Decision No: CAB0027-JULY19

This record relates to Item 4 on the agenda for the Decision- Making RECORD OF EXECUTIVE DECISION

19th July 2007

DECISION-MAKER: CABINET PORTFOLIO AREA: CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEARNING SUBJECT: CALL-IN OF EXECUTIVE DECISION NO CAB0008- JULY02: LEARNING FUTURES: DETERMINATION OF STATUTORY POPOSALS AUTHOR: Diane Foley

THE DECISION Having read the report, including its recommendations and proposals, heard oral representations made at Cabinet and following consideration of all other relevant matters including the verbal report on the outcome of the call-in presented by the Chair of the Children’s Services & Learning Scrutiny Panel, the decision-maker made the following decision: - (i) To approve the closure of Millbrook Community School on 31st August 2008 (ii) To approve the closure of Oaklands Community School on 31st August 2008 (iii) To select Oasis Community Learning to set up a new school on the Oaklands site, with the Millbrook site retained as a temporary annexe, to open on 1st September 2008 after considering proposals from: • Oasis Community Learning to establish an Academy • Education Trust to establish a Trust School • United Learning Trust to establish an Academy (iv) To approve the proposals from Oasis Community Learning made under s.66 Education Act 2005 subject to the following modifications: a. that the site and buildings of Oaklands Community School be leased to the promoter of the New School West on a short term lease until long term plans for a new school building, whether on the Oaklands, Five Acre Field or any other appropriate site, are approved and that the land upon which the new building for New School West is constructed be leased for a period of 125 years when the site has been determined; b. that the site and buildings of Millbrook Community School be leased to the promoter of New School West until it is deemed by the Council, following consultation with the school, to be no longer required as an annexe. c. that part of the Five Acre Field is leased on a short term basis so as to provide playing field facilities for New School West until long term plans for

1 the new school building are finalised. d. that the promoter of the new school west be required to adopt the common admissions policy of Southampton City Council for a period of three years, commencing on 1st September 2008. (v) To approve the prescribed alteration (excepted expansion) of Redbridge Community school by way of an increase of 27 or more to the admission number so that from 1st September 2008 it admits up to 210 pupils to Year 7 in place of the current 180, which will result in an increase in its total capacity from 900 to 1050. (vi) To approve the closure of Grove Park Business and Enterprise College on 31st August 2008 (vii) To approve the closure of Woolston School Language College on 31st August 2008 (viii) To select Oasis Community Learning to set up a new school on the Grove Park site, with the Woolston site retained as a temporary annexe, to open on 1st September 2008 after considering proposals from: • CfBT Education Trust to set up a Trust School • Oasis Community Learning to establish an Academy • Southampton Education Trust to establish a Trust School, and • United Learning Trust to establish an Academy (ix) To approve the proposals received from Oasis Community Learning made under s.66 Education Act 2005 subject to the following modifications: a. that the site and buildings of Grove Park Business and Enterprise College be leased to the promoter of the New School East on a short term lease until long term plans for a new school building are approved; and that the Grove Park site then be leased to the promoter for a period of 125 years; b. that the site and buildings of Woolston School Language College be leased to the promoter of New School East until it is deemed by the Council following consultation with the school to be no longer required as an annexe c. that the promoter of the new school east be required to adopt the common admissions policy of Southampton City Council for a period of three years, commencing on 1st September 2008. (x) To approve the prescribed alteration to The Sholing Technology College by changing the character of the school from a single sex girls school to a mixed school by admitting both boys and girls to year 7 from 1st September 2008. (xi) To approve the non-statutory expansion of The Sholing Technology College so that from 1st September 2008 it admits up to 210 pupils to Year 7 in place of the current 190, which will result in an increase in its total capacity to 1050 from 950. (xii) In order to give effect to the proposals at (x) to grant a Transitional Exemption Order in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (the ‘SDA’) for a period of four years from the date of implementation of the proposals to allow for the change from single sex to co-educational to be phased as set out in the published proposals. (xiii) To request further investigation is conducted into the potential relocation of: • New School West to be part of the Five Acre Field site • Regents Park Community College to the St Mark’s CE Junior/ former Civil

