Paul Sharp, Jeremy Higham, David Yeomans
and David Mills Daniel
School of Education, University of Leeds

Abbreviations

In 1998, the Department for Education and Employment's (DfEE) Independent/State School Partnerships (ISSP) Scheme came into operation. The scheme was designed to bring independent and state schools closer together by encouraging their pupils and teachers to work in partnership on projects which would raise standards in education.

This paper, based on research carried out for the independent evaluation of the 1998-99 ISSP pilot partnership by the School of Education, University of Leeds (Sharp et al. 1999), examines the aims, nature, operation, present outcomes and possible future development of the ISSP scheme, and locates it in the broader context of independent/state school relationships. Three diverse ISSP partnerships are studied, to show how partnerships work, to explore the range of benefits partnership projects are generating, and to indicate models of future partnership development. The outcomes of the ISSP scheme as a whole are examined, and the experience of partnerships outside the scheme discussed.

We begin with a brief historical survey of political attitudes to independent schools and their relationship to the rest of the education system since the Second World War. While it is recognised that much of this ground has been covered by others, it provides an historical context within which to examine the ISSP initiative (which marks a break with the Labour Party's long-standing hostility to the independent sector) and to consider whether it is an example of New Labour's 'third way' in action.

Until the 1960s, there was little practical difference between the way that the Labour and Conservative Parties behaved towards the independent sector of education. During the postwar period, there was broad consensus between the two major parties about the creation and development of a welfare state, and both made improvement of the state system their priority. Thus, neither did anything to implement the report of the Fleming Committee, set up by R A Butler, in 1942, to look at ways of associating the public schools (schools in membership of the Headmasters' Conference (HMC) and the Governing Bodies' Association (GBA))1 more closely with the 'general educational system of the country', and which (in their Scheme B) had recommended filling, at state expense, a quarter of the places at independent boarding schools with pupils educated at state primary schools (Board of Education, 1944, 60-81). Indeed, it was a Conservative Minister of Education, David Eccles, who, despite endorsing the idea of closer association between the two sectors, explicitly rejected Fleming Scheme B, in the face of strong support for it from the boarding schools, on the grounds that, as government was raising standards in maintained schools, there was no reason for it to spend public money in order to subsidise the transfer of children from one system to another (Dancy, 1963, 28-32).

Labour Party Conferences might object to the social exclusiveness of the independent boarding schools, and demand an end to them on the grounds that (as the Fleming Committee had been informed by the critics of these schools): 'the Public Schools originated in, and still tend to increase, the cleavage between social classes - and particularly between rich and poor' (Board of Education, 1944, 53). But action against independent schools was prevented by the majority view in the Party that it would be unpopular with the electorate, and that these schools would anyway 'wither on the vine as parents abandoned them for a steadily improving state sector. No direct positive action was necessary . . . '(Salter and Tapper, 1985, 128). In government, Labour 'encouraged' LEAs to meet their boarding needs by making 'arrangements with independent boarding schools' (Ministry of Education, 1946), and operated the direct grant (DG) system. This retained its essential prewar structure, despite recommendations for reform by the Fleming Committee, designed to make DG grammar schools 'fully accessible to pupils without regard to income' (Board of Education, 1944, 62-65).

However, independent schools failed to wither away, while the consensus broke down as a result of the Labour Party's commitment to 'a universal system of secondary education organised along comprehensive lines' (Salter and Tapper, 1984, 183). The Labour Party had criticised the independent boarding schools for their social exclusiveness. Now it also objected to the academically selective nature of both the fully independent boarding and day schools and the DG grammar schools. Selection by ability had become as unacceptable as selection by ability to pay fees, and the view prevailed that selective independent schools and the LEA-maintained comprehensive system, which Labour wished to create, could not coexist. In 1965, the Labour government appointed the Public Schools Commission to advise on the best way of 'integrating' the public schools into the state system.

When Labour returned to office in 1974, it implemented the Donnison Report recommendation to end DG, so that DG grammar schools could 'participate as soon as possible in the movement towards comprehensive reorganisation' (DES, 1970, 147); it also sought to ensure that any LEA use of independent schools was 'consistent with the Government's policy of abolishing selection for secondary education' (DES, 1977). However, 'integration' would have required the DG grammar schools to change their character and become non-selective;2 most of them (119 out of 174) chose to become fully independent, adding substantially to the number of schools without any link with the state: 'the largest addition ever made in one 'sweep' to the private sector' (Edwards, Fitz and Whitty, 1989, 28).

It has been argued that one element in the intensification of the Labour Party's hostility towards the independent sector, during the 1970s and 1980s, was a 'response to the intractable problems surrounding integration' (Salter and Tapper, 1984, 183), the result of its frustration that attempts at integrating independent schools into the state system had only strengthened the independent sector. Labour became committed to ending tax relief and charitable status for independent schools, and ultimately, through abolition of fee-paying, to their elimination. This was: 'justified by the damage which the very presence of independent schools is said to inflict on public education and by their importance as 'a huge barrier to equality of educational, social and occupational opportunity'. As a result of Labour's hostility (and an additional cause of it), the independent sector 'became more organised and coherent in its own defence' (Edwards, Fitz and Whitty, 1989, 23), with the creation of the Independent Schools Information Service (ISIS), in 1972 and the Independent Schools Joint Council (ISJC; now Independent Schools Council: ISC) in 1974. It also moved closer to the Conservative Party, which undertook to 'put the Assisted Places Scheme [APS] on the policy agenda of the next government' (Salter and Tapper, 1985, 199).

