income generated from returns on historic donations.

What is the relevance of bursaries to public benefit?
Again, none at all.  There is no legal authority for linking fee remission to the question of whether a charitable purpose is or is not for the public benefit.

As was stated at the beginning, this paper is not the place for a full rebuttal of the Charity Commission’s approach to public benefit.  But it is useful to consider the major differences of approach:

Public benefit as an activities test rather than a purposes test: The Commission ignores the express language of the Charities Act linking public benefit to a charity’s purposes and instead looks at the charity’s activities to determine whether the charity is operating for the public benefit.  ‘Public benefit’ therefore becomes a subjective assessment of a catalogue of activities, some of which appear to carry greater weight or significance than others.  Of course, if the charity’s trustees are not operating the charity in accordance with its purposes, this is rightly a matter of concern – but it is not a public benefit issue determining whether the organisation is or is not properly registered as a charity.

Fees: The Commission believes that fees operate to exclude those who cannot afford them, and that exclusion is intrinsically anathema to charity.  It is particularly concerned that ‘people in poverty’ are effectively discriminated against by charities which recoup their costs by charging fees, and goes to great lengths to interpret existing case law so as to conclude that an organisation charging ‘high fees’ (defined so as to include all independent schools) has a high hurdle to pass to demonstrate that those who cannot afford the fees are not excluded.  However sympathetic one might feel about the social merits of its position, basic economics alone would lead one to question this stance: any organisation with bills to pay must have reliable sources of income to fund those bills, and charities are no different.  In fact, the social justice case is not particularly strong either, if the end result is to raise fees for all parents resulting in more lower- and middle-income families being unable to afford the increased fee burden.  Neither is the Commission’s position justified by case law.  Indeed, the precedent upon which the Commission relies expressly refers to the fact that the charity in that case was excluding those who could not afford its fees, with no adverse impact of its status as a charity.

Tax: The Commission unfailingly links the question of public benefit with the tax benefits of charitable status.  For the independent regulator of charities to imply that schools are only using charitable status as a tax-efficient wrapper for their activities is as misleading as it is untrue.  How charities are taxed is a matter for HMRC and the Treasury, not the Charity Commission, and many schools were founded as charities centuries before modern taxation started.  Interestingly, the Commission fails to acknowledge the estimated £235 million of irrecoverable VAT that schools pay to HMRC each year; a single statistic which more than outweighs the oft-quoted figure of £100 million of tax savings for charitable schools.

Savings to the taxpayer: The Commission takes a similarly unbalanced view towards the substantial savings to the taxpayer of the education of half a million children outside the state-maintained education sector.  Notwithstanding a direct reference in the Commission’s quoted precedent to the fact that the medical charity in question provided general benefit to the community as a result of relieving pressure on beds and medical staff at a local general hospital, the Commission disregards any analogous relief to places at, and teachers of, state schools resulting from independent schools. ISC has calculated the value of this relief to be of the order of £3–4 billion per annum.

Matthew Burgess
Deputy Chief Executive, ISC

1.) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
2.) Section 1(1)a Charities Act 2006
3.) Section 2(1) Charities Act 2006
4.) Section 2(2)(b) Charities Act
5.) Section 3(3) Charities Act 2006: “any reference to the public benefit is a reference to the public benefit as that term is understood for purposes of the law relating to charities in England and Wales
6.) Section 4 Charities Act 2006
7.) Re Resch (1969) 1 AC 514: “…such exclusion as there is, is of some of the poor – namely those who (a) have not contributed sufficiently to a medical benefit scheme or (b) need to stay longer in hospital than their benefit will cover or (c) cannot get a reduction of or exemption from the chanrges.”
8.) Re Resch (1969) 1 AC 514: “The general benefit to the community of (the private medical charity) results from the relief to the beds and medical staff of the general hospital, the availability of a particular type of nursing and treatment which supplements that provided by the general hospital and the benefit to the standard of medical care in the general hospital which arises from the juxtaposition of the two institutions.”

Related posts:

1. Private schools and charitable status
2. Keeping up the good work
3. J.R. Brewing

There followed an excellent session regarding governorship in state and independent schools. The cross-fertilisation of skills and expertise proves invaluable to a growing number of schools from both sectors. Dr Elizabeth Sidwell, Principal of the Haberdasher’s Federation, spoke about how much she and Wellington College have learnt from each other since she took up a post as governor there. Richard Cairns, Head at Brighton, spoke practically about three of the initiatives he has implemented at his own school, since joining the board of Kingsford Community School:

- Regular appraisals of teaching staff, by pupils
- Heads of faculty from Kingsford conducting “inspections” of lessons at Brighton, and vice-versa
- Entrepreneurship days, after discovering that there was a greater entrepreneurial spirity at Kingsford.

When the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Ed Balls, joined the forum for a Q&A session, he spoke of the “three hundred plus” partnership schemes currently in place, and the potential for expanding on this. When asked repeatedly about the effects of bureaucracy and regulations on schools, he spoke of “discretion within a constraining framework”, a need for flexibility within the defined regulations. He said that although some independent schools would appreciate the opportunity to be seen as on a level playing field as other schools within their LEAs, if DCSF attempted to impose the same level of regulations on them as on their maintained sector counterparts, that ISC would jump to its members’ defence immediately.