2 Service Sports Ground site • The Sholing Technology College to the building (assuming Itchen College plans for relocation are successful) And that a progress report on these investigations be brought to Cabinet by the end of December 2007. (xiv) To request officers to make a case to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for Southampton’s inclusion in the “Building Schools for the Futures” programme at the earliest possible date. (xv) To recommend to Full Council that the capital works outlined in paragraphs 74 - 95, and detailed in appendix 12, which are required to deliver the Learning Futures programme, in the sum of £5,530,025, be added to the Children’s Services & Learning Capital programme (xvi) To recommend to Full Council that it agrees the required funding contribution, in the sum of £3,410,025, funded from corporate resources, towards the total Learning Futures capital costs of £5,530,025. (xvii) To recommend to Full Council that the sum of £250,000, phased £100,000 in 2007/08, and £150,000 in 2008/09, be made available to fund the preparatory work necessary for Building Schools for the Future (BSF). If successful BSF could deliver approximately £250m of capital investment to renew provision in Southampton. The sum of £250,000 funding to be made available through a draw on reserves. (xviii) To recommend to Full Council that the Woolston Site be declared surplus to educational requirements, once it is no longer required as an annexe for the New School East. (xix) To note that the proposed Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) at Grove Park is now on hold subject to further negotiations with the successful promoter and taking into account any requirements for a new build under Building Schools for the Future. (xx) To note the potential risk of repaying the Big Lottery Fund grant of £583,134 if the existing sports hall at Grove Park is demolished under Building Schools for the Future and not rebuilt as part of the design of a new school and to request that officers use their best endeavours in partnership with the promoter of the New School East to retain the sports hall as part of the design for the new school. (xxi) That the selection of Oasis Community Learning to establish the 2 new schools shall be subject to the condition that an agreement under S,482 of the Education Act 1996 for the establishment of an Academy is entered into with the Secretary of State. REASONS FOR THE DECISION Jurisdiction

3 1. In a notice published on 6 December 2006, Southampton City Council (“the commissioner”) announced its intention to seek proposals to establish two new schools, one on the west of the city to replace Millbrook Community School and one on the east of the city to replace Grove Park Business and Enterprise College and Woolston School Language College. The notice was in the form required by Section 66 of the Education Act 2005 (“the Act”). Within four months of the publication of this notice, the commissioner received three proposals for the New School West and four proposals for New School East. The commissioner published a summary of each of the proposals on 16th April 2007 together with statutory proposals under s.28 of the School Standards & Frameworks Act 1998 for the discontinuance of the closing schools and to make prescribed alterations to 2 further secondary schools (Redbridge and Sholing) and held public meetings on 25th April 2007 (Oaklands), 26th April 2007 (Grove Park), 8th May 2007 (Woolston) and 10th May 2007 (Millbrook) as required by The Education (New Secondary School Proposals) () Regulations 2006 (“the Regulations”). A range of meetings was also held with stakeholders including staff and governors, representatives of schools councils and elected members. The above Regulations were subsequently superseded by the School Organisation (Transitional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007, with which the commissioner has complied. Context 2. Southampton is a unitary authority in the South East.. There are 14 secondary in the City. The secondary schools are made up of two voluntary aided and twelve community schools. As explained in the report there is a significant and growing number of surplus places. Standards, although improving, are not as high as the should be. The proportion of young people not in education, employment and training is relatively high, and a significant proportion of parents choose to send their children top schools outside the city. 3. Southampton City Council has conducted a review of secondary school provision over the past two years. The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Learning made proposals for the future of secondary education on 6th December 2006 including proposals to close Millbrook Community School and Oaklands Community School, establishing a new school in their place on the Oaklands site, and to close Grove Park Business and Enterprise College and Woolston School Language College and establish a new school on the Grove Park site. It invited proposals under Section 66 of the Act, and the Regulations drawn up under it. Three proposals for the New School West and four proposals for New School East were received. The Commission

4 4. The statutory notices published by Southampton City Council, as the commissioner, on 6 December 2006 gave details of the specification for the two proposed new secondary schools. The reason for the new schools, was to reduce the total numbers of surplus places, providing a pattern of school organisation which would promote high standards, and which would form the basis for the potential investment available through “Building Schools for the Future”. The Council invited promoters to establish a new secondary school for 900 boys and girls between the ages of 11 and 16 from 1 September 2008 on the east side of the city at the Oaklands site using the Millbrook site as an annexe and another school for 900 boys and girls between the ages of 11 and 16 from 1 September 2008 on the west side of the city at the Grove Park site. The notices gave brief details of the Council’s requirements and expectations for the new schools. The Proposals 5. Southampton City Council received three proposals for New School West and four for New School East by the deadline of 6 April 2007 and published a summary of the proposals in accordance with the Act on 16 April 2007. 6. The three proposals for New School West were as follows: a. Oasis Community Learning for an academy b. Southampton Education Trust for a foundation school; c. United Learning Trust (ULT) for an academy. 7. The four proposals for New School East were as follows: d. CfBT Educational Trust (CfBT) for a foundation school; e. Oasis Community Learning for an academy f. Southampton Education Trust for a foundation school; g. United Learning Trust (ULT) for an academy. 8. The proposals contained the relevant information as specified in the Regulations. 9. Statutory notices under the School Stands & Frameworks Act 1998 and the Education Act 2005 were accordingly published. Procedures 10 In accordance with the Constitution of Southampton City Council a meeting of the Children’s Services and Learning Scrutiny Panel was held on 25th June 2007. The Panel scrutinised the report which was to be taken for decision by the Cabinet on 2nd July. A number of representations were made by representatives of schools and the promoters. The panel made the following recommendations:

