Return to Agenda

ITEM EX7

EXECUTIVE – 5 FEBRUARY 2003

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN WANTAGE AND GROVE AREA

Report by Acting Chief Education Officer, Director of Business Support & County Treasurer, and Director of Environmental Services

1. Members have considered two previous reports concerning the organisation of King Alfred’s College, Wantage. Copies of these reports (20 March 2001; 6 February 2002) have been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre for reference.
2. The present report picks up research issues identified at the February 2002 meeting, which asked that officers should undertake a review of the current problems in the operating of the three-site school structure; should look into PFI as a funding source, should review research into the effect of secondary school size on performance; and should undertake further exploratory work on options costings.

Report Construction

3. An Appendix to this covering report tables the options in skeletal form. The bulk of the information presented in this new report is contained within the subsequent Annexes. The information and analysis from the previous reports is not repeated here. The Annexes are as follows:

Annex 1. The Vale of White Horse Local Plan, plus Resolution of the Wantage, Grove and District Area Committee.

Annex 2. The operational problems of the present College structure.

Annex 3. Information on the relationship between school size and educational performance.

Annex 4.The assumptions which lay behind the Options Study.

Annex 5. Property appraisal.

Annex 6. The development options, and a note on costings.

Annex 7. Summary of Option 1(re-modelling existing building stock to provide two 11-16 units, with a separate Sixth Form).

Annex 8. Summary of Option 2: the new school option (favoured by the Governing Body).

Annex 9. Summary of Option 3, i.e. creation of two schools, one serving Wantage, and one Grove.

Annex 10. Summary of Option 4, i.e. creation of a "lower", and "upper" school model, on the lines of the structure of Lord Williams’s School, Thame.

Annex 11. Risk assessment of the four options.

Financial Overview

4. The position of King Alfred’s College poses a real problem. As will be seen in Annexes 7-10, each of the options for alleviating the inherited difficulties comes with a substantial price tag, yet to do nothing might be regarded by many as educationally unsound. For comparative purposes, the costs have been drawn up on traditional procurement methods: PFI costs may be more – or less. It is most likely they would be more, as the trend within PFI is to enhance initial capital provision as a means by which liabilities over the following 25 years can be reduced. If the LEA makes a PFI bid and receives PFI credits, there will be subsequent revenue costs after the project is complete. In present circumstances, the only realistic way of funding significant development in King Alfred’s would be through PFI: there are no other routes available which would provide significant sources of finance. The City reorganisation was supported by DfES through ACG/grant, but increasingly DfES see PFI as the source of funding for major schemes. PFI credits are awarded through an annual bidding round – the Autumn of each year. Subject to the approval of both the Executive and the Governing Body, it would be feasible to prepare a submission for King Alfred’s during the Autumn of 2003, though at this stage it is not possible to say how likely such a submission would be in terms of success (the DfES alters its criteria from year to year: we would not know until August/September 2003 whether the Autumn bidding round was likely to be against criteria which would help King Alfred’s score highly).
5. Developer contributions may play a significant part in calculating the net cost of the options examined. These contributions are considered much more likely in respect of Options 2 and 3 (i.e. where a Grove campus is involved), than 1 or 4 (which continue Wantage based multi-site operations).

Some Basic Questions

6. Are there any options which could be removed at this stage?

There is, perhaps, an argument to be made for removing Option 1 at this stage. The net cost £12,639,000 is a huge investment to make in a structure which would still be on three sites, and would have restricted flexibility to take future growth. Similarly, the £25,033,000 net cost of Option 4 would be hard to justify, only to maintain split site operation.

7. Is there a proven connection between the school structure, and educational performance?

It is all but impossible to prove a direct connection between structure and performance. What we can say, however, is that the present structure contains basic inefficiencies (the need for pupils and staff to commute), and arrangements do not provide adequate support for the less well motivated. Whilst the odds would be in favour of a rationalised site being more conducive to strong performance, this connection cannot be proved.

8. Is it likely that developments in Didcot will have much impact on Wantage?

Expansion of Didcot means it is necessary to build a new secondary school (Members will be aware of the PFI submission for this project). Parents, particularly those living to the East of Wantage, might be attracted by developments in Didcot, though at this stage it is simply not possible to say whether the phasing of the new houses/school/pupil number rise in Didcot would leave much headroom for out of area children from Wantage. On a slightly longer term basis, it can be stated that the enhanced secondary provision in Didcot is not being designed in such a way that space would be made available for out of area numbers of any significance.

9. It is said that the Church has expressed an interest in any new school to be developed in Grove. Are there any factors here of relevance?

