Home truths

Proprietorial schools face different challenges to charitable independent schools. New ongoing research reflects on the factors influencing their sustainability, by Bill Brown, Jake Anders and Matthew Adshead

The proprietorial sector of independent schools is one that is marked by sharp contrasts in performance. It is the intention of this enquiry to find out the potentially multiple causes of these sharp contrasts, test them and draw conclusions on how proprietorial schools can use these implications to ensure that they can be a school that thrives.

At this stage in the research, there is a hypothesis on how proprietorial schools can be successfully managed. The aim is to provide more academic testing of the research in the months ahead.

The hypothesis has several parts:
• to be successful and continue to grow a successful business, the school must be judged consistently Outstanding or Good in Ofsted, or Excellent or Good in ISI inspections and (where relevant) NMS for Boarding or Residential Special Schools (or a very good reason why not). Satisfactory judgements or worse overall have and are a significant factor, resulting in either the transfer of the business or the closure of the school. This is more common than simply the pressures of the economic downturn;
• the school must, in every way, be fit for purpose for the child, in terms of the quality of educational provision, its access to facilities and financial criteria of the parents;
• it is important that independent proprietorial schools have an excellent track record in preparing children for 11+ or 13+ entry into their first choice (this may be independent, or non-fee paying selective senior schools);
• independent proprietorial schools and A-level colleges (boarding or day) need to have a proven track record of excellent results for public exams as well as a good range of candidates achieving places at sought-after universities. This would not apply to senior schools or colleges with a specific ethos for catering for pupils with particular educational or pastoral needs; and
• these previous three points are dependent on schools being able to provide small class sizes, to ensure the individual attention needed to prepare for what may be a diverse set of future schools, university requirements and academic or pastoral needs.

This will necessarily mean a strong emphasis by the school on ensuring it is focused on achieving the Outstanding/Excellent and Good inspection outcomes and on ensuring a high level of compliance with both legislation and best practice guidance from all relevant bodies.

Open-minded
Unlike the charitable trust schools and non-maintained special schools, which have their charitable objectives, proprietorial schools often cannot be as selective in their admissions process. With very few exceptions, many cannot afford to be academically or overtly pastorally selective. They must be able to cater for a diverse range of abilities and needs. This requires dedicated, skilled staff, small class sizes and an individual approach to learning and care.

Unlike with governing bodies, proprietors can make quick decisions, though they will not necessarily miss out on the advantages of governing bodies through the use of advisory boards.

The Ofsted 163 (now 162A) inspection process effective from January 2003 brought the non-association schools into an arena which, although it came under different legislation, is similar in many ways to the process the maintained sector has been subject to for some time. What needs to be noted is that for many proprietorial schools this was the first time they had this style of inspection.

Closer look
An analysis of all published proprietorial schools’ Ofsted 163, now 162A, inspections since their introduction shows that:
• the impact of the Education Act 2003, with the introduction of Section 163 inspection on all non-association schools (both proprietorial and charitable) came as a nasty shock for some providers;
• while some schools had the opportunity to celebrate the success of all that they do confirmed through strong Ofsted reports, others found the process difficult to manage and the outcomes worrying;
• for those schools, which in this first round of the Ofsted 163 and 162A inspections, the outcomes meant that they had much to do to be compliant;
• there are schools where the Ofsted 163 report did not give comfort to the proprietors or reassurance to the parents; and
• other schools excelled in the inspection process and the outcome for them has strengthened their marketing strategies.
A particular strength of most proprietorial schools is that their owners are able to react quickly to circumstances.

The outcome of this first round of inspections meant for some owners that:
• they have built on the success of the inspection reports;
• where the inspection report gave rise to concern, they quickly remediated the situation; and
• those that had been successful in the first round of inspections have become even stronger, and this has been reflected in the second round of Ofsted reports of their schools. However, some proprietors after the first round of inspections took the opportunity to either sell the business while others have closed the school following an exodus of parents after a poor report.

Equal consideration
Although most proprietors are now well prepared to meet the needs of Ofsted along with all other aspects of compliance, the structured interviews in the research have given rise to some warning bells. There are still schools that need to take on board the implications of the Equality Act 2010 and all that this entails.

There are others that have ill-advisedly ignored the wording of policies and procedures, particularly with such matters as the single central record/centralised register and policies associated with safeguarding children, the curriculum and employment.

For those proprietors who have experienced a second round of inspections, the vast majority of schools that had previously experienced failings had improved and resolved any issues.

However, education policy and practice is always changing, with the goalposts continually shifting. When it comes to compliance, nothing stands still for long.

