PROSPECTS JOINS MUTUAL JOINT VENTURE TO DELIVER PUBLIC SERVICES-GOVERNMENT KEEN ON EMPLOYEE OWNED MUTUALS DELIVERING PUBLIC SERVICES

Company part of a joint venture mutual ,offering school support services

Comment

Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society at the Cabinet Office was at the launch of the first ever joint venture mutual, 3BM ,in April. It provides a range of critical school support services. The business is made up of staff from three London boroughs; Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. They are delivering services such as financial management, IT and building development to schools allowing them to focus on education.

3BM is the first ever mutual joint venture to spin out of local government. The business is owned by a partnership between the employees and the the education employment company, Prospects. The employees own 75.1% of the business, giving them a controlling stake. Prospects has a 24.9% share and brings capital and business expertise needed to make the business grow. As a result of 3BM spinning out, the local councils could see £1 million in savings over the next four years. The mutualisation project has been supported by the Cabinet Office which had previously designated Hammersmith and Fulham  Council as a national Pathfinder in 2010 to explore new ways of delivering public services more efficiently. Prospects is an  employee- owned  private company,   and was chosen in an innovative “dragons den” process but with the partner’s shareholding capped at no more than 25% in return for their input and support. All mutual staff will own shares, with Prospects, as stated, owning up to 24.9% of the company,  but subject to them meeting key performance targets to the satisfaction of the mutual.

Ministers have talked in glowing terms about the John Lewis model in business. All 84,700 permanent staff of John Lewis  are Partners who own the  39 John Lewis shops across the UK and the 291 Waitrose supermarkets  , an on-line catalogue business a production unit and a farm.  Policy Exchange, the Prime Ministers favourite think tank, published a report recently ‘ Social Enterprise Schools’ championing the John Lewis model in education.  The report said Private companies should be encouraged to take over and run state schools as profit making enterprises under a “John Lewis-style” business model. It argued the new schools, in which teachers and staff are encouraged to become shareholders, would create strong incentives to drive up standards. Under the proposals, half of any profits made by the schools would be distributed as a dividend to its partners on an annual basis, while the remaining half would be reinvested.

There are quite a few ‘ co-operative schools’  operating in England. The Co-operative College, a Manchester-based organisation, is helping to support and promote the ground-up, democratically driven growth of Co-operative trust schools. The Co-operative College has over recent years worked with the Co-operative Party and schools to develop a distinct co-operative trust model that enables schools to embed co-operative values into the long term ethos of the school.  These schools  are part of the Co-operative movement, with a history dating back to the 19th century. Despite some legal challenges, in just five years, co-operative schools have become the third largest grouping within the English education system, with currently over 450 operating. 30 have become co-operative converter academies, a small number are co-operative sponsor academies and we have seen the creation of the first co-operative multi-academy trust.

Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, has launched a programme to introduce employee mutuals into public services and has endorsed the aim of a million public sector workers – around 15% of the total – transferring to staff-led mutuals by 2015.

Patrick Burns, Director of Mutuals Development for Prospects says that the reason for this Ministerial enthusiasm is the increasing evidence that employee ownership can help organizations perform better than conventional counterparts in the private and public sector; as well as the  micro and macro benefits to the wider economy. Prospects had elected to make the transition from conventional ownership to employee ownership. It is a former spin-out from the public sector – formed  from the careers services of four London boroughs in 1996 – which now offers advice and support to  authorities and staff groups interested in forming employee-led mutuals [ELMs] alongside its extensive  other work  in education, training and employment. Prospects services include careers services for adults and young people; the Government’s  Work Programme initiative to help long term unemployed people back to work; the largest Ofsted Early Years Inspection Services  contract in the country; advice and guidance for offenders; and an extensive range of education consultancy and school improvement services.

Patrick Burns was until December 2011 Chief Executive of the Employee Ownership Association. He written a paper about employee ownership  (see below) in the private and public sector of the British economy, and how Government can help it spread.

Knowingly Undersold- How Government can spread the John Lewis effect-Prospects Policy Paper-Patrick Burns

http://www.prospects.co.uk/Portals/0/PDF-Docs/Knowingly%20Undersold%20Prospects%20policy%20%20paper%20pdf%200512.pdf

ACADEMIES , CHARITABLE STATUS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ACADEMIES AND CHARITABLE STATUS

Charities but not regulated by the Commission-also now subject to Freedom of Information

Comment

The Department for Education’s academies programme has so far created over 2,300 new, publicly funded independent schools. The charities that run these schools, Academy Trusts, are not, though, regulated by the Charities Commission. In fact, they  are exempt from registration and regulation by the Commission. So the DfE is their principal regulator for the purpose of charity law (and of course they are accountable to DfE through their Funding Agreements).