The introduction (in 1981) of APS, a flexible replacement for DG, designed to enable children, otherwise unable to do so, 'to benefit from education at independent schools' (Education Act, 1980, Section 17) and which involved a wider range of independent schools than the former DG grammar schools, was evidence of the Thatcher government's commitment to the independent sector. It was also seen as an early indication that her government, dissatisfied with the weaknesses it perceived in state schools, intended to use the independent sector as 'a model of acceptable practice' (Salter and Tapper, 1984, 189) and as 'one of the first steps in the Thatcherite agenda of privatisation and marketisation' (Power and Whitty, 1999, 538). The Labour Party denounced APS on the grounds of cost and its likely divisive effects of 'pirating scholastic talent from the state sector', and pledged to scrap it when returned to office (Edwards, Fitz and Whitty, 1989, 40).

Thus, by the 1980s, political attitudes towards independent schools had moved a long way from the consensus of the 1950s. On the one hand, the Labour Party was committed to their elimination in the context of creating a fully comprehensive system of state education; on the other, the Conservative government was operating APS and introducing changes to the state system ('privatisation and marketisation'), such as 'grant-maintained schools, the CTCs, formula funding . . . the local management of schools [LMS], the enhanced powers of governors' (Tapper, 1997, 184), which were making state schools, to a greater or lesser extent, more like independent schools.

Yet, as Tapper pointed out, these Conservative reforms of the state system, together with what he calls 'the evolving character of the fee-paying schools' have 'brought the fee-paying and maintained sectors of schooling closer together'. As examples of their 'evolving character', Tapper cited the number of former boys' schools that are now coeducational, the way that the single-sex education provided by reinvigorated girls' schools meets some feminists' preferences, and the changing profile of independent sector users, indicated by the expansion of day provision. Another significant development is that many independent schools now follow the National Curriculum, at least in part. The prospect of bringing the two sectors together was made more likely by the fact that the Labour Party, after years of having to work 'within policy parameters established by successive Conservative governments' (Tapper, 1997, 176-189), changed its education policies. For the most part, New Labour accepted Conservative reforms of the state system and, while remaining opposed to APS, no longer sought abolition of independent schools, or even an end to charitable status.

However, in accepting Conservative reforms of the state system and ending its hostility to the independent sector, New Labour claimed that it was doing more than merely jettisoning Labour's traditional education policies in order to replace them with those of its opponents. In his introduction to the Party's Manifesto for the 1997 General Election, Tony Blair argued that in education, as in other policy areas, New Labour was offering the country:

a programme for 'a new centre and centre-left politics' - a set of proposals in each area of policy that differed 'both from the solutions of the old Left and from those of the Conservative Right' (Chitty, 1999, 3).

New Labour's education policies, including those relating to independent schools, were set out in detail in the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, published shortly after its election victory in 1997.

New Labour's priority is 'raising standards in schools'; and it is pragmatic about the means of achieving this end. For example, the White Paper reiterated Labour's commitment to comprehensive education, but accepted that this could not, in itself, guarantee improved educational standards; indeed, there was criticism of the way in which 'the search for equality of opportunity in some cases became a tendency to uniformity . . . The pursuit of excellence was too often equated with elitism'. On the other hand, LMS and the enhanced powers of state school governors were seen as important contributors to improving school performance: 'Schools have thrived on the opportunities offered by delegation of budgets and managerial responsibilities'.

While it would be the responsibility of 'self-determining' schools 'actively' to 'seek to improve their performance', raising standards would require the support of a 'partnership' involving all those concerned with education, such as school governors, LEAs, the churches and other foundations. Further, instead of Labour's traditional hostility, New Labour invited independent schools to join this 'new partnership for raising standards', suggesting that, they might, for example, share 'activities and facilities with the local community'. There was no reference to the issues of selection or fee-paying, and, although APS would be phased out, this was presented, not as an attack on the independent sector, but as part of the process of raising standards: the resources released would be used to reduce class sizes for 5-7 years-olds (DfEE, 1997a, 5-14, 66-73). The seriousness of New Labour's commitment to involvement of the independent sector in its new partnership was demonstrated by appointment of an Advisory Group on Independent/State School Partnerships and the introduction of the Independent State School Partnerships (ISSP) pilot scheme.

THE INDEPENDENT/STATE SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS SCHEME

The pilot scheme was announced by the then Minister of State for Education, Stephen Byers, at the Girls' Schools Association (GSA) Conference in November 1997. Stressing the 'vital role' of the independent sector 'within our education system' and the government's commitment to 'fostering closer links between the state and private sector', he explained the scheme's double purpose: to bridge 'the public/private divide [which] diminishes the whole education system', and to involve independent schools 'in achieving our standards agenda' by enabling schools from the two sectors to work together in partnership on specific projects (DfEE, 1997b). In January 1998, all schools in England were invited to apply for £600,000 of funding (£250,000 from Peter Lampl's Sutton Trust)3 for school-based pilot partnerships between state and independent schools. Applicant partnerships were required to submit a detailed description of their proposed project (to commence in the summer or autumn terms 1998) and arrangements for monitoring and evaluating it, together with a financial plan, by March 1998. 294 applications were considered against five selection criteria to test the extent to which partnerships and projects matched the overarching aim of the scheme:

to promote collaborative working by maintained and independent schools in partnership to raise standards in education.

The selection criteria were encapsulated in the following questions:

is it a genuine partnership, involving at least one independent and one maintained school (DfEE, 1998a, regulation 3 (1)), from which both partners can gain significantly, with pupils and teachers working together towards a mutual goal;

is it a demonstration project, a workable example of how the two sectors can work together, capable, whether innovative or an extension of good practice, of being replicated anywhere in the country;

will it engender further links, having the potential for expansion and involvement of other schools and organisations;

will it add benefit to pupils locally, enriching educational opportunities for pupils, teachers and the wider community;

does it provide good value for money, offering an excellent return, in the form of increased educational opportunities, on the investment made?

(DfEE, 1998b).