5 . RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member:-

(i) be requested to ensure that the greatest weight be given to the views of those most directly affected by this competition to run new schools, as indicated by the consultation and scrutiny processes; (ii) be requested to ensure that the competition winner is one that provides the greatest partnership working, involving business, the voluntary sector and higher education, to deliver effective children’s services in schools; (iii) be advised to take into account the diversity (1) of provision (2), both internally within all schools, whether community, voluntary-aided, academy or trust, and strategically across the city, in order that parental preference be taken into account; (iv) be requested to ensure that the decision be taken expeditiously to enable city schools to move forward, as any further delays would be to the detriment of all schools; (v) the Children’s Services and Learning Scrutiny Panel believe that the Southampton Educational Trust proposals put forward as part of the competition would be the best fit for the children that are the responsibility of this authority;

Vote:

For: Councillors Stevens, Cunio, Milton, Thomas and Mr Gibbons Against: Councillors Johnson, Odgers and Norris

(vi) that the Cabinet Member should not base his decision out of a perceived fear of what is new, but on what would be best for the children attending the new schools in the East and West of the City. Notes: (i) Diversity: diversity of gender, differentiation of teaching and learning to boys and girls.

(ii) Provision: variety in the types of school operating in the city 11. Cabinet met on 2nd July 2007 and considered the proposals from the promoters. A number of representations were made by representatives of schools and the promoters. Cabinet decided that it would approve all the recommendations in the Learning Futures report, and selected Oasis Community Learning as the promoter to establish the two new schools. . The recommendations were as follows: (i) To approve the closure of Millbrook Community School on 31st August 2008 (ii) To approve the closure of Oaklands Community School on 31st August 2008

6 (iii) To select Oasis Community Learning to set up a new school on the Oaklands site, with the Millbrook site retained as a temporary annexe, to open on 1st September 2008 after considering proposals from: • Oasis Community Learning to establish an Academy • Southampton Education Trust to establish a Trust School • United Learning Trust to establish an Academy (iv) To approve the proposals from Oasis Community Learning made under s.66 Education Act 2005 subject to the following modifications: a. that the site and buildings of Oaklands Community School be leased to the promoter of the New School West on a short term lease until long term plans for a new school building, whether on the Oaklands, Five Acre Field or any other appropriate site, are approved and that the land upon which the new building for New School West is constructed be leased for a period of 125 years when the site has been determined; b. that the site and buildings of Millbrook Community School be leased to the promoter of New School West until it is deemed by the Council, following consultation with the school, to be no longer required as an annexe. c. that part of the Five Acre Field is leased on a short term basis so as to provide playing field facilities for New School West until long term plans for the new school building are finalised. d. that the promoter of the new school west be required to adopt the common admissions policy of Southampton City Council for a period of three years, commencing on 1st September 2008.

(v) To approve the prescribed alteration (excepted expansion) of Redbridge Community school by way of an increase of 27 or more to the admission number so that from 1st September 2008 it admits up to 210 pupils to Year 7 in place of the current 180, which will result in an increase in its total capacity from 900 to 1050. (vi) To approve the closure of Grove Park Business and Enterprise College on 31st August 2008 (vii) To approve the closure of Woolston School Language College on 31st August 2008 (viii) To select Oasis Community Learning to set up a new school on the Grove Park site, with the Woolston site retained as a temporary annexe, to open on 1st September 2008 after considering proposals from: • CfBT Education Trust to set up a Trust School