Charities are generally not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2002, although Academy Trusts are. Academies, by virtue of the Academies Act 2010, are  now all subject to the FOIA  ( ie since January 2011)  though this was not the case for the initial tranche of Academies. A lack of transparency in the way these  Academies operated-for example concealing the fact that their pupils were  taking ‘soft’ options to secure  for their school respectable league table positions-gave Ministers little option but to impose greater transparency.

Ministers say that Academies are improving at a quicker rate than other non-selective  schools in the maintained sector , and those that are part of  a chain are improving fastest.

JAMES O SHAUGHNESSY SAYS THREE STRIKES – THEN BRING IN EDUCATION MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS TO SUPPORT FAILING SCHOOLS

Not a recipe to privatise state schools ,but profit makers could have a role  with not for profits  in rescuing failing schools

Comment

James O’Shaughnessy, formerly a key adviser to David Cameron, now supporting Anthony Seldon in the expansion of the Wellington family of schools, (and working for Portland PR part time), says, in a new Policy Exchange report’ ‘Competition meets Collaboration’ that Ofsted’s new, tougher inspections could lead to a fivefold increase in the number of schools being told they need to improve. To deal with this seam of chronic weakness in England’s schools he recommends that a new failure regime – based on Ofsted’s new ‘three strikes and you’re out’ inspection regime – should be introduced to turn around the weakest schools:

On the first occasion of receiving a ‘requirement to improve’ the school is obliged to become an Academy under a new sponsor

On the second occasion, the Academy is obliged to join a successful chain. An Academy chain is a group of three or more independent state-funded schools with a shared educational vision, and which are bound together legally, financially and operationally

On the third and final occasion, the governing body is obliged to hand over the running of the school to a proven educational management organisation (EMO) which would operate the school on a payment by results basis. EMOs are private or not-for-profit providers that run schools under contract to a commissioner, such as a governing body or local authority.

Academies and particularly Academies which are part of a Chain are improving outcomes, according to the most recent evidence ,and so are  well placed  to assist failing schools.

The media, of course, spun this story rather differently, along the lines that a former  top Cameron adviser wants profit makers to run state schools.  Small wonder that debates on education are so polarised if the media rather too frequently, for the sake of an eye catching headline,  mislead their audience and fail to provide context or to properly report the key findings of reports.  Straw men spring to mind.Needless to say the opposition recycled this skewed  view.  What he is actually saying is that profit makers should be allowed in the supply mix, but after other options have been tried. In short,  if  turning a school into an academy and then handing it on to a chain haven’t been enough to break the cycle of underachievement, says O Shaughnessy, the governing body should be obliged to appoint an external provider to run it. The school and its assets would stay in the charitable sector, but they would be able to access the expertise of private providers who would be paid by results. Not for profits and state enterprises could also be in the mix. This hardly amounts to privatisation  or for profit operators  taking over  the state system.

This new failure regime, he says, would be applied by a beefed up Office of the Schools Commissioner (OSC) and a network of new local school commissioners, themselves appointed and overseen by the OSC.

Education management organisations, operating under sharp, performance-based contracts that offer much greater improvement incentives than the funding agreements currently being signed with academies’, should be brought in if the Academy route fails.  He concludes that ‘ it is absurd and counter-productive to prevent, for purely ideological reasons, successful school improvement businesses from turning around those schools with have proved resistant to other interventions’. Who could argue with that?

