Dame Alice Owen's School - sibling policy?

My DS won an Arkwright Scholarship , his sponsor was the Worshipful Company of Founders.

www.smallpeicetrust.org.uk/arkwright-engineering-scholarships/#:~:text=The%20Arkwright%20Engineering%20Scholarship%20programme,the%20two%20year%20scholarship%20programme.

Thank you, I wonder how much it generates PA (?) I wonder if other legacies effectively last as long. Did the other Worshipful Cos also provide funding for schools etc (?) Will look up.

She was married to a wealthy brewer but asked the company to continually effectively provide. How amazing after all these years still honoured.

Foundation accounts are here:

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/312703/accounts-and-annual-returns?ukgovccewoneregcharitydetailswebportletCharityDetailsPortletorganisationNumber=312703

looks like they have just over £100m of assets. The governing document sets out what proportion of income goes to “the Potters Bar school”

ETA because the objectives are defined by this document, DAO school couldn’t just “wean itself off” the donations, as proposed in the OP’s essay.

Ah, I see, so her money/wealth effectively was the foundation which she inherited from her husband (?) Wise/fortunate investment means it lasted.

Hmmm, I don’t think she asked the Brewers to endlessly provide - if the foundation bought land in Islington around the time of her life/death, it would probably continue to be very asset-rich. The Brewers are the Trustees, not the provider of monies.

Thank you, I wonder how much it generates PA (?) I wonder if other legacies effectively last as long. Did the other Worshipful Cos also provide funding for schools etc (?) Will look up.

She was married to a wealthy brewer but asked the company to continually effectively provide. How amazing after all these years still honoured.

The foundation owns a retail/residential centre, for one - I assume the £1.5m is from rents and dividends on investments

www.brewershall.co.uk/charity-education/dame-alice-owen-foundation

Out of interest how much is in this fund? Was it all from a DAO legacy?

Were you in the debating society at uni, OP?

I honestly see no point in indulging in blue sky thinking of your nature.

It is not allowed under the Admissions Code for DAO to have 50% selective places.

The Brewers’ Company (who administer the DAO foundation) cannot be made to set up a new school. Also, with £1.5m a year of grants made - some of which goes to broader school programmes such as music or theatre, and not just to DAO school - there isn’t enough money to fund the building of a new school. And my understanding of the Admissions Code is that any such new school (or existing Islington school that was given the money, perhaps) could not introduce selective entrance other than the “usual” 10% for music/language aptitude etc etc.

If I may, I'd like to offer a "blue sky" proposal. This is a view from within a vacuum, with the benefits and limitations as such. I acknowledge it may not be realistic under current legal constraints, but as DAO has existed for centuries, I don't think some broader thinking beyond our lifetimes would go amiss. This is just some food for thought. It is meant to be considered in its entirety as a single meal. All are welcome to chew on it or spit it out as they please.

1. Wean off the DAO foundation money. The current school as we know it in Potters Bar is a migratory outcome of land use in Islington. And it would not be what it is today without the cash influx from this inner London pipeline. But there comes a point where we need to ask if this is like pouring more sugar into an already sweetened cup of tea. It is still a state funded school, it is not going to starve.

At this point in its history, I think a better use of the foundation money is to make another DAO school. Replicate somewhere else what has been done in Potters Bar. Regardless of whether people agree with the notion of a partially selective school, one cannot deny that there is a demand for it. If it took about 40 years to make the school at Potters Bar into what it is today, why not sprinkle that fairy dust in 40 year cycles to make more DAO schools in the future?

2. Remove the sibling policy. This is a very competitive school to get into. In light of this, a sibling policy is akin to a privileged back door. I think we mentally transfer this idea as an automatic entitlement which comes from a comp bias. But DAO is no comp. If the sibling policy were to be removed, (perhaps not immediately but phased sometime in the future,) I suspect this would still remain a heavily oversubscribed school.

Knowing what the rules are, parents would act in accordance. Test-based families who are still keen would get all their DCs to take the tests. Distance-based families, of which there would be more than currently, would form a spectral range depending on how far from the school they are. Those very close to the school may feel relatively "safe" for younger DCs. Those further away may have to take a view on whether it is worth risking it. If it is essential for all their DCs to attend the same secondary, then don't apply here - go to a normal comp.

If this all seems ruthless, I would say it is not much more than what it already is for first time DCs. The main difference is that it does not reward subsequent complacency.

3. 50/50 test/non-test places. I hang on to the (perhaps fanciful) notion that an ideal split for a partially selective school should be evenly divided between those who got in via test and non-test. I like the "healthy deadlock" principle of neither side being able to be a majority on their own.

There will be those of you who think of this as a naked attempt to officially establish more selective spaces than currently. I wouldn't say this is untrue. But I would also urge you to read the previous posts on this thread to understand what the demographic breakdown of the school actually is - a majority of kids from test-based "selective families". A removal of the sibling rule and a capping of test places at 50% would in fact be a reduction in the number of kids from "selective families" compared to what it is today. And it would do so cleanly and openly.

4. Remove the Islington minimum quota. Even if many of those highly-prepped kids from Islington would've gotten in anyway, this is a blatant preference system that nonetheless rankles. If the school could do the above (- detach itself from the foundation money, remove sibling places, and create a 50:50 split,) there shouldn't be a need to have a separate Islington admissions list. For historic reasons, Islington could be kept in the catchment to take the tests, but simply put on the same level playing field as the other catchment areas. They shouldn't need to get any special treatment above this.

When the school at Potters Bar can fully cut its umbilical cord to the DAO foundation money, it could rename itself something like "Potters Bar Academy (a former DAO school)" or similar. The next DAO-school-in-progress could then don the magic Dame Alice Owen name as it receives the foundation money to help build it up. I would hope such a passing of the baton would act as an antidote to resting on the laurels of the success of the prior.

Could the Govt abolish all the selectivity & send it back to being a regular Comp in theory?

Re Islington - surely The Governors maintain 2 exam result lists in rank order, one for Islington, and the second for all Local Priority Areas. This ensures that a minimum of 20 places overall are allocated to Islington children each year.

The number of kids applying from Islington would be far less than all the Local Priority Areas combined (it's one London postcode versus a pretty huge area) - so it would be easier, I think?