Bursar’s Review Spring 2022 Sampler

Spring 2022 www.theisba.org.uk 12 Feature STAGE ONE STAGE TWO STAGE THREE STAGE FOUR (AND BEYOND?) Typical characteristics of ‘beginner’ partnership projects Typical characteristics of ‘smaller scale and/or developing’ partnership projects Typical characteristics of ‘established and effective’ partnership programmes Typical characteristics of ‘regional or national excellence’ partnership organisations/institutions Leadership (on independent sector side) Led by teacher (usually on independent sector side), with title such as ‘head of outreach’ Led by teacher with time remission, usually on independent sector side, with title such as ‘head of outreach and partnership’ Led by senior leader/dedicated partnerships co-ordinator, with title such as ‘head of partnerships’. Leadership shared with state sector partner Led by senior leader (a ‘deputy head (partnerships)) with direction from a committed head. Possibly with a dedicated committee of governors (which may oversee other public benefit projects too). Leadership shared equally with state sector partner Sustainability Reinventing the wheel with each new project Some projects repeating year to year Co-design and joint/shared leadership are central principles Projects are constantly evaluated and planned on a medium-term basis. Some projects expected to be permanent Finance No budget allocated Limited funding, often from the independent sector partner Aware of funding sources and models, especially from charitable trusts/the DfE. Often significant funding from independent school partner, although in some partnerships a centrally funded co-ordinator may be recruited Financed generously, with dedicated staff, including teaching staff Project/ programme design Excess capacity in the independent school is shared with state sector counterparts Some element of co-design is added to maximise the impact of excess capacity Projects are co-designed by partners in both sectors, possibly around ‘points of excellence’ (e.g. university admissions) in one of the schools in the partnership Co-designed around ‘points of difficulty’ – the most intractable regional or national educational problems Coherence Fragmented coherence – a school will be involved in a range of disparate projects Developing coherence – synergies between projects are beginning to be exploited Cohesive with clearly articulated goals – stage 3 programmes will co-exist with projects at stages 1 and 2. A diverse range of projects are applauded and enjoyed within a consistent and coherent framework – high impact projects co-exist with projects at lower stages Communication No time for communication Limited communication – early engagement with Schools Together website Communicated to alumni, parents, pupils and potential donors in an organised way Valued regionally or nationally by all key educational stakeholders Impact assessment Not assessed for impact Early impact assessment using readily available ‘quality of experience’ indicators More complex impact assessment which is designed into the project from the start Comprehensive impact assessment involving objective data collection regarding a specifically targeted group of pupils. This may involve some professional help, either from an external agency or from an internal employee Targeting ‘State sector kids’ ‘Independent sector kids’ and ‘state sector kids’ Targeted on pupils in both sectors who need support, e.g. SEN, the most able or pupil premium Targeted on shared regional problems that need resolution. Some examples may be educational coldspots, care- experienced children or PRUs Pupil involvement Pupils are involved as part of established volunteering programme, usually in Year 12 Pupils begin to have the opportunity to build their own projects, possibly supported by named staff There is a pathway of pupil involvement from Year 7 through Year 13, articulating a coherent value of citizenship Curriculum time is given to collaborative citizenship or leadership education, bringing together pupils from different schools in the partnership Balance of the relationship Weighted to independent sector partner – risk of being perceived as patronage Mutual and reciprocal between schools in both sectors, even if independent partner often has more resource to contribute Clear balance of resource based on analysis of strengths and weaknesses of different partners: an embedded praxis of learning from each other Completely mutual, encoded in a legal agreement, with clear governance structures with representation from both sectors – can be perceived as a relationship between trusts rather than a relationship between schools Where do the benefits of the partnership activity fall? One way: the sharing of benefit from independent to state sector Mutual and reciprocal in language but the benefit considered to be on the state sector side Designed so that benefit falls on both sides of the partnership, even if not equally – perhaps at departmental or project level Based on a clear articulation of respective strengths, and a determination to learn from each other