7 • Oasis Community Learning to establish an Academy • Southampton Education Trust to establish a Trust School, and • United Learning Trust to establish an Academy (ix) To approve the proposals received from Oasis Community Learning made under s.66 Education Act 2005 subject to the following modifications: a. that the site and buildings of Grove Park Business and Enterprise College be leased to the promoter of the New School East on a short term lease until long term plans for a new school building are approved; and that the Grove Park site then be leased to the promoter for a period of 125 years; b. that the site and buildings of Woolston School Language College be leased to the promoter of New School East until it is deemed by the Council following consultation with the school to be no longer required as an annexe c. that the promoter of the new school east be required to adopt the common admissions policy of Southampton City Council for a periodof three years, commencing on 1st September 2008 (x) To approve the prescribed alteration to The Sholing Technology College by changing the character of the school from a single sex girls school to a mixed school by admitting both boys and girls to year 7 from 1st September 2008. (xi) To approve the non-statutory expansion of The Sholing Technology College so that from 1st September 2008 it admits up to 210 pupils to Year 7 in place of the current 190, which will result in an increase in its total capacity to 1050 from 950. (xii) In order to give effect to the proposals at (x) to grant a Transitional Exemption Order in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (the ‘SDA’) for a period of four years from the date of implementation of the proposals to allow for the change from single sex to co- educational to be phased as set out in the published proposals. (xiii) To request further investigation is conducted into the potential relocation of: • New School West to be part of the Five Acre Field site • Regents Park Community College to the St Mark’s CE Junior/ formerCivil Service Sports Ground site

8 • The Sholing Technology College to the Itchen College building (assuming Itchen College plans for relocation are successful) And that a progress report on these investigations be brought to Cabinet by the end of December 2007. (xiv) To request officers to make a case to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for Southampton’s inclusion in the “Building Schools for the Futures” programme at the earliest possible date. (xv) To recommend to Full Council that the capital works outlined in paragraphs 74 - 95, and detailed in appendix 12, which are required to deliver the Learning Futures programme, in the sum of £5,530,025, be added to the Children’s Services & Learning Capital programme (xvi) To recommend to Full Council that it agrees the required funding contribution, in the sum of £3,410,025, funded from corporate resources, towards the total Learning Futures capital costs of £5,530,025. (xvii) To recommend to Full Council that the sum of £250,000, phased £100,000 in 2007/08, and £150,000 in 2008/09, be made available to fund the preparatory work necessary for Building Schools for the Future (BSF). If successful BSF could deliver approximately £250m of capital investment to renew secondary school provision in Southampton. The sum of £250,000 funding to be made available through a draw on reserves (xviii) To recommend to Full Council that the Woolston Site be declared surplus to educational requirements, once it is no longer required as an annexe for the New School East. (xix) To note that the proposed Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) at Grove Park is now on hold subject to further negotiations with the successful promoter and taking into account any requirements for a new build under Building Schools for the Future (xx) To note the potential risk of repaying the Big Lottery Fund grant of £583,134 if the existing sports hall at Grove Park is demolished under Building Schools for the Future and not rebuilt as part of the design of a new school and to request that officers use their best endeavours in partnership with the promoter of the New School East to retain the sports hall as part of the design for the new school. 12. The reasons given for the decision on 2nd July were as follows:

1. The decision was made following an extended period of pre-statutory and statutory consultation with a view to creating an arrangement of secondary schools in Southampton which will: • help to raise standards of achievement • improve staying on rates at 16

9

• retain more pupils within the city by providing good local schools which meet the needs of parents • remove surplus places which represent a poor use of resources • create the opportunity of establishing learning campuses bringing together a range of services for children and young people prepare for investment to replace, renew and upgrade school buildings through Building Schools for the Future. 2. Detailed reasons for the recommendations upon which the Cabinet had due regard were contained in Appendix 1 to the report to Cabinet(Technical appraisal of proposals for New School West and New Schools East and Linked proposals and other Matters to be considered by the decision maker in respect of the Learning Futures Secondary Education Review): The report and its appendices took into account the guidance set out in Appendix 2, the Department for Education and Skills document Establishing a New Maintained Mainstream School: A Guide for Local Authorities. 3. Cabinet’s view was that the report clearly identifies one bidder as having the strongest overall bid. After considering the report, and all other submissions, taking all relevant factors into account, especially Oasis’s submission concerning standards, curriculum and collaboration, special educational needs, community learning, extended school, needs of families and finance Cabinet concluded in favour of Oasis Community Learning. 13. On 9th July the Chair of the Children’s Services and Learning Scrutiny Panel asked that the decision be “called in”. The date chosen for the Scrutiny Panel was 19th July 2007. Further representations were made by members of the public and stakeholders. The Cabinet member was questioned on the reasons for his decision and the method by which he had come to his view. 14. The Scrutiny Panel resolved that the Cabinet should reconsider its decision, and demonstrate how it took into account the recommendations of scrutiny. Consideration 15. In considering the proposals, Cabinet referred to the guidance for decision makers drawn up under the relevant legislation, which had been provided as Appendices to the decision report. It also had regard to the technical appraisal produced by officers and the summary of responses received in the consultation period. Copies of all the representations received had been placed in each of the members’ group rooms. 16. The reason for the proposed closure of Millbrook and Oaklands Community Schools is because of the current and forecast number of surplus places across the west of the city. These closures, taken together with the establishment of a new school and the expansion of Redbridge will create a better match of places to the number of available children. 17. The expansion of Redbridge will contribute to ensuring the provision of the right number of places on the west of the city. Redbridge is a popular and successful school which has been judged outstanding by Ofsted. There are clear benefits to enabling more parents to have their preference met for a place at the school.

