OPTION 3

1. This option involves the creation of two schools, one serving Wantage, and one Grove. In the following costings, it is assumed that each will have a Sixth Form of circa. 200, though it would be hoped the two schools would collaborate closely at that level, rather on a model which has worked successfully in Didcot for many years.
2. With this option, a new 11-18 school would be built in Grove, whereas in Wantage the present Centre school site (plus the addition of the adjacent Infants’ School) would become the Wantage 11-18 school. The present East and West sites would be surplus to requirements.
3. The net cost of this option is estimated as £15,084,000.
4. A project such as this would carry high educational transitional risk (see below), but medium construction risk.

Although there are many who strongly advocate this option, it is probably the most complex of the four to implement. Upon completion of any new school in Grove, it would not be possible, or legal, to transfer pupils from King Alfred’s to that new school, without parental consent. The problem which ensues, therefore, is one of subsidising the development in Grove of the new school whilst at the same time supporting King Alfred’s as it contracts. This contraction might well involve some reorganisation of the site structure within the transitional period. It may become necessary to keep all sites in operation (3 existing, plus new) for some considerable time.

One way of reducing educational transitional problems would be to place the new school under the same management/Governing Body as King Alfred’s. The actual siting of classes/children would then be a matter for the Head, rather than parental choice. A coherent plan could so reduce the period during which all premises may still be required. At a later date – say 2010/12 – the schools could split into separate legal entities. Even then, there may be scope within the 2002 Act’s Federation paragraphs to explore (though as yet DfES thinking in these is not clear). For example, it may be possible to run two legally separate schools with a single Head, and with either one or two Governing Bodies.

Another possible way around this transition might – at least in theory – be to legally close King Alfred’s College as the new school neared completion. All families would then need to express a preference for one of the successor schools (new in Grove, or legally "new" King Alfred’s). There would, or course, be problems in this route also, e.g. staff insecurity etc.

The requirement of the recent Education Act obliges LEAs to advertise the pending creation of a new secondary school, and seek interest from groups wishing to run it. The LEA and SOC, under these clauses, cannot determine who should run the school: all local opinion representatives can do is offer a view to the DfES (the Secretary of State determines the matter). The interest of the Church of England in a new Grove school is well known. Whether that Church, or any other church or organization, actually emerged as the new school "controller" cannot be pre-judged.

In revenue terms, this option would avoid the need for a split site allowance (in common with Option 2), but as there would be two separate schools, and so an additional set of fixed costs under the fair funding formula would be required. Present secondary school fixed costs are £185,000 p.a. and the King Alfred’s split site supplement is £210,000 p.a.

Opinions will clearly vary over the educational wisdom of this particular option. To some, the caveats within the NFER performance analysis will be temporarily forgotten, as enthusiasm carries forward the vision. For others, the transitional problems would be uppermost in mind. Some would argue that two schools of approximately the same size, effectively in competition with one another, would be a good way of driving up standards: to others such competition would be seen as a wasteful diversion of energy, and potentially counter-productive. Those who do advocate the competitive theory will need to consider whether the odds would be stacked against the contracting King Alfred’s School (it would remain in comparatively poor, albeit refurbished, accommodation), c.f. the brand new facilities available in Grove.

Return to TOP