Return to Agenda

ITEM EX8

EXECUTIVE – 6 FEBRUARY 2002

KING ALFRED’S COMMUNITY AND SPORTS COLLEGE, WANTAGE

Report by the Acting Chief Education Officer,
County Treasurer and Director of Environmental Services

 

Background

  1. In March 2001 the former Education Committee received a report concerning King Alfred’s Community and Sports College, Wantage. That report outlined the history of the present structure of the school, some of the perceived operating difficulties inherent in that structure, local trends which might affect numbers in the area and outlined future possibilities. A copy of the report has been placed, for reference, in the Members’ Resource Centre. The Committee recognised that the current three sites presented difficulties for the efficient management of the school, and noted that rationalisation was desirable. The Committee asked that feasibility work be undertaken on two broad options:

    1. creating two 11 – 16 schools, with a joint sixth form, or

    2. consolidating all secondary education in the area on a single site.

    Possible options are identified in the Annex to this report.

    Issues

  2. The three present sites are as follows:

    3. East Site

    The retention of this site does not appear in any of the options listed in the Annex, principally because of the very limited scope for accommodating extra pupils. A free-standing school, or "hall" of a larger school, of 4 f.e. (11 – 16) may be possible to house, but this would be at the lower end of viability. Investment would be needed: the present arrangements cannot deliver Key Stage 4 Science, for example.

    Centre Site

    The built area of this site is severely constrained, making substantial growth difficult to achieve. However, that built area adjoins Wantage CE Infants School, soon to be surplus to requirements [see Annex, 2 (iii)]. There is ample land (playing field space), but it is most unlikely development permission would be obtained to expand teaching accommodation on this. In curriculum terms, there is no Design and Technology space available on this site.

    West Site

    The difficulty here is the proximity of the school to the Challow Gap – see Annex, 1(b). Significant expansion of buildings to accommodate additional pupils would be possible if permission were forthcoming to locate additional teaching rooms on current recreation space, and for that recreation space to be re-provided on land currently with the Challow Gap. The site, like East site, has no Key Stage 4 Science facility.

  3. In terms of performance, headline results at GCSE are above the county average (e.g. 54.2% of the 2001 Year 11 cohort achieved 5+ grade A* – C, c.f. a county average of 49.7%), though using a three year moving average, the picture is less comforting (50.7% in King Alfred’s c.f. 49.3% across the county). Moreover, whereas the moving average has, across the county, risen from 40.6% to 49.6% over a decade, the King Alfred’s moving average has shown little change (50.0% to 50.7%).

  4. There has been no coherent test of local opinion. This is important as a development on a single site as envisaged by the college governing body would be controversial. To some it would represent opportunities, whilst others may react with hostility to the suggestion of a single site school with so many children. Any test of opinion should necessarily be preceded by information and debate. Thus, whilst to a degree the governors’ vision has received publicity locally, this is not really true of the "two school" models. There could well be resistance from the residents of Wantage to a proposal for a brand new school in Grove and the consequent down-sizing of the present King Alfred’s site into what many may see as relatively dilapidated buildings.

  5. There is still lack of clarity over future pupil numbers. The previous report indicated that forecasts based on existing known variables are broadly flat: there was no marked expansion or decline envisaged within existing planning policies or demographic patterns. In August 2001, the Vale of White Horse District Council Planning and Development Committee decided to concentrate development up to 2011 in five main settlements: Abingdon, Botley, Faringdon, Wantage, Grove. Wantage and Grove are the second and third largest settlements, and so clearly have a role to play in taking additional houses. Expansion is inevitable, but the scale of the expansion is not known. The extent of this development area will be an issue raised in the review of the Vale of White Horse’s local plan. This could take several years to resolve. The Vale of White Horse has, it is understood, sought advice from consultants on the infrastructure requirements, and funding implications, of various sizes of housing development at Grove. The consultants have, inter alia, been asked to report on the level of funding for infrastructure that could reasonably be sought in developments of up to 1500 homes up to the year 2011, on the former airfield site. The development of 1500 homes could produce c. 400 additional secondary aged children, producing a secondary population rising to 2300. A development of this size is a medium possibility. In planning for secondary education, there are two aspects: the first is what will be the need for secondary education in the Wantage/Grove area in the future, taking in account the likely growth in housing, and the second is to look at the options for providing that education. Some may consider it premature to come to any conclusion about the organisation of secondary education before the scale and location of further housing has been determined. The issue is flexibility in the future: It would be unwise to plan now for a reorganised school structure unless that new structure was sufficiently flexible to accommodate growth after 2011. Such growth is probable unless the Structure Plan review proposes radically different approaches (e.g. new towns).

  6. Having expressed caution over future planning, given the numbers variable, the LEA and college should not be lulled into inaction, waiting for all variables to be controlled. It is the college view that the present structure has a negative impact on educational outcomes. Whilst this hypothesis is difficult either to prove or refute, nevertheless it would be safe to accept that present arrangements do not positively assist the standards agenda. The degree of inter-site travel is inefficient for both staff and students, and many students experience a lack of "belonging" to any particular base.

  7. A further general point concerns the County’s Asset Management Plan (AMP), or capital investment strategy. Members will be aware that this is an attempt to assess the needs of schools in terms of suitability (i.e. are the teaching spaces in use really suitable for the task they are asked to house?), condition (state of repair etc), and sufficiency (is there enough capacity?). If Oxfordshire secondary schools are ranked, albeit an inexact science, by reference to these criteria, then it has to be said that there are many (about half of the secondary schools in the county) which would be more deserving of investment than King Alfred’s Community and Sports College. However, a significant weakness of the AMP is that it does not make allowance for the location of the classrooms, i.e. in the case of King Alfred’s, the fact that the buildings are on three sites, some distance apart.