Forty-seven pilot projects were selected for funding in 1998-99. The process of evaluating the pilot partnership scheme included self-evaluation by partnerships and DfEE evaluation; the DfEE's Advisory Group on Partnerships recommended that there should also be independent evaluation by an appropriate outside organisation (DfEE, 1998c, 10). In December 1998, the School of Education at the University of Leeds was contracted to undertake this independent evaluation.

The main focus of the independent evaluation was a broad assessment of the scheme against the overarching aim of the partnership initiative and the project objectives of individual partnerships, to identify the extent to which pupils in both sectors (and also teachers and the wider community) were benefiting from it, and to show how partnerships could contribute to raising standards in cost-effective ways. Other research issues were generation of evidence of good practice in partnership development and operation; and a comparison of pilot partnership projects with partnership projects outside the scheme, principally to assess the effects of funding and to determine whether or not this was a key to the success of partnerships.

In order to ensure a wide evidence base and also in-depth information at the level of individual partnerships, sixty-three partnerships (all forty-seven pilot partnerships and sixteen non-ISSP partnerships) were covered by documentary analysis, while twelve partnerships (eight pilot partnerships and four non-ISSP partnerships) were the focus of case study visits. For the pilot partnerships, documentary analysis focused on the substantial body of evidence generated by the ISSP application, monitoring and evaluation procedures; the sixteen non-ISSP partnerships were sent a questionnaire, devised by the evaluation team, to obtain quantitative and qualitative information equivalent to that available for the pilot partnerships. The twelve partnerships selected for case study visits comprised a range of: types and size of partnership; numbers of pupils and teachers involved; phases; curricular areas and individual project objectives; amount of funding received; and geographical areas. During the visits partnership co-ordinators, headteachers and members of staff and students involved in different aspects of the partnerships were interviewed.

Although only sixteen per cent of applicant partnerships were successful in receiving a grant, they showed rich diversity of type, size and project. While most (thirty-eight) involved two schools, the rest involved between three and fifteen schools, and some had partners other than schools. Twenty-three partnerships involved fewer than 100 pupils, while seven involved more than 400; nineteen involved fewer than ten teachers, while six involved more than thirty. Schools in partnership exhibited many differences apart from membership of independent or state sectors: same or cross-phase, single-sex and coeducational, selective and non-selective, mainstream and special, large and small, urban and rural.

Projects showed the same degree of diversity, covering a wide range of curricular areas. Ten were, in whole or part, 'general' (including, for example, one to enable sixth formers to work as tutors in primary schools, and an investigation of the impact of the Millennium Dome and celebrations on the Borough of Greenwich), eighteen involved ICT, and ten literacy. Others covered Science, Mathematics, Languages, Music, Art, Sport, Technology and Special Needs, and twenty embraced more than one curricular area. A common curricular area did not mean common objectives: for example, ICT was used in projects designed to help develop literacy and mathematical skills, to facilitate fieldwork in urban and rural areas, and in a project involving children with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties.

The number of applications and the diversity of partnership type, size, project and geographical spread (from Cumbria to Cornwall) suggested that the pilot scheme had at least partly met a perceived need, enabling independent and state schools to secure funding for joint projects, which they considered would benefit pupils and teachers and raise standards in education. This impression was confirmed by the fact that, although some partnerships received grants of up to £31,000, twenty-one projects went ahead with grants of £10,000 or less. These relatively small sums suggested that an exhortation to the two sectors to cooperate would not have been enough. Projects on which schools desire to cooperate, however small, will cost something; grants, however modest, may be crucial, because dedicated to partnership projects. Even the largest school might be hard pressed to justify spending part of its budget on activities which might benefit pupils from other schools, even if its own were to benefit too.

But did the pilot scheme create new relationships between state and independent schools; or simply provide funding for development of existing projects, or turn pre-existing links into partnerships?

Only a few pilot partnerships contained schools with significant pre-existing links with schools in the other sector. Generally, links comprised occasional sports fixtures, or participation in common INSET or musical events, while, in almost half the partnerships, there were no previous links. A few successful applicant partnerships had pre-existing projects that might have met the ISSP selection criteria. However, they did not apply for funding for their project as it stood, but for a significant expansion of it, or for a different one. For example, an independent secondary school in the south-east (involved in a number of partnership activities) led a bid for a project which would expand the range of activities with an existing partner and also bring in other schools.

It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the pilot scheme created partnerships which would not have existed without it. But were these cross-sector partnerships formed just to apply for the grants on offer?

It is difficult to sustain this interpretation. First, the emphasis in the selection procedure and evaluation process on the genuineness of partnerships, and on pupils and teachers working together towards a common goal, would deter schools without a commitment to independent/state school partnership from applying. More importantly, the documentary evidence revealed the desire of schools in both sectors to work together. For example, one of the largest pilot partnerships (the Wakefield Partnership) made challenging any preconceptions that one sector may have about the other a major aim. Another partnership (in the south-east) applied for a grant to share the respective strengths of schools from the two sectors: state school ICT expertise and independent sector links with schools in other European Union countries. These are just two examples of pilot partnerships' desire, not just to embark on a worthwhile project, but to do so with a partner from a different sector with something of value to contribute.

But how did pilot partnerships and projects work out in practice? The following case studies give an insight into the operation of three very different partnerships, exemplify some of the benefits projects are generating, and indicate lines of future development.

One of the largest in the pilot partnership, Wakefield, brings together three maintained coeducational comprehensive schools, Outwood Grange, The Cathedral (the only non-sixth form partner) and Ossett, and two former DG grammar schools, Queen Elizabeth Grammar and Wakefield Girls' High. Both grammar schools are fully integrated into the independent sector, and had only slight links (sports fixtures and musical events) with the maintained schools. However, as they draw pupils from outside the LEA area, competition with the state schools is limited; the LEA, reflecting a desire for cross sector cooperation, helped to bring the schools together.