Competition Meets Collaboration -Helping school chains address England’s long  tail of educational failure James O’Shaughnessy-Policy Exchange

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/competition%20meets%20collaboration.pdf

REVIEW OF CHARITIES ACT-NO NEED FOR STATUTORY DEFINITION OF PUBLIC BENEFIT

Review of the charities act

Lord Hodgson against Statutory definition of Public Benefit

Big Charities should be able to pay Trustees

Comment

Lord Hodgson was appointed the Reviewer of the Charities Act 2006 on 8 November 2011. The Charities Act 2006 was passed on 8 November 2006. The Charities Act was the first with an automatic review procedure built into it.  The intention of the 2006 Act was always to re-emphasise the importance of public benefit and   encourage charities to consider how they deliver that benefit. This is a pretty comprehensive Review worth looking at in more detail. The Charities Commission has struggled in its attempts to clarify what public benefit means for schools, and was  recently rapped over  the knuckles by a tribunal for its poor guidance on the issue  (rightly so)

Statutory Definition of Public Benefit

The Review considered whether there is a need for a statutory definition of public benefit. The Review states ‘It is certainly possible to see arguments on both sides. The flexibility of the case law basis of the existing definition has undoubtedly had its benefits over the years, allowing the definition of what is charitable to change and develop along with society. This has permitted the evolution of the sector in a way that a statutory definition would most likely have been unable to.’  Hodges says ‘This question was also considered by the Strategy Unit in the development of their report, Private Action, Public Benefit. Their conclusion was that the flexibility of case law was to be preferred. I agree.  Further, the overwhelming majority of views gathered in the course of the Review’s consultation took the view that a statutory definition would be too inflexible to cope with the diversity of the sector and the need for change and adaptation over time. Given that the Upper Tribunal has only recently delivered its ruling on the meaning of public benefit and new guidance on the point has recently been published for consultation by the Charity Commission, it seems only sensible to wait and see how these developments play out. On the subject of the new guidance, feedback from the sector to the Review was that the new guidance should draw a very clear distinction between legal requirements and what the Charity Commission considers good practice. This would help trustees understand the nature of their obligations and apply them in their organisation.’

Concerns over Charity Status

Concerns have also been raised that there may be a mismatch between the public’s perception of which organisations can fall within the definition of charitable, and the reality. The mismatch may in large part be due to the diversity of the charity sector. Many charities are no longer the small, local, volunteer-led groups that many people associate with the term ‘charity’; some are highly professionalised and specialist service delivery bodies, and some increasingly prioritise campaigning activities rather than delivering services.  That is not to say that the activities of charities who do not fit the traditional model should not be able to be included within the sphere of ‘charity.’ But it does point to the need for an important wider debate between and among Parliament, the public and the sector, around whether charities should be limited in their activities or where the boundaries of the definition should lie. Is a charity with no volunteers at all still a charity? How about one where all its funding comes from the State through delivery of public services? Or one where the primary regulator is a Government department, directly or via an agency? Lastly, how do fee-charging institutions fit within the popular conception of a ‘charity’ regime?

Payment of Trustees

Currently charities cannot pay trustees unless they receive specific permission from the Charity Commission. However all charities can reimburse trustees for expenses, and pay for professional services provided outside the trustee role. The review recommends that all charities with an income over £1m be allowed to pay trustees if they choose, while smaller charities continue to apply for permission as they do currently. If implemented, these reforms would affect about 4,500 charities; less than 3% of the total number but representing over 75% of the sector’s overall income.  Alex Massey from ACEVO agreed that charities should be free to choose governance arrangements suited to their operations, and use charitable resources as they see fit to achieve their charitable objects.  Opposing this view, Debra Allcock Tyler from DSC argues that charities are founded on expectations of altruism. Unpaid trusteeship maintains public trust, ensures that trustees are motivated by and committed to the cause, and demonstrates to the sector’s volunteers that payment is not an indication of value.  Citing evidence from universities and housing associations, Lord Hodgson found ‘no real indication from sectors that do have the general power to pay trustees that they have found this helpful in recruiting and retaining quality trustees’. He also stressed that voluntarism was ‘a fundamental tenet’ of the review, and noted the risk of abuse of the power to pay trustees. Nonetheless the review states that paid trusteeship should be an option for ‘truly huge organisations handling substantial amounts of public and private money’. His recommendation seems to be based on the need for large complex organisations to have highly skilled boards, and the reassurance that the accounts of these higher profile organisations will be subject to scrutiny which smaller organisations might escape.

Trusted and Independent: Giving charity back to charities- Review of the Charities Act 2006

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/docs/charities_act_2006_review.pdf

CHANGE AT THE TOP OF CFBT EDUCATION TRUST-NEW CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN NOVEMBER

 

Not for Profit Education Service provider recruits Steve Munby as its new Chief Executive

Neil McIntosh hands over in November

Comment

International education consultancy CfBT Education Trust has appointed Steve Munby, currently Chief Executive of the National College for School Leadership, as its new Chief Executive. Steve will take up the post this November. He replaces long-standing CEO Neil McIntosh who steps down after more than 20 years in the role.