The Church of England (CE) has certainly, at the local level, expressed an interest in the Wantage debate, and in particular in the possibility of a secondary school being built in Grove. It needs to be remembered that any such development would come within the provisions of the 2002 Education Act which stipulate that whenever a new secondary school is planned, the development should be advertised and interested groups be given the opportunity to be considered as sponsors. Thus, however strong the resolve of the LEA, or CE, the reality is that any CE, RC, Free Churches, Baptists, private organisations etc. could express an interest in assuming the "controlling" role. If this were to happen, the LEA, and in turn School Organisation Committee could only offer comments on the prospective bidders, the actual decision being taken by the Secretary of State. Put simply, however strong local resolve was in favour of – say – a CE school, the actual decision would not be a local one.

10. Are there any other schools within the LEA which may lose out through any developments in Wantage?

As noted in Paragraph 3 above, PFI operates on an annual bidding round, with criteria used varying from year to year. At this stage, we simply do not know what the DfES criteria/priorities will be for the Autumn 2003 bidding cycle, and therefore we cannot say how well King Alfred’s may score within the criteria, or how well any other school scheme would score. There are a number of Oxfordshire secondary schools who, at face value, appear more needy in terms of Asset Management Plan criteria, but, as the February 2002 report pointed out, this is not a particularly helpful statement: whereas the Asset Management Plan will measure factors such as condition, suitability, and sufficiency, no criteria exists for operational inefficiency. Four existing and one new secondary school come within this year’s PFI "expression of interest" from the LEA. One school which is pressing its claim for re-build, but was not included this year, is Chiltern Edge School. As with King Alfred’s, we do not know at this stage how criteria and PFI scoring might suit the Chiltern Edge circumstances come the Autumn 2003 bidding cycle.

The Way Forward?

11. The desire of King Alfred’s Governing Body to see a relocation of secondary education onto a single site is well known. Though, as the February 2002 report notes (Para. 4), there has been no coherent LEA test of local opinion on these matters, there are strong indicators of polarised reaction to the Governing Body position. Members may wish to consider whether the time is now right for some systematic review of opinion. How this might be undertaken is, of course, a further debating point: open consultation does not necessarily produce a truly representative response, and it may be worth commissioning an independent polling organisation (MORI or similar) to carry out an independent survey of opinion. That said, any test of opinion is likely to be much more fruitful after a period during which the issues might be fairly debated locally.
12. The need for local debate is picked up by the Wantage, Grove and District Area Committee, who discussed these matters at their meeting on 9 January. A copy of their Resolution is attached as a part of Annex 1.
13. Perhaps the first question to be answered is

"Are there sufficient grounds (i.e. flaws in the current educational arrangements in the area) to merit consideration being given to restructuring options, all of which carry substantial costs?"

This is a difficult question to answer directly. There can be no doubt that the present structure of King Alfred’s College is operationally inefficient, and contains features which are not conducive to getting the best out of children (an obvious example is the fragmented pastoral structure of KS4 children, as they commute). Whether these problems are a direct cause of perceived underachievement is another matter: can it be proved, or disproved?

14. Looking ahead, the Vale of White Horse District Council housing plans are only likely to produce, perhaps, an additional 150 secondary aged pupils within the next decade. Additional pupils in these numbers could probably be catered for with improvements to the existing structure. This is not as simple as saying sufficient spare places exist now for the number envisaged: because of the complex structure of the school, those places are simply not in the correct location. The point is that were it not for the crucial issue of standards, and the effect of organisation on standards, those additional children could be accommodated within a slightly modified set of physical arrangements, rather than a quantum shift in those arrangements. However, that covers a 10 year planning period only: beyond that, additional pupils are likely to be generated from area developments which would warrant a root and branch reordering of local provision.
15. There is the theoretical option, of course, of doing nothing (or nearly nothing). To be more precise, this position, if adopted, would involve a close working relationship between the college and the LEA/consultants as appropriate, with a fundamental review of systems, organisations, and an application of techniques which might be used to get the best out of children. Many such techniques are already in use in the college, yet the "performance gap," particularly at KS4, remains. There is an element of risk: can the LEA risk pending any local restructure, given that children essentially only have one chance in schooling? The reality is that all available steps to improve performance with the present framework will need to be taken come what may, if only because of the timespan required to carry through any major reorganisation.
16. The following Annexes focus on four main options – the "leave it for a later day" option just mentioned is not considered further, though the fundamental question it raises cannot be lost.

RECOMMENDATION

17. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to consider the report, and to determine what further work they would like to see undertaken, and in what timeframe.