The partnership set itself four broad aims: to challenge any preconceived views teachers and pupils in one sector might have about the other by getting them to work together; to encourage teachers in the two sectors to recognise each others' strengths by sharing expertise; to raise expectations and levels of achievement of pupils in both sectors; and to create a partnership which would endure and develop. To realise these aims, its multi-strand pilot project comprised a number of Learning Experiences, spread over the 1998-99 academic year. These involved staff with different subject expertise and children of different age ranges, thus enabling large numbers of teachers and pupils to participate. Learning Experiences included a Year 12 Art Workshop; a Year 10/11 Able Performers' Workshop (Music, Drama, Dance); lectures in Science and Technology for Year 7 pupils; and a More Able Project for Year 8 pupils (History). Most were self-contained and of limited duration, and were decided by the Partnership Group (Chief Education Officer, LEA chief adviser and the five Heads), responsible for managing, monitoring and evaluating the project as a whole, and which assigned each Learning Experience to teachers (one of whom acted as lead manager) for delivery and evaluation. Staff were paid a modest honorarium; much of the rest of the £30,000 grant was spent on staff cover and transport.

Almost inevitably, with such an ambitious project, there were difficulties of communication and organisation, and slippage in the timetable for delivery of the Learning Experiences. Problems arising from the large numbers involved were compounded by the fact that (unlike many others) Wakefield's was not a single-strand project, involving the same teachers and pupils, which could become embedded in schools' routines. Further, staff had limited time to plan, organise and carry out their Learning Experience. But tight timescales, and the need to surmount difficulties, enabled teachers and pupils from the two sectors to come to value each others' contributions. Initial constraints between the two sectors were overcome and a desire for further cooperation engendered.

These positive aspects were evident during the More Able Project in February 1999. Five teams (each of two pupils from each of the five schools) spent a day researching the history of medicine at the Thackray Medical Museum, Leeds. The teams then spent a morning working on their chosen topics (for example, the work of an early nineteenth century surgeon), and then gave a presentation of them. These showed pupils working well together as teams; significantly, during the refreshment break, they remained with their teams, rather than going into school groups.

The partnership successfully applied for grant for 1999-2000, to consolidate some existing project strands, and to add new ones. There is clear consensus that the Learning Experiences have been worthwhile, that pupils and staff have benefited from them, and that they have contributed to the partnership's overarching aims. Wakefield shows that a large partnership, with ambitious aims and an extensive programme of activities, can work well, provided that goodwill and a determination to succeed are present. Of particular value is the emphasis on enabling substantial numbers of teachers to be directly involved in the project, and thus to contribute to its success. There is a possibility that the partnership may grow by adding new partners.

CASE STUDY 2: THE UNIVERSITY OF SURREY PARTNERSHIP

The Surrey Higher Education Compact (HE Compact) was created in 1991. Directed by the Educational Liaison Centre, University of Surrey, it liaises between higher education (HE) institutions and schools and colleges, to promote mutual awareness among all sectors of education and facilitate progression into HE. Since 1992, the Educational Liaison Centre has run the Student Tutoring Initiative, enabling Surrey students to develop key skills by placing them in schools and colleges to assist teachers. In 1998, the Educational Liaison Centre made a successful pilot partnership bid for 'Schools without Walls', an initiative which built on the Student Tutoring Initiative by developing it across state and independent schools in Guildford.

The single-strand project placed teams of two sixth formers, one from an independent and one from a state school, together with an undergraduate as their 'mentor-manager', in primary schools to assist class teachers. In its first phase (from autumn 1998), 'Schools without Walls' involved three state comprehensive schools and two independent senior schools, with four teams going into two Guildford primary schools. All the secondary schools belong to HE Compact, and are represented on a partnership steering group. Through HE Compact, other organisations are involved, including Procter and Gamble, Guildford and Godalming Education and Business Partnership, Surrey Training and Enterprise Council and Surrey LEA. Financial support from business partners met half the pilot project's cost: the ISSP bid was for matching funding.

A striking feature of this project has been the range of benefits delivered. Sixth formers have been able to develop key skills (for example, communication and organisational skills, report writing), to contribute to the teaching and learning process, and to acquire NVQ equivalent qualifications, while being teamed with a sixth former from a different sector has developed their knowledge of different forms of educational provision. They have also been brought into contact with an undergraduate, thus increasing aspirations to progress into HE. The primary school teachers have benefited from classroom assistance, and their pupils have received individual attention from a young person, who can act as a positive role model. The undergraduate mentor-managers have had the opportunity to develop managerial skills.

Another striking feature of 'Schools without Walls' is its high level of management and training. Overseen by the Director of the Educational Liaison Centre, the project is managed by its Student Initiatives Officer, who visits partner schools regularly. Training is given to student mentor-managers and sixth formers, that for the latter being designed to equip them to operate effectively in the classroom. Mentor-managers review their mentees' progress and report regularly to the Student Initiatives Officer. There are also arrangements for independent local evaluation. The benefits of the project are being enhanced, in its second phase, by the participation of preparatory schools, enabling independent and state school pupils to come together in two ways: teams of sixth formers from the two sectors will assist in both state primary and independent preparatory schools. A successful bid has been made for 1999-2001, enabling the partnership to add new partners.

'Schools without Walls' is an important initiative, bringing independent and state school pupils from different phases together, giving sixth formers the chance to develop key skills, and, through mentor-managers, connecting the process to HE. In the wider context, it is fostering links between increasing numbers of educational institutions from the two sectors and from different phases of education. Although a developing project on this scale is labour intensive, and the partnership benefits from the Educational Liaison Centre's professional managerial input, the essence of 'Schools without Walls' is transferable, and the partnership's expertise would be of great value to other partnerships considering mentoring/tutoring projects.