Established 40 years ago CfBT Education Trust, ranked by income, is the 30^th largest charity in the UK , now   with an annual turnover exceeding £100 million and employing more  than 2,000 staff worldwide. Originally established to provide the recruitment, induction, administration, professional, development and resettling of British  teachers aswell as  directly  training British teachers for service abroad, it has developed into a leading education services provider offering a comprehensive range of services,  with a substantial footprint both here and abroad.  Its staff currently support educational reform, teach, advise, research, inspect and train.

It runs a number of schools in both the maintained and independent sectors, including academies and new free schools, establishing a CfBT Schools Trust to provide support for its schools through a strong team of school improvement experts able to provide advice and guidance on all core subjects and whole-school issues. Its broader work includes the development of curriculum standards, capacity building, school improvement (it runs the school improvement service in Lincolnshire) and structural reform, institutional strengthening and sustainability, community participation, development of strong and successful public/private partnerships and supporting reform in post-conflict countries. It is also a major contractor to Ofsted for schools inspections.

It reinvests its annual surplus in educational research and development projects which helps inform education policy and practice in the UK and overseas in order to benefit learners worldwide.

Steve began his career as a secondary school teacher in Birmingham, later  moving to the North East of England where he worked as a teacher and  then as a lecturer. In 1987, he became a consultant on student assessment and records of achievement, working for the nine local education authorities in North East England, before becoming an Inspector within the Education Department in Oldham. He then managed the Advisory Service in Oldham  before moving to Blackburn in 1997 as the area’s Assistant Director of  Education.  From 2000 to March 2005, he was Director of Education and Lifelong Learning in Knowsley, Merseyside. Since 2005 Steve has been Chief Executive of the National College. The National College is the first college anywhere in the world uniquely dedicated to the professional development of school leaders. Its mission is ‘to develop and support world-class leaders with the talent and vision to change children’s lives.’ It provides  a range of leadership development programmes and support that gives leaders  ‘the opportunity to be the best they can be harnessing the skills and energy of the best leaders so that they can drive improvement beyond their own schools and organisations’.

During Neil’s tenure CfBT Education Trust significantly expanded the scope and value of   its operations, both in the UK and abroad, including the management of large government contracts, and it has been at the cutting edge of education reforms over the last generation, stressing the importance of evidence based policy and practice. The quality and scope of its research is acknowledged internationally and is frequently referenced.

 

Philip Graf , Chair of the Trustees of CfBT Education Trust, said of Neil McIntosh  “Since he joined CfBT as CEO in 1990 Neil has transformed the organisation from a £7.4 million per annum manager of English Language programmes to an organisation with an annual income of more £150 million and a worldwide presence as a leading education consultancy and I feel sure that we shall continue to flourish under Steve’s leadership.”

 

Steve said that he was proud of his seven year record at the NCSL and “the  positive impact  that the College has made on the lives of children and young people in England.”He added “I am really excited about taking on the new role of CEO at CfBT. It is a unique opportunity to lead a strong charitable organisation with a great reputation working in the field of education in the UK and globally, especially an organisation with such a clear moral purpose and commitment to public benefit.”

 

Education secretary Michael Gove said: “Steve has been an excellent public servant, and I am very grateful to him for the inspiring way he has led the National College over recent years. His commitment to improving school leadership has had a hugely positive impact on the lives of many children and young people across the country. I wish him all the best in his new role in CfBT.”

http://www.cfbt.com/aboutus.aspx

https://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/signin?indexidol=no&url=http%3A//www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index