10 18. The reason for the proposed closure of Grove Park business and Enterprise College and Woolston School Language College is because of the current and forecast number of surplus places across the east of the city. These closures, taken together with the establishment of a new school and the small expansion of The Sholing Technology College will create a better match of places to the number of available children. 19. The change of character and small expansion of The Sholing Technology College will contribute to ensuring the provision of the right number of places on the east of the city. Because the new school will replace a boys school and in order to ensure that the balance of sexes is approximately even in all the remaining schools in due course it is necessary that TSTC also goes mixed. This proposal is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body. TSTC is frequently oversubscribes which has been judged good by Ofsted. There are clear benefits to enabling more parents to have their preference met for a place at the school. 20. Cabinet considered whether the proposals received met the specifications drawn up by Southampton City Council in the statutory notices published on 6th December 2006. On the advice of officers Cabinet concluded that all the promoters satisfied the specification, and that any of them might be invited to set up the two new schools. 21. Initial analysis of the proposals and subsequent interviews with each of the promoters led officers to the conclusion that each proposal had the potential, despite various strengths and weaknesses, to be developed into a successful school. 22. The technical appraisal produced by officers looked at the proposals from a range of perspectives, informed by the factors to be taken into consideration as determined by the cabinet member, and to the “Decision Makers’ Guidance for Establishing a New School” issued by the DfES. The technical appraisal assessed the proposals in greater detail taking into account the requirements of the Act, the Regulations and the statutory guidance. In producing its report officers had regard to all the relevant matters including those highlighted in the following specific considerations: • Need for places • Demand for places in schools with a religious character • A system shaped by parents • Single sex and mixed school provision • Travel and Transport • Capital and Buildings • Capital receipts • New site or playing fields • Land tenure arrangements • School playing fields • Diversity of school organisation • Standards and Curriculum • 14-19 Curriculum and Collaboration • Special Educational Needs • Every Child Matters Principles

11 • Community Learning/Extended Schools • Community Cohesion/Needs of the Community • Equal Opportunities • Capability of promoters to deliver • Finance • Human Resources • Legal • Property 23. Officers provided text setting out the strengths and weaknesses of each of the proposals, and where appropriate a score on a scale of 0 to 10. It is not intended that these scores simply be aggregated in order to produce “the result”. It had been agreed that the final decision would be a matter for political decision making, and that it would be a matter for the decision maker to decide what weight to give to the assessment of each of the areas. No score was given in relation to “views of interested parties”, which decision makers are required to take into account. These views were the subject of a separate summary report. The weight to be given to such views was also a matter for the decision maker. 24. In relation to the first scrutiny recommendation Cabinet considered the representations received which had been placed in members’ rooms, and the summary which had been included as Appendix 3 of the Report. Cabinet considers the views of consultees as very important. It does not take the view that the consultation was a referendum or vote, and that the views expressed had to be taken into account alongside all the other evidence. Taken together with the technical appraisal set out at Appendix 1, Cabinet remains of the view that its decision to select Oasis Community Learning to establish the new schools is sound. 25. In relation to the second scrutiny recommendation the Cabinet takes the view that Oasis Community Learning has established links with a range of community and business interests in the city, and that it will be able to develop these successfully as promoter of the new schools. It also takes the view that businesses who associated themselves with other proposals would still wish to remain engaged with the process of improving education in the city. 26. In relation to the third scrutiny recommendation it is the view of Cabinet that the proposers selected will bring additional diversity to the nature of provision in the city. 27. In relation to the fourth scrutiny recommendation Cabinet has taken its decision as expeditiously as possible. 28. In relation to the fifth scrutiny recommendation Cabinet remains of the view that the Oasis Community Learning proposal remains the best option for the new schools as explained in other parts of this decision notice. 29. In relation to the sixth and final scrutiny recommendation the Cabinet has taken its decision in the best interests of children, as set out elsewhere in this decision notice.