CASE STUDY 3: THE CROYDON PARTNERSHIP

This partnership, bringing together two secondary schools, appears to symbolise the potential value of independent/state school partnership. Separated only by the length of a street on the outskirts of Croydon, the schools, Ashburton Community School and Trinity School, seem to exist in different educational worlds. Ashburton, a coeducational, LEA-maintained comprehensive, has recently left 'special measures'; Trinity, part of the Whitgift Foundation, is a high-performing selective boys' school, which moved to its present spacious site in the 1960s. However, while the two schools are very different, this does not mean that their partnership is unequal, or that the benefits generated are one-sided. The pilot project had two strands: literacy and Art.

The literacy strand has been coordinated by an Ashburton senior teacher and its head of special needs (SENCO). As part of their community service programme, eight Trinity sixth formers have acted as mentors to some thirty Ashburton Year 7 pupils for two hours each week. All these pupils had reading ages of 8.05 or below at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year; almost half had reading ages of 7.05 or below. The Trinity students, who were carefully trained for the project, have worked with them in small groups, concentrating on reading and discussion activities. The excellent rapport that has developed between mentors and mentees has created an atmosphere of mutual respect and a positive learning environment. Ashburton teachers feel that the Trinity students' interest has raised their pupils' self-esteem and self-confidence. Although mentoring was not the only contributory factor, by the second half of the Easter term 1999, a third of them had a reading age of 9.00 and over; only two had reading ages of 7.05 or below.

The literacy strand seems to have played a significant part in raising the educational standards of Ashburton Year 7 pupils, who are now much better placed to take advantage of the secondary curriculum; and the initial doubts of some Ashburton staff about the strand's value have been wholly dispelled. But the benefits are not flowing in one direction only. As well as insights into the teaching and learning process and experience of working with children from different social backgrounds, the Trinity mentors have had an opportunity to develop a range of key skills.

The Art strand has brought together twenty GCSE students (ten from each school) for three-dimensional art work under the direction of a visiting professional artist, giving students of similar age and ability from the two schools the opportunity to work together, to learn from each other, and to interact socially. They have gained from the visiting artist's expertise, while, as the project has taken place at Trinity, Ashburton pupils have had access to its excellent facilities. Work of high quality has been produced, and was exhibited at Trinity during the summer term.

Further links (sport and drama) have developed between the schools, and the partnership has secured ISSP funding for 1999-2001, enabling it to add more partners. This successful partnership gains from the partners' geographical proximity, and demonstrates clearly, not only the benefits of partnership, but also that, with careful planning and management, projects produce mutual benefits. Another interesting point is Trinity's involvement in partnership activities outside this ISSP partnership. It has joined other independent and state secondary schools in the school centred initial teacher training (SCITT) scheme, led by Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College, New Cross, and, through its community service programme, places students in local maintained primary schools.

These three case studies exemplify what was confirmed by all eight case study visits to pilot partnerships and by the documentation from the overwhelming majority of them: that they were working well, that project objectives were being achieved, and that pupils and teachers were benefiting from them.

The question remains, however: are projects raising standards? At this stage, it is hard to judge. Although some projects are capable of delivering benefits which, in theory, are quantifiable in the short-term, in practice quantifying them is not a straightforward matter. For example, with the literacy strand of the Croydon Partnership, it is hard to isolate the effects of the mentoring programme from all the other factors contributing to pupils' educational progress, and to measure its precise impact on improvements in their reading performance (although the teachers involved are convinced it is having an impact). This is a difficulty common to many projects. However, while quantifiable benefits may be hard to measure in the short-term or with precision, there is ample evidence that the pilot scheme has generated qualitative benefits, including accomplishment of the wider partnership aims of building bridges across 'education divides'.

The Wakefield Partnership embraced the aim of challenging preconceptions by enabling pupils and teachers from the two sectors to work together; the More Able Project provided a striking example of its realisation. The Surrey and Croydon mentoring schemes are examples of projects enabling pupils from the two sectors to learn from each other, and to develop mutual respect. Nor have the benefits of interaction between pupils and staff from different schools been confined to those arising from interaction between independent and state schools. Larger partnerships, such as Surrey and Wakefield, contain more than one state and independent school, giving teachers and pupils from the same sector opportunities to work together in new ways.

There seems to have been a close relationship between achievement of project objectives and realisation of these wider aims of partnership: both owe a great deal to the ISSP scheme and application process. The wider aims have been realised because projects have been successful. A major reason for this was the need for partners to work out projects carefully in order to apply for grant; and in almost every case, the original project aims have been followed. The application process also emphasised the importance of genuine partnership, and of projects from which both partners would gain equally. Partner schools' contribution to a project may differ, but, as a partnership in the south-east put it: the most valuable outcome has been 'the discovery by teachers and pupils in both schools that the learning process has been two way'. As a result, the vast majority of partnerships are unequivocal about continuation. Indeed, projects have become a familiar feature of the school landscape, embedded in partner schools' routines, and already expanding and growing.

As the case studies indicate, there is more than one model of future development. Many partnerships, like Wakefield, are expanding existing links between partners, and following a partnership expansion model. In other cases, such as Surrey, recruitment of new partners is taking place: a partnership growth model. A third approach, found in Croydon, is of schools engaging in different independent/state school partnerships for different purposes. This approach to development might be described as a parallel partnerships model. These models are not mutually exclusive: all three are present in Croydon.

This is not to say that the partnership experience has been trouble free. Despite careful planning, problems have occurred with, for example, communication, timetabling and ICT equipment. Partnership activities have been an additional item in busy school days; one partnership referred to teachers being 'torn' between project demands and covering the rest of the curriculum satisfactorily. This has underlined the importance of effective management, to deal with communication and organisational difficulties, to respond to changing circumstances, and to monitor and evaluate progress. No single right way to manage projects has emerged: the approach has to reflect partnership and project size and needs. However, most projects directly involve only a proportion of pupils and staff at partner schools; those not directly involved need to be kept in touch with project developments. Some partnerships, such as Surrey, have appointed an independent local evaluator, to provide an objective assessment of progress.