PUBLIC BENEFIT REQUIREMENT FOR CHARITIES-COMMISSIONS NEW GUIDANCE UP FOR CONSULTATION

PUBLIC BENEFIT REQUIREMENT FOR CHARITIES

New Draft Guidance from the Charity Commission-  up  for consultation

Greater clarity for stakeholders

Comment

The Charity Commission, which regulates the Charity sector, issued Guidance on ‘ Public Benefit’ in the wake of the Charities Act of 2006. It wasn’t a great  success.  Guidance is, rather obviously, supposed to deliver some clarity to help, in this instance, trustees to understand how their charity might satisfy the explicit public benefit requirement and to inform their decision-making. This it signally failed to do.  With respect to schools, the Commission had created the perception that the number of bursaries offered by a school would provide the clearest indicator of public benefit.  This managed, simultaneously, to alienate both the independent and state school sectors. State schools were worried that this would provide a licence for private schools to up their game in poaching their best pupils, harming their schools in the process. Private schools with charity status, on the other hand, were determined to preserve the independence of trustees to determine what measures would satisfy the public benefit requirement. Nobody challenges the idea that schools with charity status should demonstrate public benefit but defining this ,in practical form, was  problematic.  Private schools and one of the bodies that represents them, the ISC, believed that the Commission were giving too little weight to the range of charitable activities that they undertook, in favour of bursaries and a form of  crude calculation  involving fees and bursaries.

In May 2011 a judicial review was brought against the Commission’s guidance by the ISC, challenging the legal basis of that guidance. The Upper Tribunal gave its judgment in October and December 2011. In short, the judgement found that the Commission had failed in its efforts to provide clarity on this, albeit complex, issue. The Tribunal found that parts of the Commission’s guidance on public benefit were ‘obscure’ or ‘wrong’. The Tribunal ruled that it is for the trustees of a fee-charging charity to decide how best to meet that obligation in the circumstances of their charity (not for the Commission, the Tribunal or the courts), provided they did so in a way that any reasonable trustee would have done, and that support should not be tokenistic. This amounted to a severe rebuke to the Commission for not getting it right in the first place.

The Commission has now, suitably chastised, issued new draft guidance (as it was instructed to do by the Tribunal)  ,for consultation . The revised guidance seeks to explain what the public benefit requirement means and sets out what all charity trustees need to know to make sure that they are running their charity for the public benefit. This makes it clear that schools will be given more freedom to decide how to open up to the poor without necessarily providing free places. It provides welcome clarification that charity trustees have the duty to decide what level of public benefit the charity can offer in its individual circumstances.

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/RSS/News/pr_pbconsultation.aspx

Note

Under Labour’s 2006 Charities Act, fee-paying schools are no longer automatically entitled to charitable status and must prove they provide wider “public benefit”

CHARITIES-TOO CLOSE TO GOVERNMENT?

Charities-How the government lobbies itself and why

Charities are not always what they at first seem

Comment

Christopher Snowdon, of the IEA, said  last week, in a new report, Sock Puppets: How the government lobbies itself and why that ‘ It’s time for a radical overhaul of state-funded charities.’

The report claims that in the last 15 years, state funding of charities in Britain has increased significantly. 27,000 charities are now dependent on the government for more than 75 per cent of their income and the ‘voluntary sector’ receives more money from the state than it receives in voluntary donations.

State funding weakens the independence of charities, making them less inclined to criticise government policy. This can create a ‘sock puppet’ version of civil society giving the illusion of grassroots support for new legislation. These state-funded activists engage in direct lobbying (of politicians) and indirect lobbying (of the public) using taxpayers’ money, thereby blurring the distinction between public and private action.

This surge in government spending coincided with a politicisation of the third sector which was actively encouraged by the state apparatus from the Prime Minister down.  The report reveals the true extent of government funded lobbying by charities and pressure groups.  Snowdon argues that, when government funds the lobbying of itself, it is subverting democracy and debasing the concept of charity. It is also an unnecessary and wasteful use of taxpayers’ money.  And by skewing the public debate and political process in this way, genuine civil society is being cold-shouldered.

In 2007 the think tank Civitas raised similar concerns  in its report Who Cares? It said  that Charities that derive over 70 per cent of their income from the state have reached a level of dependency which makes them more part of the state than civil society and they should lose their charitable status in order to preserve the integrity of the sector. In a section of the report entitled ‘Paying You To Tell Us What We Think’, the author, Nick Seddon describes the use by government departments of government-funded charities to carry out research that supports government policy. Seddon believed that ‘As the government funds charities, and even turns statutory bodies into charities, the lines are becoming blurred. These charities come to resemble more and more the statutory departments on which they depend for money, whilst also competing with genuinely independent charities for donations, and creating confusion about what a charity is.’

