Attain Home > Archive Issues > Issue 2 >  Spring 2007 > Independent-State Partnerships

• 
• RSS
• ·
• Advertising
• ·
• Contact Us

Andrew Boggis, the current Chairman of HMC, looks at partnerships between  independent and state schools and considers whether it is now time for a new contract with Government.

MY OLD GERMAN TUTOR AT UNIVERSITY, A DOUR SCOTSMAN WITH an encyclopaedic knowledge of bizarre vocabulary, and a man for whom I had nothing but admiration and deep affection, was going through a rather messy divorce; as a consequence the class of 1975 Germanists at New College Oxford knew their divorce vocabulary - what a pity it didn't appear in the prose paper in finals! Keen on precis, his summary of the 19thcentury playwright Heinrich von Kleist was simply this: never confuse Schein with Sein - appearance with reality. I have come to appreciate the wisdom of those words which go far beyond the works of Heinrich von Kleist. Appearance and reality. One could argue convincingly, I believe, that any divide in education is not so much between the state and the independent sectors as between the virtual world inhabited by politicians, commentators, journalists and some involved in educational organisations, the virtual world of Schein or appearance and the actual everyday world of Sein or reality, the messy school environment that most of us inhabit. Far too often these two worlds do not converge.

Take the presumed divide between state and independent schools. 'Chasm', 'Tired conflict', 'Berlin Wall' and 'Apartheid' are four terms I have heard purporting to describe relations between the sectors. These may suit the virtual world of a commentator, of someone flying kites at conferences, even a Government minister, but language is being twisted here for cheap effect. The reality is different.

The whole area of links and partnerships between independent and state schools is much more subtle, complex and messy than some would allow. The two sectors are not mutually exclusive. My own school - Forest in east London - for instance is representative here: I have many families with one child at Forest and another or others in the state system. Amongst the parent body I have many teachers in maintained schools. I recruit heavily from neighbouring state schools into our Sixth Form. At 11+ entry we take some 60-70% from state primary schools. And I suggest that my experience is replicated to varying degrees up and down the country.

As far as partnership schemes between HMC and state schools are concerned, I am pleased that earlier in the year I encouraged HMC to undertake some careful and systematic in-house sounding-out of views amongst its membership. This confirmed a rather more hard-nosed and pragmatic approach amongst its members to the formal partnership schemes sponsored by the Government and championed by the ISSP (the formal Independent/State Schools Partnership scheme). Its aims are hugely laudable; it is one area where Government is contributing something, but in my view it remains long on rhetoric and demonstrably short on cash.

The money spent on the formal national state/independent schools partnership schemes rolled out across the country over seven/eight years is less than the average revenue of just one large independent school. (In 2004 funding was £1.4m, only slightly more than the furniture allowance for the national Learning & Skills Council!) That must tell us something about its real position in the great scheme of things.

But there is a wider issue going to the heart of our relationship as independent schools with Government. I start from the premise that state monopoly in education is a bad thing: independent schools need to be independent of the state (as well of each other). At present Government sees us by and large as an optional extra. That is surely wrong, although there is quite a compelling school of thought that the best we can really hope for is that this Government will not actually interfere with us any more than it does with everyone else. Leopards don't change their spots: this Government will not curb an obsession with micro-managing or meddling. I still believe that the Government's view of partnership is not what partnership really ought to mean in the commonly accepted sense of the word. It may help lubricate good relations but really it represents still a superficial and oneway interest in bridge-building between the two sectors.

I do not disparage the many relatively small-scale, successful partnerships which have flourished under the auspices of the official ISSP scheme. There have been huge gains on both sides for many schools with varied, energetic and enterprising initiatives which matter hugely to those involved, which are laudable and undeniably beneficial. But even the £2m per annum announced in June for 2006-7 and 2007-8, i.e. £4.4m in total, isn't that much money... not when set against the £40b spent annually on primary and secondary education. We need something much bolder and here I quote unashamedly and with his specific permission two paragraphs from a speech first presented by Martin Stephen at Wellington College in March 2006:

First paragraph: 'The independent sector has offered to educate deserving pupils at exactly the same cost per annum as the state would charge for a maintained school or college education, making up the balance of fees from its own bursary funding. Why are we spending millions and millions on creating new institutions when spread across this country are independent schools with proven, pre-existing records of hugely successful specialisation in art, in drama, in music, in sport, in ICT - and yes, in maths, physics, chemistry, biology and modern languages? Surely it makes sense to use the independent sector's expertise and buy in to it on a simple commercial basis. We operate a mixed economy as a country. Why not a mixed educational economy? When Government buys in countless thousands of services from the private sector where it is uneconomic for it to provide these services from scratch, why are we wasting millions on set-up costs for skills that are already there in the marketplace?'

Second paragraph. 'The conclusion is clear. We need a new direction for partnerships. Firstly, that new direction must acknowledge, as does any successful multi-cultural society, the differences between the independent and the maintained sectors and work round them in the full knowledge of their existence. Secondly, the new direction must take us into areas of national need, not just what is convenient or relatively easy to do. Thirdly for partnership to flourish independent education must change from being seen by Government as an optional extra to being part of the main stream of educational provision in the UK, a service provider to be used like any other service provider if the price and the quality are right.'

That is where the distinction needs to be drawn: between partnerships (on the one hand, which arguably should be loose, informal, semi-formal, designed and promulgated by local people for mutual benefit) and major service provision. The former has been promulgated on the myth that state education is free. It isn't, and if the Government is serious about enlisting our support to help improve the national supply of teachers of modern foreign languages, maths and science or the provision of these subjects in state schools, it should enter into a serious and properly funded service agreement with the independent sector, paying the market rate for what we have to offer.

One practical proposal, which has been trialled, is the suggestion that the current ISSP Forum might be wound up, it now having achieved many of its initial aims. I should see it then being replaced by a properly representative, high-level 'DfES/ISC Partnership Strategy Group' (or similar name to signal its importance) along with the promise of significant and really serious Government funding to support initiatives focused on one or two key priorities such as the teaching of maths, science and modern foreign languages or leadership development for Headteachers as well as teachers at all levels in the profession.

Partnership between the sectors should not mean countless bus rides through gridlocked streets in whatever equates to the Randal Stancombe pink minibus (pace Jilly Cooper's 'Wicked!'). We need something much bolder, involving really serious sums of money. And as far as any trade-in on the part of independent schools is concerned, well, everyone has their price! I believe that major service provision as part of the mixed educational economy will come - in ten to fifteen years is my prediction!

'That the independent sector be acknowledged, accepted and utilised as a key part of the nation's educational infrastructure because every child matters.' So reads the first recommendation of the ISSP Forum Report presented to ministers. No dissenting voices surely? Or do some children (from the independent sector) in fact matter less than others? From the Government's point of view is their support of the part the independent sector can play to be merely Schein (appearance) or is it be Sein (reality)? To make it a reality would of course involve serious money changing hands from Government to independent schools; and just at present no Government would see the funding of independent schools in any significant fashion as part of its job. But I predict that it will!

Andrew Boggis is the current Chairman of the Headmasters' and Headmistress' Conference. and the Warden of Forest School in North East London. He adapted this article from his speech to the annual HMC conference in Manchester on 2nd October 2006.