Partnerships have also encountered negative attitudes and preconceptions: for example, staff (at the outset) not being 'as enthusiastic as they might have been', or students from the two sectors being unwilling to 'integrate socially'. But, generally, these obstacles have been removed by the experience of partnership ('initial preconceptions' were 'broken down'); and they are themselves illustrations of its value.

Has the pilot partnership justified the money invested in it? There can be no absolute standard for judging this, but the largest grants were not large in comparison with the budgets of even small schools, and seem to have produced clear benefits at the level of individual partnerships. On a broader canvass, the modest total sum spent on the pilot scheme has established a network of successful and ongoing independent/state school partnerships, from which large numbers of children and teachers in the partnerships are benefiting. This has created a national resource of partnership experience and expertise, and perhaps the beginnings of a culture of cross sector collaboration.

Sixteen partnerships outside the pilot scheme were researched, principally to assess the effects of funding. Eight of these were partnerships which had applied unsuccessfully for the pilot scheme, but had gone ahead with their project anyway; the other eight were pre-existing partnerships which did not apply for ISSP funding. Care had to be exercised in the selection of the pre-existing partnerships. Although many links existed between state and independent schools before the pilot partnership scheme, often as part of independent sector community service activities (indeed, a national survey of Independent Schools Council schools showed 714 of the 931 that responded participating in joint activities with communities and/or maintained schools), this did not mean that there were 714 partnerships. Most joint activities (fifty-eight per cent) relate to sport, community service and music, and may be no more than intermittent links (ISC/ISIS, 1998, 11). It was therefore important to focus research on pre-existing relationships between independent and state schools which were, or at least approximated to, partnership.

These sixteen non-ISSP partnerships exhibited as much variety of type and size as the pilot partnerships, and their projects were equally diverse, including Classics, ICT, Dance/Drama/Music and literacy support. Of the eight unsuccessful applicant partnerships, four sought and obtained funding elsewhere, enabling their projects to proceed (almost) as planned. In the other four cases, all of which had projects already running, but which have not obtained alternative or adequate alternative funding, projects have been able to continue only on a voluntary basis. Partnerships have been (in two cases) unable to expand projects as desired, or (in one case) to secure the project's future.

Of the pre-existing non-applicant partnerships, two fund the projects themselves, while another two operate on a voluntary basis, and do not require funding. Of the remaining four: one applied unsuccessfully for non-ISSP funding, but is operating without any; one is internally funded, but is seeking non-ISSP outside funding; while two, hitherto unfunded, subsequently sought ISSP grant in 1999 for expansion.

The overall message from the experience of non-ISSP partnerships is that funding is a key element in the success of projects. There may be partners with access to such funding, as in the case of the pre-existing partnership, led by Latymer Upper School and St Paul's, and funded in part by the Latymer Foundation and in part by an inner city education fund administered by the Mercers' Company, which runs a very successful Saturday School (Technology, Maths/Problem Solving, Science and Humanities) for local primary school children in Hammersmith and Fulham. Otherwise, funding will have to come from outside sources. Apart from the ISSP scheme, these sources will be charities or commercial sponsors. While there are partnership projects running very satisfactorily on a purely voluntary basis, they tend to be limited in scope. If these partnerships wish to improve their project (by renewing equipment, for example) or to expand it, they are almost certain to require outside funding. Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College, New Cross, leads Mathematics Masterclass and SCITT projects, for both of which unsuccessful ISSP applications were made in 1998. Alternative funding (from The Sutton Trust, The Haberdashers' Company and The Royal Institution) has been secured for both. The school sums up the situation thus:

We are committed to partnership schemes to share our success and resources. However, they do put a strain on staffing and resources. Therefore sponsorship is a vital ingredient for the success of such schemes.

As Tapper (1997, 176-182) has pointed out, state and independent schools now share a lot of common ground. Given this 'convergence', it seems obvious that teachers and pupils from schools in the two sectors can learn from each other. But, if so, why not leave it to the schools themselves to create the relationships they consider to be advantageous? Why was it necessary for central government to set up the ISSP scheme?

At the political level, its establishment demonstrated the seriousness of New Labour's commitment to involving independent schools in its 'new partnership for raising standards'. Further, the scheme has helped to turn the idea of partnership into the reality of actual partnerships and projects for this purpose. Many links existed between schools in the two sectors before the pilot partnership (ISC/ISIS, 1998), but links, such as participation in common sport or musical events, are not partnerships. Partnership implies equal ownership of a common project, with teachers and pupils working together towards a common goal; and with the ISSP scheme, the aim of partnership, raising standards in education, goes to the heart of what all schools should be about. Before the pilot partnership, links may have been numerous, but partnerships were much less common. Why was this?

One reason may be that negative preconceptions persist in each sector about the other, perhaps as a consequence of the long-standing 'public/private divide'; and some pilot partnerships had to deal with these. They do not appear to be based on any specific adverse experience of schools or individuals in the other sector, but to reflect lack of knowledge, or recollections of cartoon stereotypes. There may also be those in the two sectors with objections of principle to cross sector involvement.

The pilot partnership has created an impetus for those with such preconceptions or views to think again, and to explore the possibilities of collaboration. They will have been encouraged to do so by the nature of the ISSP scheme, which, unlike Fleming Scheme B and APS, on the one hand, or the Public Schools Commission recommendations, on the other, is neither a costly and divisive scheme for state purchase of places in the independent sector, likely to create competition and friction between independent and state schools, nor an equally costly and divisive scheme for integrating independent schools into the state system, which would require many of the independent schools to change their character.4 Instead, by encouraging schools in the two sectors to recognise their common educational ground and to work on projects in partnership, and by insisting that the partnerships created are genuine and equal, it appears to be acting as a catalyst for cooperation, persuading teachers and others (whatever their preconceptions or views) to think about the benefits that can flow from cross sector collaboration.