The IEA report adds that State-funded charities and NGOs usually campaign for causes which do not enjoy widespread support amongst the general public (e.g. foreign aid, temperance, identity politics). They  typically lobby for bigger government, higher taxes, greater regulation and the creation of new agencies to oversee and enforce new laws. In many cases, they call for increased funding for themselves and their associated departments.The report concludes that ‘urgent action should be taken, including banning government departments from using taxpayer’s money to engage in advertising campaigns, the abolition of unrestricted grants to charities and the creation of a new category of non-profit organisation, for organisations which receive substantial funds from statutory sources.

Action should be taken so that:

• Government funding of a charity or other non-profit organisation is not used to promote the organisations’ interests in the policy sphere. Campaigning and education around such interests should be entirely privately financed.

• The government is not financing charities in such a way that there are people working  within that charity whose interests might be strongly aligned with the continuation of    government funding and who have an ability or incentive to campaign in favour of more    government funding.

• Politicians and bureaucrats who wish to pursue unpopular – or even popular – political causes should not be able to do so by setting up a charitable or NGO-front that gives the veneer of independence.

One possible solution to the problems outlined in this paper, says Snowdon ‘ would be for the UK to adopt the US approach which bars organisations from charitable status if they spend more than an ‘insubstantial’ proportion of their resources on lobbying’.

It is true that a number of ‘Charities’ look as though they are nothing of the sort and exploit their status. The clear danger is that bona fide charities, and the sector as a whole, are damaged by the activities by these organisations, some of whom have not only been tolerated by the government but have been actively  encouraged .It is also the case that as more transparency is forced on the government and its executive agencies, charities working for the government are not subject to the same levels of transparency and accountability. Charities   do not come under the  Freedom of Information Act and some statutory bodies have Charitable status. The British Council,  though not a statutory body is a quango that    promotes  British culture  abroad and purports to represent UK education interests abroad (a pigs ear for some reason   springs immediately to mind! ) ,is heavily funded by both the FCO, and DfID , and is a registered charity, yet competes aggressively  in the markets against  British education companies. .  The waters  are, indeed, muddied.

The temptation for Charities to pitch for government contracts is strong .But  there is a danger that in doing so they lose sight of their core purpose and mission, all in pursuit of  much needed new income streams.

It is obviously the duty of Trustees to ensure the respective charity remains focused on its raison d’ etre and can demonstrate public benefit   And for the regulator to keep a  close eye on this.   There is little doubt, though, that some are guilty of mission creep. And charities that do not merit their status serve to crowd out genuine charities.

Sock Puppets: How the government lobbies itself and why, by Christopher Snowdon IEA

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sock%20Puppets.pdf

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs56.php

MILBURNS SOCIAL MOBILITY REPORT-BLIND SPOT ON ADVICE AND GUIDANCE?

Milburns report –  but what about  information, advice and guidance?

A hole in the Social Mobility Pipeline?

Comment

Tessa Stone of the Bridge Group in a Guardian article this week, looking at Alan Milburns report on Social Mobility,  was ‘surprised to see that careers information, advice and guidance (IAG) in supporting access to the professions was not given greater prominence. This is increasingly one of the largest holes in the social mobility pipeline.’ She  warns of ‘potentially disastrous consequences if this lack of support is not dealt with quickly and effectively by the government’.  She continues ‘ It is crucial that young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with no family history of higher education, have access to first class IAG about their options and how to navigate the minefield that is higher education and career progression.’ The burden of responsibility has now been placed on schools to provide careers IAG and statutory guidance has been issued to this effect. The trouble is that no ring fenced funds have been made available to schools to deliver this service. Stone reminds us that  Alan Milburn originally recommended that £200m be transferred to schools from the previous Connexions budget (Connexions included Careers advice targeted at those at risk of exclusion) to allow schools to tender for careers services a provider of their choice. However, this money has not found its way to schools. She writes ‘ Without a ring-fenced budget, and without much clearer guidance to schools on what good careers IAG provision looks like and how to provide it, the system will fail those who need it most’ She is right, of course, and  the government has been warned about this right  from the start and chosen to ignore it. Hard pressed schools juggling their budgets will tend to choose the cheapest options-to meet their statutory duty-access to a web portal or telephone advice. Face to face advice, which is the most appropriate for disadvantaged pupils, is also the most expensive. How many schools will opt for face to face advice in the current climate? And how exactly will social mobility improve if disadvantaged pupils  do not get  early  access to good independent professional advice on the qualifications they need and the routes into training, further and higher education and  the job market including the professions? This blind spot looks likely to undermine the whole social mobility agenda.