He was, of course, unable to leave such a distinguished audience without addressing ContactPoint, mentioning his concern that independent school obstruction might somehow destabilise successful partnership initiatives. He was sadly out of time before he could explain how this might happen.

Wonderful barbershop and gospel-inspired choral work from a combination of pupils from Brighton and Kingsford broke up the talking for a few minutes with moving music, which reinforced the messages of the morning, about what can be achieved when children from very different backgrounds, with a variety of talents, work together.

A series of case studies, looking at curricular partnerships, threw up some brilliant ideas being practiced by schools, such as a university access scheme (Norwich School), a gifted & talented summer school (The Cheltenham Ladies’ College), the C/D GCSE borderline programme (The Lady Eleanor Holles School) and engineering diplomas (Wellington College). My personal favourite was Patrick Derham from Rugby School, who spoke passionately about the effects of his school’s extended projects – particularly in philosophy, but also in science seminars and sixth form research support. He spoke of a real hunger for these types of events among not only local school pupils, but undergraduates for miles around. All very exciting!

After lunch, the day continued with a key look at the academies programme, asking what an academy is “a type of school, dealing with some of the bigger problems we face” (Elizabeth Sidwell) and how necessary support for academies is (Sir Mark Grundy, Shireland Collegiate Academy). Pat Dubas (Samworth Enterprise Academy) and Richard Harman (Uppingham) explained the many benefits of forging an academy/independent school partnership from both perspectives. This session closed with Mike Simpkin (Office of the Schools Commissioner), explaining how independent schools can become involved with academies.

A session devoted to sporting and other extra-curricular activity partnerships showed some exciting, and successful, ideas, including:

- Sports partnerships between Millfield and City Academy, Bristol
- City of London School’s CCF programme
- The East London Consortium Women in Leadership programme
- Musical partnership between Cardinal Heenan High School and Ampleforth

East London Consortium consists of six London girls’ schools, including Skinners’ Company’s School for Girls and has a number of initiatives, including the Women in Leadership programme, a 16-week course, followed by a residential workshop and awards ceremony. Jenny Wilkins, Principal of Skinners’ spoke passionately and movingly about the enormous opportunities seized by girls in the consortium’s member schools. Their next conference, completely organised by girls in the consortium will take place at the QEII conference centre in London, this year.

In conclusion, Joan Deslandes and Richard Cairns asked that the “influential heads” in attendance do whatever possible to promote partnership between the two sectors.

Schools Minister Jim Knight stopped by to end the day off. He emphasised his continued commitment and enthusiasm for partnerships, and that he was passionate about parents’ rights to choose the best education for their children. When he took questions from the floor, Sue Freestone from King’s Ely made a valid point about independent schools often feeling they are “treading on eggshells” around maintained schools local authorities and central government, as attitudes toward the sector often vary from suspicion to downright hostility. Ros McMullen, Principal of the David Young Community Academy, spoke to Mr Knight (for what clearly wasn’t the first time) about the difficulties faced by academies in having their independence diminished by working with LEAs.

An interesting day, with some really useful discussions. As one delegate asked during questions: “Isn’t it a shame that all the people here are already working so hard on partnership projects? It would have been wonderful to see some new faces and open some closed minds.” Luckily, ISC is coming to the rescue on that front, with a huge conference for Heads, Partnership co-ordinators and senior management teams from independent schools, state-maintained schools and academies from across the UK. The event, featuring a number of todays speakers, will take place on Wednesday 3 June at the Brewery in central London. To book your place, please click here.

Related posts:

1. London Borough School Search (Independent schools)
2. A Bright Spark: ‘Gifted and Talented’ in the Independent Sector
3. Search for school job vacancies using ISC’s new job search

Charities need to demonstrate that they provide benefit to the public. In the case of independent schools this is to advance education, and to make sure that all potential pupils are considered. The fact that fees are charged is nothing more than an essential necessity, since the money has to come from somewhere. Without charging fees, independent schools would simply be unable to exist, regardless of their charitable status. Many independent schools offer bursaries and the money saved through charitable status is able to help them offer more bursaries to families unable to afford fees. Without charitable status fewer children from less affluent backgrounds would be able to benefit from the first-class education that independent schools provide. ISC schools are already donating more than £350m each year in fee assistance to 125,000 pupils.

To help as many people within their local community as possible, many independent schools go even further, through initiatives such as opening up their facilities and sports grounds to locals, fund-raising and supporting local charities. They also sponsor and work with other schools in their vicinity and some even sponsor schools overseas to advance education in other countries as well. ISC’s schools are always looking for creative ways to support and sustain the communities, to which they belong, working to provide as much benefit as possible at as little cost. At ISC we have been helping them to do this, through initiatives such as our Public Benefit Symposium, which facilitated the sharing of ideas between schools on how they can further help their communities. To see an example of one ISC school’s benefit to their local community in Shoredith, take a look at this presentation from James Allen’s Girls’ School.

Related posts:

1. Why Schools are Charities
2. Keeping up the good work
3. In-fee-lation?