But although there may have been negative preconceptions and objections of principle, pre-existing links, and the large number of applicants for the pilot scheme, indicate existence of a strong desire for collaboration in both sectors; so more partnerships might have been expected. However, desire for partnership is simply not enough. Unlike links, a project, capable of delivering significant benefits to those involved by raising standards in education, requires funding. And this is a major reason why the pilot partnership has been successful. It was not just a framework for collaboration, but a framework with funding; and funding is essential. The experience of partnerships outside the scheme shows that its absence restricts the scope of projects, and rules out most forms of development. The grants to individual pilot projects may have been modest, but they provided the funding which made them possible.

However, it is possible to view the successful operation of the pilot partnership from a slightly different perspective. The focus of our research was on independent/state school partnership and on the benefits that can flow from cross sector collaboration, but we have noted that larger partnerships, containing more than one state and independent school, have provided schools from the same sector, as well as from different sectors, with the opportunity to work together in new ways. The pupils and teachers involved appear to have valued, and to have benefited from, this interaction with a different school or schools from the same sector, and it may that, in part at least, the success of the pilot scheme reflects the benefits of collaboration between schools per se. If this is the case, it would suggest that (given the central importance of funding to the success of the pilot partnership) benefits would probably be generated by funding for collaboration between schools, irrespective of whether or not they belonged to the same or to different sectors.

There is also an important reservation to be entered about the ISSP initiative. We have suggested above that the pilot partnership has created an impetus for cross sector collaboration partly because it is a limited scheme, which does not encompass radical change in either the character of independent schools or the relationship between the independent sector and the state. However, this strength can also be seen as a weakness. A few years after publication of the Fleming Report, John Wolfenden, then Chairman of HMC and Headmaster of Shrewsbury School, acknowledged that some might regard Fleming Scheme B as: 'tinkering on a tiny scale with a problem of nation-wide significance' (Wolfenden, 1948, 21). If the Fleming proposals (under which the state would have paid for children from maintained primary schools to take up a quarter of the places at independent boarding schools), could be dismissed as 'tinkering', this objection can be made even more strongly against the ISSP scheme, which involves fairly small numbers of pupils and teachers and operates on the margins of all the schools taking part. Indeed, it could be argued that the scheme's 'tinkering' is of an undesirable kind, providing independent schools with a form of legitimation while distracting attention from the important issues of the place and role of the independent sector as a whole in the national education system.

In its Manifesto for the 1997 election, New Labour promised policies which differed from both those of the 'old Left' and the 'Conservative Right'. Is the ISSP scheme an example of New Labour's 'third way' in action? To an extent, the answer to this question will depend on the view that is taken about the whole idea of the 'third way' and its application to educational policy. Power and Whitty (1999, 535-546), while noting 'the nebulousness of the concept', list three alternative views of it: a middle way between two viable alternatives, such as old left and new right; a revised social democratic approach which offers a clear alternative to the neo-liberal project; and the creation of a new and heterodox alignment of ideas which recognises that there has been a sharp break in political continuity. They conclude that the third alternative 'seems much closer to the intentions of third wayists', but that, in its totality, New Labour's education programme is an 'eclectic mix of new right and old left' which 'generally follows the path of the new right'. However, they consider that Education Action Zones (EAZs) have some of the 'hallmarks' of third wayism in the strong, 'third alternative' sense.

While broadly accepting Power and Whitty's analysis of New Labour's education programme, but at the same reserving judgement on whether its pragmatic reorientation of Conservative policies does or does not, in its entirety, qualify as a 'third way' approach, it can be argued that, like the EAZ initiative, the ISSP scheme bears some of the hallmarks of 'third alternative third wayism'. As well as being a complete break with the Labour Party's previous policies on the independent sector, the ISSP scheme is also a complete break with previous approaches to the question of the relationship between the independent sector and the state system, being neither Fleming/APS 'place purchase-ism' nor Public Schools Commission 'integrationism'. A government initiative, but one which draws on a mix of public and private funding, it brings into partnership a range of very different constituencies: state and independent schools, LEAs, HE and FE institutions, businesses and voluntary organisations. While the scheme has a single overarching purpose, raising standards in education, each partnership is allowed to determine its own project and how it will be managed, and partnerships are encouraged to expand their projects, and to involve the local community.

The ISSP pilot partnership provided £600,000 of funding for forty-seven projects in 1998-99. It has been followed by £1.6 million (£200,000 from the Sutton Trust) for fifty-six partnership projects during 1999-2000 and 1999-2001 (DfEE, 1999). There is also some evidence from case studies and documentation that the existence and continuation of this scheme is helping to stimulate independent/state school partnership activity, which may lead to a 'culture of partnership', to the benefit of both sectors and, potentially, of the wider community. Spencer Leeson, Headmaster of Winchester, and Chairman of HMC during the Second World War, observed of the debate about the relationship between the independent and state sectors during that period:

Much time is wasted in current discussion over supposed parity of status and esteem, and in comparing one school with another. We cannot judge, and it does not matter. What does matter, and what we can be certain of, is that every school could be better than it is (Leeson, 1948, 3).

The ISSP scheme is a modestly-funded scheme, which, as yet, involves relatively limited numbers of independent and state schools and their pupils and teachers. However, as the pilot scheme has shown, its partnership approach to the relationship between independent schools and state schools seems to be providing a framework within which teachers and pupils from the two sectors can work together to raise standards in education, and to make each partner school 'better than it is'.

