ISV Membership Fee Model

The membership model that determines how schools are charged has not changed for well over 25 years. Meanwhile, the size of Member Schools and the nature of the Independent school sector has evolved.

The growth in the sector means that the current membership model that allowed a fair and even distribution of membership charges is no longer equitable. Large schools are now subsidising other members by an increase of almost 20 per cent. These schools (above 700 students) contribute 82 per cent of ISV’s membership charges, an increase from 65 per cent in 2000.

The share of membership charges contributed by small schools (less than 500 students) has decreased from 20 per cent in 2000, to 10 per cent in 2024. For medium schools (between 500 – 700 students) the proportion of membership charges has declined from 13 per cent in 2000 to 8 per cent in 2024.

As part of the survey and focus groups that were conducted earlier this year, many members told us they were increasingly dissatisfied with the current model and that it was that it was not reflective of their member engagement or experience with ISV.

The new model seeks to better balance the contribution of members toward ISV’s advocacy and service delivery to ensure that all schools continue to receive value for money.

As schools grow, they engage with ISV differently. Smaller schools rely heavily on ISV to provide advice and services on key issues such as risk, compliance and employment relations law where specific expertise is often required. Large schools often have many of these services ‘in house’.

All our members rely on ISV to advocate to stakeholders that influence funding and support and represent the interests and needs of Independent schools at a range of government, regulatory and academic organisations. A key value to all our schools is the power of belonging and the weight of numbers to represent what’s important to Independent schools.

The model was developed through external research into how associations charge for membership fees.

The research drew upon academic and other literature to uncover current thinking and good practice concerning how associations collect membership fees.

The research also incorporated a comparative analysis of 80 associations across similar industries to education, including health services, finance, medicine and higher education. This comparative analysis also explored the membership structure of various Independent School Associations in Australia and overseas.

Upon completion of this research, potential models were assessed for their appropriateness for ISV.  The ISV Board then engaged with management to interrogate the implications of the choice for all our Member Schools, with the aim of achieving a transparent and equitable model that better reflected our diverse membership.

Yes, several alternative models were explored during this process. Alternative approaches considered were:

• A tiered approach using staff FTE based on quintiles and deciles.
• A tiered approach using recurrent income based on quintiles and deciles.
• A tiered approach using student fees based on quintiles and deciles.
• A flat fee for a membership levy and sliding scale for service fees.
• A sliding scale based on the number of principals, teachers and general staff in the school.

There are three main reasons that the proposed approach was chosen over the other potential models:

1. The proposed model mirrors how our members engage with ISV, noting that smaller schools use core services more and are charged in relation to their service usage, while all schools need advocacy and the organisation’s representation across government and academic stakeholders.
2. Member schools are supported to grow. As they increase their internal staff, the service charge reduces in turn.
3. The model addresses the feedback of schools throughout the member survey and subsequent focus groups.

Yes, many associations use a per student sliding scale in conjunction with a tiered approach or an administration fee.

For example, the USA’s National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) offer a per student fee that is set differently across four tiers, with each tier assigned to different membership benefits. In Australia, the Association of Independent Schools in the ACT, South Australia and the Northern Territory all have tiers based on the school type that sit alongside a per student cost.

The model of a sliding scale based on a per student fee was often used in conjunction with an additional levy for administration fees. For example, the Independent Schools Association in the UK, uses a sliding scale based on a per student cost, plus an annual subscription fee.

The only associations of Independent schools we reviewed exclusively using a sliding scale based on a student number model are in Australia.

While ISV’s current model is common for Australian associations of Independent schools, it is not common across other sectors.

No, they are not the same thing. Access to services are not the only benefits of membership to ISV. A key motivating principle for many schools to join ISV is the idea that families should be able to choose an education that best fits their values and the needs of their child. ISV fulfils this need by championing Independent schools and their interests and through advocacy, representation to statutory bodies, government departments and other associations, in communication, and advice.

Principals, leaders, teachers, professional staff, students and parents all benefit from the political advocacy, the shaping of policy decisions through liaising with departmental staff and stakeholders from statutory bodies, advice in a time of crisis and the timely delivery of critical information.

Membership to ISV offers several other intangible benefits, such as dedication to a cause, belonging to a community and connection with like minds.  This is what the membership levy is designed to cover.

The service fee is associated with the activities that ISV delivers to all schools to support Member Schools to be the best they can be. The stronger its members, the stronger the association’s voice and ability to advocate and influence policy.

Core services essential to all schools such as school advisory services, funding advice, employment relations services and compliance support are all essential to maintaining the strength of the sector.

This is what is covered under the service fee.

Your school’s membership fee is made up of a membership levy and service fee, and also includes a per student contribution to Independent Schools Australia (ISA).

The membership levy includes:

• Accreditation (e.g. Highly Accomplished Lead Teachers)
• Political advocacy to government, both state and federal
• Policy advocacy to state and federal governmental departments
• Procurement services
• Representation to statutory bodies and other groups relevant to the sector.

Core services included under the service fee are:

• Compliance assistance
• Employment relations assistance
• Funding advice
• Governance training and support
• Member communications
• Media enquiry advice
• Some benchmarking research
• School advisory services
• School improvement services
• Access to the isEducation suite.

ISV intends to grow its services in the coming year to reflect the needs of our members and we will continue talking to you about this to ensure we reflect your priorities.

There are some items that remain fee for service, including:

• Professional learning courses
• Leadership development courses
• LEAD School Effectiveness Surveys
• In school consulting.

We will be reviewing our reasons for charging for services in the coming year as we seek to strengthen our value proposition.

The proposed model is based on distributing schools into six groups based on the size of their enrolments. This is a statistical process. It is not arbitrary.

The statistical process to determine the six groups will be completed anew each year. Once the groups are determined based on the current year enrolments, your charge will be calculated based on the prices set for each group around the membership levy and the service fee.

This is to stop bracket creep and ensure the model remains relevant to the size of the sector.

We anticipate that, as the first year of the model is implemented, there may be some smoothing and adjustments made as we approach fees for 2026. Your feedback on the model will be important as we reflect on the model after year one.

The new model operates differently from the current membership fee model. Each school’s fees will be calculated based on their enrolments and will reflect as far as possible their engagement with ISV.

In the first year of the model, some schools will see a percentage increase in their fees, while others will see a decrease.

As the new model continues to operate, each year a statistical process will take place which determines the six groups. Once the groups are decided based on the current year enrolments, the total membership charge will be calculated based on the prices set for each group. The value of the membership levy and service fee will be calculated each year.

There is no cap on fees, but this new model takes account of the fact that as schools grow, they are often likely to establish in house versions of some of the ISV services. Accordingly, their per student service levy will decline as enrolments grow.