Note1.

Milburn chose instead, in his big interview in the Times,  to generate a headline , focusing  the medias attention on the charity status of independent schools, an old hobby horse of his, therefore  wasting  an  opportunity to focus on the key policy  levers  that might   help ease social mobility.In choosing to  flog a dead horse he has used up valuable political capital.

Note 2

Simon Hughes MP, who is advising the government on improving ‘Access’  said, before the statutory guidance was published,  ”schools will also receive guidance which will require that all those most in need must have face to face careers guidance.” But the published guidance gives no such guarantee.

Note 3

The latest government statistics show the number of 16-to 18-year-olds not in employment, education or training (Neet) increased from 159,000 in the first quarter of 2011 to 183,000 in the same period this year. This means the proportion of Neet 16-to 18-year-olds now stands at 9.8 per cent, up from 8.3 per cent from last year.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/IR_FairAccess_acc2.pdf

Guardian

CHARITABLE SCHOOLS-PUBLISHED LETTER-DAILY TELEGRAPH

Charitable schools

Daily Telegraph 5 June

SIR – Alan Milburn, an adviser to the Government on social mobility, wants to re-open the issue of the charitable status of private schools (report, June 2).

Mr Milburn memorably said that the latest Charities Act would have failed if at the end of the process independent schools kept their charitable status. It is of course not up to him to decide such an issue. In 2011 the Upper Tribunal ruled that it is for a fee-charging charity to decide how best to meet its charitable obligations, not for the Charity Commission, the tribunal or the courts. The commission agreed to leave it to schools to decide how to provide benefits to the community and will act against them only if they receive complaints with evidence that they are abusing charitable status.

Removing charitable status for these schools could decrease their numbers, but would also serve to make the sector more elitist, less inclusive and less prone to helping the state sector. These schools resent interference from politicians and value their independence. It would also mean thousands of pupils looking for places in a hard-pressed state system. And, if they lost their charitable status, a cull of other charities which provide less public benefit might follow.

Patrick Watson

London SW8

GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS-A SOFT TARGET

GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS

Goes for the soft target-but what exactly is he doing to narrow the gap?

Comment

Michael Gove said in his speech at Brighton College that the dominance of the public schoolboy in every prominent role in British society is “morally indefensible”. “More than almost any developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress,” he said. “Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable country. For those of us who believe in social justice, this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.” Gove was certainly not calling  though for the abolition of  private schools to remedy the problem.  What he meant was that state schools needed to improve to private school standards, and not that private schools should be abolished.

Clearly it is impossible to justify such inequity although when politicians start talking about morality they are, as a rule, on dangerous ground –so its worth taking a much closer look. We are certainly an unequal society in terms of outcomes. But it is too simplistic to blame the 7% of people who are educated here in private schools for such inequity and crucially  the lack of social mobility. Social mobility has stalled in our country, for sure. The problem is, though, deeply ingrained. Anthony Sampson in his  seminal book ‘Anatomy of Britain’ first published in 1962, with later revisions , highlighted that the establishment and business was dominated by the privately educated. The Sutton Trust has helpfully up-dated Sampson’s analysis and findings but  in truth  have told us not much that is new in this respect.   The reasons for the lack of social mobility are many and varied. What happens in the home up to the age of three  and parental support and education  are   regarded as very important  indeed,  in influencing  social mobility. The Jesuits maxim “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man” is  probably only half correct in that a child’s trajectory  may be largely determined even earlier, at least according to some experts and recent research (although there is a danger of being too deterministic about this).

Politicians (educated in both state and private schools) in successive administrations   have largely failed to grasp the nettle to identify the nature of the problem ,let alone the policy levers that might help   alleviate it , and these levers  are not by any means all  related to education. Certainly its true that  if you fail to get good GCSEs at school your chances of doing well   in the world of work are severely circumscribed.  Bashing private schools though, even for a Tory Minister, it seems, pays political dividends.  They are the soft target.

Too many stubbornly underperforming state schools are at the heart of the problem, and it’s a difficult challenge to address. It is mainly about addressing  the long tail of our significant underachievers in school, perhaps as much as  20% of the school population. The next biggest  problem is  the way we treat  our  brightest and most able  pupils  , those who have the potential to succeed but who are not being given  either the personalised support  or  guidance in schools  to  enable them  to reach their  full potential. Depending on how you measure and define this group it could  range from 5%-20%. of pupils.This is bad for them, and us.