From recent structured interviews with proprietors and schools, it is clear that an over-reliance on previous inspection reports cannot be a predictor for future inspection outcomes. There appears to be a mood within inspecting bodies and from some inspectors that a school’s ability to achieve Good or Outstanding/Excellent is now tougher than ever.

Be compliant
Some changes required by Government are clear, others are more subtle. Even so, compliance is the name of the game. This especially applies to such areas as the single central record/centralised register and the wording of policies, especially those concerning the EYFS, safeguarding including safer recruitment, curriculum and H&S, including educational visits and offsite activities.

Care needs to be taken by proprietorial schools that they do not become complacent through a lack of compliance and best practice. This would place them in a vulnerable situation where they could face limiting judgements.

To date, the research has identified that a minority of the key players in proprietorial schools are taking the view to remain in their comfort zone since they are independent and this legislation or practice does not apply to them. This is a foolhardy approach. What needs to be remembered is that today’s best practice often becomes tomorrow’s statutory requirement. Equally, it is sensible to keep an eye on what the maintained sector is required to do because tomorrow it could have an impact on the independent and certainly the proprietorial sector.

Take notice
The impact of the Equality Act 2010 has not yet been taken on board by some proprietorial schools and their working practices do not reflect the intentions of the Act. The Equality Act, along with the majority of its provisions, came into effect from 1 October 2010, with some provisions introduced from April 2011. This Act is a major piece of legislation, which is designed to bring coherence to the current discrimination laws. There is a need for some proprietorial schools to ensure that their policies and recruitment practices are fully compliant with the changes and to comply with further sections of the Equality Act as it becomes implemented.

Above all, the findings to date show that those proprietors who make a profit do so as an outcome of:
• running a tight financial ship with their own terms and conditions of service;
• using the whole of the campus to best advantage throughout the calendar year and often around
the clock;
• having a clear work ethic of professional practice;
• combining tightly focused activities with an enterprising vision;
• having a can-do, will-do culture in the staffroom;
• not having any prima donnas, especially within the SLT;
• understanding and exploiting the fact that competitors in both the maintained and independent sectors provide an incentive to maximise on increasing the business, with all working members of the business understanding this;
• tight purchasing processes, and effective use of time by all who are in a position to influence this;
• valuing people and getting the best from them;
• realising that financial success is integral to the pedagogical motives and long-term business motives but also accepting this with caution;
• realising, accepting and implementing a culture where the quality of education and care is more dependent on people than facilities; and
• being committed to the view that the quality of teaching, learning and care drives the profits and success of a proprietorial school.

In short, long-term investment with secure short-term cashflows being linked to high quality outcomes; excellence in people working in the business and running a tight financial ship. This is the recipe for profit, with the pedagogical motive being a hallmark of this approach.

With the advent of ISI now delivering inspections on behalf of Ofsted, it would not be surprising to find that some association schools have experienced the same frustration, concerns and stress, similar to that of the non-association schools in their first round of the Ofsted 163 or 162A inspections.

The Green Paper “Support and Aspiration: a new approach to special educational needs and disability” has a period of consultation. Some local authorities, in addition to non-maintained special schools also use both proprietorial and charitable trust schools for hard-to-place children. Because there are many independent schools that make excellent provision for children with special educational needs, it would be prudent for proprietors to submit responses to this consultation paper to ensure that their views are considered. This is especially relevant not only because a minority of proprietorial schools receive monies from the public purse for children placed in them by local authorities, but because nearly all of them have experience of children with special needs.

Own association?
In the course of the research, it was interesting to discover that of the 1,046 proprietorial schools in England (as at the 2010 school census), only 189 are members of one of the ISC’s member associations. This leaves 857 without a representing association. Proprietors face unique pressures which other independent schools do not. There is rarely a financial buffer zone for proprietorial schools. They do not have the financial backing of a trust, conference, organisation, consortium or religious order that is able to provide financial assistance in a tough economic climate. While the ownership of some proprietorial schools is vested in strong commercial institutions or a provider of private sector higher education, the vast majority are either stand-alone schools or members of small groups.

It would be prudent, therefore, for proprietorial schools to form their own association to provide professional support catered to their needs. This would help proprietors keep up-to-date with the constantly shifting regulatory climate.

Bill Brown and Jake Anders are, respectively, chairman and lead researcher at The Education Partnership (www.theeducationpartnership.org.uk). Matthew Adshead is the proprietor and head of The Old Vicarage School. If you are a proprietor and would like to become involved in this research, contact the EDP. In taking part in a structured conversation, the company will provide a one-day free of charge compliance audit. 

Return to Governance