  8. Funding is a key issue. The AMP is likely to increase in importance as a vehicle for prioritising expenditure. Given King Alfred’s ranking, it seems unlikely that sufficient funding could be generated through this route. The Annual Capital Guidelines (ACG) is the principal vehicle for DfES support for new infrastructure: it is not thought that any ACG generated locally through increased housing stock would contribute significantly towards the governors’ target organisation (for costings, see Annex). Similarly, there is little realistic scope locally for the generation of credit to remove any surplus places.

  9. The March report referred to the possibility of sponsorship. Approaches have been made, but without benefit. The headline reaction is that capital investment support on such a scale is not realistic, but sponsorship may help in equipping any new school to a higher specification than the norm.

  10. Through Section 106 agreements, developers can agree to support infrastructure developments necessitated by housing expansion. These agreements can secure developer contributions for the direct infrastructure consequences of expansion (e.g. additional classrooms) and possibly also land. The extent to which such contributions might contribute to a major infrastructure overhaul/revision in the area (i.e. reconfiguration of the site structure of the school) is less clear. Consequently, no land costs have been included in the new school options, on whatever location.

  11. If the above propositions are broadly accepted, and a major revision of the site structure of the college is thought to be inevitable, then it may be that the vehicle to explore is the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or some form of Public Private Partnership. This would be breaking new ground for the Council (though there are examples elsewhere in the country from which to learn). Whilst PFI projects may appear attractive (they can, for example, permit access to around £100m for development across a range of sites), a great deal of thought would need to be given to how any such proposal was framed. One potential difficulty in securing funding for Wantage through this mechanism could be the DfES prioritisation criteria. In summary, these are as follows:

    1. Priority need (sufficiency, condition, and suitability): see comments on AMP in this context;

    2. The extent to which proposals address wider DfES priorities (e.g. links with action zones, support for failing schools, tackling social exclusion, support for Lifelong Learning and the expansion of early years provision);

      3. (The governors’ vision in part stresses the "learning village" concept, i.e. harnessing modern communications to the benefit of a wide rural (and in part disadvantaged) population.)

    3. The extent to which proposals address wider government priorities, including social and environmental issues;

    4. The extent to which proposals contribute to the development of PFI.

  1. The Committee asked that the position on Church of England involvement also be explored. A requirement within the Education Bill currently before parliament is that where the creation of any new secondary school is contemplated (in this instance, in Grove) it should be open to interested parties to express an interest in building and running the school. There is a presumption that the LEA would be obliged to provide the site. If enacted, this clause would mean that the Church of England, or indeed the Roman Catholic church/free churches/private groups could express an interest in developing a new school, the actual determination being made by the Secretary of State. Within existing legislation, there is provision for a community school to become a church (Voluntary) school. The legal process involves the formal closure of the present school, and the opening of a new one. The LEA has a real responsibility towards the Church of England, arising from the City reorganisation and the reduction of CE places therein (proportionality). It is regretted that the Bill currently before Parliament may reduce the abilities of the LEA to honour commitments.

    2. Conclusions

  2. The earlier paper suggested that one option may be to agree the establishment of an informal member/officer working group with the College to explore the issues surrounding accommodation, use and development in this school. What is clear is that there is no "cheap" solution to the current operational difficulties of the school. The principal options presented in this paper, exclusive of land acquisition costs, could well involve net expenditure in the region of £15m - £20m, and, as has been pointed out, it is not easy to identify any ready funding stream for this level of expenditure. PFI may be a way forward, but that begs the issue of capital resource prioritisation across the Council as a whole. The Capital Programme/Asset Management Officer Group is considering which schemes in the Capital Programme Preparation Pool might be appropriate for PFI and will report to the Executive in March. The King Alfred’s consolidation will be one of the schemes considered.

  3. It might be anticipated that questions of the following nature may arise:

        1. Is there any scope locally for a "Lord Williams’s" solution, i.e. a two site school, split Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4/sixth form (lower and upper school)? On numbers assumed in the Annex, this would suggest a lower school of 1170, and an upper of 1180. This would be feasible if the infant school site were acquired, and if permissions for West development were secured. Costs may be similar to Option (iii).

        2. Is it feasible to take additional numbers within the present structure, and to reduce pupil migration? It would be possible to expand the Centre site (by purchasing the Infants School), and also the West site (subject to planning permission). The problem remains the East site, where insufficient scope exists to remove pupil migration within existing curriculum arrangements (Key Stage 4 Science cannot be taught), and the very limited scope for expansion of premises.

        3. Is it feasible to do nothing? Doing nothing may be feasible on current numbers and with current shortcomings, but the growth anticipated, though not yet confirmed, may compromise this as a possibility (see paragraph on "pupil numbers" above).

    Financial Implications

  4. Capital financial implications are as reported in the Annex. Site acquisition costs are not included at this stage.

    5. Staff Implications

  5. Option (i) (Annex) would be the most cost effective in revenue terms, with fewer staff required c.f. the duplicated management structures implied in other Options.

    6. Environmental Implications

  6. The three principal options explored would each be environmentally advantageous in that they would reduce/eliminate present inter site student travel, and reduce staff travel. The effects on home-school journeys would depend on the option selected.

    7. RECOMMENDATION

  7. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to consider which options to research further, and to determine the timing of the research in the light of the report to the Executive on PFI in relation to the capital programme.

 

ROY SMITH
Acting Chief Education Officer

CHRIS GRAY
County Treasurer

DAVID YOUNG
Director of Environmental Services

Background paper: Nil

Contact Officer: Robert Capstick, Principal Education Officer. (Tel: 01865 815155)

February 2001

 

Return to TOP