But lets be clear there is nothing immoral about choosing the type of education you want for your child, a right  that happens to be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and those with money have every right to choose how they spend it subject  only to the law. For those like George Monbiot (privately educated) who naively call for the abolition of private schools the message is clear -it wont happen.  The Government would rightly be held to account for such an illiberal act under Human Rights law. His other solution is to remove charity status for these schools-which will marginally decrease their numbers, mainly the smaller ones, on the tightest of margins, but also serve to   make the sector more elitist ,less inclusive  and less prone, probably, to helping  the state sector.  It would also mean that tens of thousands of pupils end up looking for places in an already hard pressed state system .And if they lose their charity status, there will follow a major cull of thousands of other charities  which provide less public benefit than many private schools.

Looking at the advantages provided by an independent school education, they are perceived to be many.  Which is why surveys suggest that most parents, if they had the  means, would choose a private education for their child. Of course, class sizes tend to be much smaller. Some say the teaching is better although this is difficult to prove . But many parents are drawn to these schools because of the pastoral support, extra-curricular activities (arts music, drama), sport and facilities.   Also importantly these schools tend to  support character development,  values, self-sufficiency, self-discipline, resilience, leadership skills, teamwork, sporting prowess and nurture , too, creative talent , and ultimately  more rounded and socially- confident individuals.

Rather than abolish these schools the state sector should be learning from them. Lord Adonis talked about transferring the independent sectors DNA into state schools. And it is in the area of supporting character development, positive thinking and resilience where the state system has much to learn and where there are huge possibilities.

It is not absolutely clear though how this governments reforms will help support the development of these characteristics and attributes among our state school pupils,  and so  help  close the gap between state and private schools and promote equity. Indeed, it could be argued, and has been by Professor Tony Watts, that Gove has been personally responsible for pulling out the state-school funding for sport, music and the other performing arts (where the disparities with public schools are now particularly significant). Also the programmes for raising aspirations and improving social mobility (career guidance, AimHigher) have been halted.  How exactly are state school pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged, going to be more socially mobile if they are not  given  access to high quality, professional,   face to face advice in school  about their options and  pathways into further, higher education, training  and employment?

The Government is, of course, introducing significant reforms. The structural reforms – making schools more autonomous and giving them more freedom may well  help, providing they use this to improve educational outcomes, (some seem to have converted simply for the extra funding) . But few believe that they are sufficient in themselves to deliver significantly improved outcomes. In short, the changes are necessary but insufficient.  But the other side of this coin is what happens in the classroom, at the chalk face. There need to be improvements there in the quality of teaching. Evidence shows that improving the quality of teaching is essential to driving up standards in schools. Pupils taught by good teachers score nearly half a GCSE point more per subject than pupils taught by poor teachers. But its also, crucially, about  what children are taught , so that teachers are supporting the provision of a rounded education, and not just teaching to the test.(critics believe that exams are now the master not servant of education) .The delayed curriculum reforms and introduction of the Ebacc, might have a positive  effect. But, overall are  these  ‘ game-changers’ likely to  measurably  close the  attainment gap, to tackle the long tail of underachievement  and the widening divide between the state and independent sectors? Even after the Blair governments reforms,  Professor Barbers ‘deliverology’ and  significant new investment, the attainment gap  between the sectors actually grew (and productivity in state  education fell).  So what else is on offer? The Pupil Premium targeted at the most disadvantaged? –a possibility but unions claim that this money is being used to fill gaps arising from other cuts in school funding. Even if not, the sums involved are relatively modest and there is no guarantee that schools will use the ‘extra’ money effectively. The government has not ring-fenced Pupil Premium cash, but it will – via Ofsted and league tables – hold schools accountable for how it is spent. Unless we learn from what schools do with the premium, the money may well be wasted, and hence do nothing to narrow the achievement gap. So, what else is going to narrow the gap and improve equity? Gove deserves credit for pushing through reforms, often overcoming resistance even from within his own Department, and one would be hard pressed to name a Minister who has achieved more or performed better, certainly in the eyes of his own leader Tory MPs and  electors.  But, in terms of transforming the system, to make it fit for the 21^st Century, we are probably edging towards the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.  And attacks on private schools tend to deflect attention away from other areas that require urgent attention and the sustained  investment of   political capital.