Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats

Grove Schooling

Call-in of Decision on Provision of Secondary Pupil Places in Wantage, Grove and Surrounding Villages

One of the main reasons for this call-in is to ascertain some important facts and reasoning behind the Cabinet's decision to choose the selected option for the Wantage and Grove community.

When I came to address the Cabinet as local member, it was clear to me that right from the outset the Cabinet had chosen to make this into a local political issue. TV cameras were in place and media coverage pre-arranged for two Conservative district councillors who came to the meeting and requested the Cabinet to go for Option C at the outset. Worse, I have been since quoted in the press for saying things I never said at that meeting - two of the councillors quoting me were not even in the room when I spoke. None of the issues I raised were dealt with or answered - indeed the officers present at the meeting did not even speak!

So, my first complaint is that proper and correct procedure was not followed at the Cabinet meeting and it was not conducted in the interests of the public. It was all stage-managed for political gain to be played out in the local community. It was apparent that local Conservative District Councillors had been briefed ahead of the meeting about the decision to be taken, but myself and Cllr. Moley as local members of this Council had no such briefing and indeed had problems gaining access to a preliminary copy of the report. This hardly inspires confidence if elected members of this Council are treated with such disdain!

However, the more serious issues are the reasons for the call-in and we must deal with these as listed:

• The views of local people as evidenced in an opinion poll have not been fully taken into account or listened to.

BMG Research was commissioned to undertake a survey across a cross-section of the community, but the favoured option has been ignored (see Submission 2). Based on initial preference, it was clear that Option A was the favourite, which would be for two schools of equal size, but it was decided to ignore this. The views of both Wantage Town Council and Grove Parish Council, both representing their communities, have also been ignored.

The sixth form implications are demonstrated to be an important factor and both options A and B are clearly favoured above C when this is taken into account. If the most popular Option A from the survey has not been chosen, there has to be sound educational reasons why Option C has been preferred instead, and these have not been stated. However, if you look at Submission 2, the issue of a sixth form had significant weight with the respondents. It is not at all clear that all reasonable sixth form options have been explored (no mention of joint sixth forms, collaborative sixth forms, etc) - see Submission 3.

• Educational aspects of the option chosen have not been taken into account.

There is some research available on school size and the impact of this on performance (e.g. Newman et al 2006, Spielhofer et al 2002, Bradley and Taylor 1998) which tend to favour medium-sized schools. This has apparently not been taken into account. We also have no information about how the new 14-19 academic and vocational agenda is to be delivered. This will soon be hugely important for pupils and this is not dealt with in the report, nor were my concerns addressed at the Cabinet meeting. If the school finishes at 16, pupils will be disrupted to have to transfer elsewhere. Also, if the school is not going to provide a seamless approach 14-19, surely it is essential that teachers from the Grove school are involved in the teaching and management of the sixth form wherever it is located? We have a number of examples elsewhere in the County of collaborative approaches (see Submission 3) to sixth form provision.

King Alfred's have also quoted in their own response to the consultation "Option C would not for example have its own Sixth Form with the consequent impact on attracting and retaining good teaching staff". Other teachers and residents have also raised this issue. Has this been taken into account when selecting an option without a sixth form?

On another related topic, we were informed that the Cabinet visited King Alfred's School on 15th May and in the words of the Leader "to view and discuss options for the future of schooling" in Wantage and Grove (web link). I was very surprised to discover from the King Alfred's June newsletter that the Cabinet did not actually visit the school - the members drove past each of the KA sites and then visited the proposed development area in Grove. It is difficult to understand how the Cabinet could proceed without any serious discussion with the existing secondary school.

• Deliverability of the option chosen, in terms of the new development, is questionable, and this has not been fully considered.

As I said in my original speech at Cabinet, Grove is destined to have major housing development and the developers are already trying to plan the future needs of the community - indeed this was the major topic of a recent seminar on Community Led Planning. It is vital that sufficient space is planned early on into the development so that the new school can be the focus for shared community facilities from the outset. However, Option C could potentially not be delivered until much later on in the scheme of things - it could be an excuse to 'do nothing now', but leave things for many years. Indeed, in the Kemp and Kemp letter of 18 June, which was widely circulated, it states that under Option C "the school would not be delivered in Phase 1 and….possibly not until Phase 3". This would not provide Grove with any of the infrastructure which is badly needed now, and developer contributions may not come on stream for some time.

Both other options (A and B) could release some capital receipts which could be used to bring provision closer to delivery. Indeed, in the OCC consultation document it says, in the 'Acquisition of Land' section, 'It is expected that a central site would need to be developed quickly along with the first housing." We have heard from the developers that this is indeed the case and many of us have seen their submission. So we need to have documented minutes here giving the community a firm timescale when we can expect this new school will be built.

King Alfred's have also said in their July newsletter that they feel strongly that there is a missed opportunity here for the County Council, Developers, District and Local Councils to build new school and community facilities in Grove in a short timeframe. It is not at all clear whether this timescale factor has been addressed in the decision making by the Cabinet and how long Grove has to wait for infrastructure that is much-needed now.

• There was no information provided on the projected pupil estimations.

This is absolutely crucial to the whole decision making process. Around 600 pupils now travel from Grove to King Alfred's School in Wantage before any future children from the new development are provided for. Indeed, the OCC consultation document quotes the current Grove secondary population as 800/900 pupils. However, a large number of these pupils are currently travelling out of the village to education elsewhere e.g. The Downs School in Compton (full double decker bus every day), Didcot and Faringdon.

We will have 500 houses in the first phase of development (2011), 1000 in the second phase (2016) and a further 1000 in the third stage (2026). On top of this, the post-16 participation rate is supposed to rise from 75% to 90% by 2015. To have a small school that could become full before any development comes on stream is extremely short-sighted. We could end up with pupils in lots of temporary classrooms, which is what they are suffering from in some places now. If the school warrants a larger size to cater for all future children, then it needs to be planned with that capability now! We certainly do not wish to repeat planning mistakes of the past.

I am therefore asking the Scrutiny Committee to address these issues with the best interests of the communities involved and of the children for many future generations to come. It is essential to get this decision right, both for the right educational reasons - delivering an excellent education - and to serve the needs of a growing and thriving community.

If the Cabinet's decision to choose Option C is now their way of delivering Option A, then why are they being so secretive about it? Surely, the community deserves to know exactly what is being planned and with an estimated timescale?

The related submissions below should be read in addition to this document:

Submission 2: Preliminary Evidence on Wantage and Grove Secondary Education.

Submission 3: Oxfordshire Secondary Schools and Sixth Form Provision. These can be downloaded by following the link below.

Related Links

• Submissions 2 and 3