1 The term 'public school' is now seldom used. There has never been an agreed definition of it, although, as the Fleming Committee's remit confirmed, it was generally accepted that a (boys') public school was one in membership of either/both HMC (founded in 1869) and/or GBA (founded in 1941). In 1942, these included independent boarding and day schools, DG grammar schools and (HMC) LEA-aided grammar schools. The remit of the Public Schools Commission also covered schools in membership of the Governing Bodies of Girls' Schools Association (GBGSA, founded 1942).

2 The First Report (Newsom, 1968) of the Public Schools Commission dealt with the independent boarding schools. Its much criticised recommendations also included these schools becoming less academically selective.

3 The Sutton Trust was established by the entrepreneur, Peter Lampl, in 1997, to increase educational opportunities for children from non-privileged backgrounds. In addition to its support for the ISSP scheme, it funds a range of educational projects, including summer schools at Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol and Nottingham, to give able pupils from the maintained sector a taste of university life, and a Saturday School at the London School of Economics for students from inner-city schools and colleges, aimed at improving A-level performance.

4 Fleming did not provide detailed costings, but Scheme B would have required central government and LEAs to meet an annual bill for the cost of at least a quarter of the 39,500 places at HMC boarding schools. In 1944, these schools were charging fees of between £80 and £245 a year. The Public Schools Commission estimated that integrating all the DG schools into the state system could add up to £6 million (at 1969-70 levels) to annual educational expenditure. APS was costing £48 million in 1987-88.

Board of Education (1944) Report of the Committee on Public Schools, (the Fleming Committee), The Public Schools and the General Educational System. London: HMSO.

Chitty, C. (1999) The Education System Transformed, 2nd edn. Tisbury: Baseline Book Company.

Dancy, J.C. (1963) The Public Schools and the Future. London: Faber and Faber.

Department for Education and Employment (1997a) Excellence in Schools (White Paper). London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (1997b) press release 393/97, 26 November 1997. London: DFEE

Department for Education and Employment (1998a) The Education (Partnership Grant) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 1222).

Department for Education and Employment (1998b) Independent/State School Partnership 1998-1999 Evaluation Plan.

Department for Education and Employment (1998c) Building Bridges. Final Report of the Advisory Group on Independent/State School Partnerships.

Department for Education and Employment (1999) press release 200/99, 10 May 1999.

Department of Education and Science (1970) Public Schools Commission, Second Report (Donnison Report). London: HMSO.

Department of Education and Science (1977) Circular 6/77, 28 July 1977. Education Act, 1980 (1980, c.20).

Edwards, T., Fitz, J. and Whitty, G. (1989) The State and Private Education: An Evaluation of the Assisted Places Scheme. London: The Falmer Press.

Independent Schools Council/Independent Schools Information Service (1998) report, Good Neighbours.

Leeson, S.S.G. (1948) The Public Schools Question. London: Longmans.

Ministry of Education (1946) Circular 90, 8 March 1946.

Power, S. and Whitty, G. (1999) 'New Labour's education policy: first, second or third way?', Journal of Educational Policy, 14 (5), 535-546.

Salter, B. and Tapper, T (1984) 'Images of Independent Schooling: Exploring the Perceptions of Parents and Politicians' in Walford, G. (Ed) British Public Schools: Policy and Practice. London: The Falmer Press.

Sharp, P. R., Higham, J. J. S., Yeomans, D. J. and Daniel, D. M. (1999) Final Evaluation Report of the Independent State School Partnerships Scheme 1998-99. London: DFEE.

Wolfenden, J. F. (1948) The Public Schools Today. London: University of London Press.

© School of Education
University of Leeds 2001

The Post-14 Research Group

Post-14 education and training has been the site of intense policy debate and change for over two decades both in Britain and throughout the world. These changes have led to substantial re-organisation of forms of governance, organisation, curricula and pedagogy and have had major implications for the lives of young people, mature students and adult learners.

The Post-14 Research Group, a unit of the University of Leeds School of Education, has interests in the analysis of these changes across: secondary education, further and higher education; workplace and lifelong learning; and youth training. Methodological approaches draw upon: curriculum study; policy analysis and evaluation; historical and sociological research; and youth ethnography. Research has been supported by extensive ESRC and Government funding, together with grants from a variety of educational foundations, regional bodies and local education authorities.

External and internal seminar series act as a focus for discussion both within the School and region and this Occasional Publications series publishes recent research by group members:

No. 1 D. J. Yeomans, Constructing Vocational Education: from TVEI to GNVQ (1996)

No. 2 J. J. S. Higham, Breadth in the Post-16 Academic Curriculum (1996)

No. 3 I. M. H. Bates, The Competence and Outcomes Movement: the landscape of research (1997)

No. 4 J.J.S. Higham, GCE A Levels in the School Curriculum (1997)

No. 5 P. R. Sharp, The Development of the Vocational Curriculum for 16-19 Year-Olds in Colleges and Schools, 1979-1995 (1997)

No. 6 J. J. S. Higham, The Post-16 Core Curriculum (1997)

No. 7 I.M.H. Bates, Problematizing 'Empowerment' in Education and Work: an Exploration of the GNVQ (1998)

No. 8 M. Priestley and J. J. S. Higham, New Zealand's Curriculum and Assessment Revolution (1999)

No. 9 J. J. S. Higham, P. R. Sharp and D. Machin,
The Monitoring of Academic Progress 16-19 (2000)

No. 10 P. R. Sharp, J. J. S. Higham, D. J. Yeomans and D. M. Daniel, Working Together: the independent/state school partnerships scheme (2001)

No. 11 J. J. S. Higham, Curriculum Change: General National Vocational Qualifications (2002)

Paper copies of the above publications are available from the address below at a
cost of £5 including postage and packing. Please make cheques payable to
'The University of Leeds'.

This document was added to the Education-line database on 16 October 2002