12 Conclusion 30. Cabinet concluded that all the proposals would be likely to provide a school that would meet the specification set out in the statutory notice. On each side of the city Cabinet concluded that Oasis Community Learning offered the proposals likely to be in the best interest of education in the city. 31. Oasis Community Learning came out top in the officer appraisal in the following areas, all of which Cabinet judge to be important: • Joint top score (with Southampton Education Trust) for 14-19 Curriculum and Collaboration • Top score for Special Educational Needs • Top score for Community Learning/Extended Schools • Joint top score (with Southampton Education Trust and United Learning Trust) for needs of families and the wider community • Top score for finance – based on judgement about additional funds the proposal might bring, both from the promoter and Government. 32. Oasis had worked together with local partners and had established links with a range of local organisations. It thus combined the strength offered by a national academy promoter and locally based community interests. 33. Oasis had gained some support from consultees, and whilst this did not represent a majority view it represents a basis upon which community support can be developed. 34. The Southampton Education Trust proposals have much to commend them. 35. Southampton Education came out top in the officer appraisal in the following areas: • Top score for standards • Top score for curriculum • Joint top score for 14-19 curriculum and collaboration (with Oasis Community Learning) • Joint top score (with Oasis Community Learning and United Learning Trust) for needs of families and the wider community • Joint top score for legal (with United Learning Trust) 36. It is recognised that there was strong support for the SET proposal from those responding to the consultation, although it should be noted that the total number of responses received represents only a small proportion of parents and staff in the city. 37. Whilst the SET proposals have significant strengths there are weaknesses to the proposals which in the view of Cabinet makes the proposal weaker overall than its preferred proposal from Oasis Community Learning. Cabinet would wish to encourage SET to engage with schools in the city and is keen to develop the supportive role that the Trust offers, building on the partnership between the universities, colleges, businesses and other groups which support SET.

13 38. The United Learning Trust came out top in the officer appraisal in the following areas: • Top score for “Every child matters” principles • Top score for promoting community cohesion • Joint top score (with Oasis and Southampton Education Trust) for needs of families and the wider community • Top score for HR evaluation • Joint top score for legal (with Southampton Education Trust) • Top score for property evaluation 39. The ULT proposals gained only minimal support in the public consultation. 40. It is fully recognised that the ULT proposals offered many strengths from a technical viewpoint, however little had been done to establish links with local partners, or to give a local flavour to the proposals. Little support was shown by parents or other stakeholders for the proposals. 41. The CfBT Education Trust proposals contained many innovative ideas, in particular they recognised the specific challenges of the educational environment in east Southampton, and the needs of a school which will have a significant majority of boys for several years following its establishment. There was also evidence of considerable thinking around the details of the transition process. However for much of the competition the constitutional structure of the proposal was unclear, to the point that it was uncertain how the proposals could be legally implemented, what the role of governing body would be, and any school specific trust. Whilst this was resolved towards the end of the process it had the effect of leaving many stakeholders confused. 42. The CfBT proposals did not achieve the top score against any of the criteria and obtained minimal support in the public consultation. Whilst CfBT Education Trust has much to offer, their ideas did not translate into a proposal capable of gaining the support of officers or the public in the context of the Southampton new schools competitions. 43. The possibility of choosing different promoters for each side of the city was considered. Such an approach might be justified if there was a distinction in the proposals on the east and the west, or a clear difference in the opinions of the local community, or possibly if it was judged that a given organisation had the capacity to promote only one school. However, on balance it was felt that if the proposal from a given organisation was judged to be preferable against the agreed criteria, and in accordance with the relevant guidance, then that organisation should be asked to set up both schools. 44. The combination of the strengths of its bid, evidence of local partnership, a core of support from consultees, the energy and innovation it would bring, and the increased diversity of provision, underpins the decision of the Cabinet to invite Oasis Community Learning to set up both New School East and New School West.

14 DETAILS OF ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 1. The option of not closing the existing schools, and therefore not establishing new schools was considered. This approach was advocated by a number of consultees. It could be argued that the potential disruption of major change could be avoided, and that less radical change could lead to more evolutionary changes to the current system. 2. This approach has been rejected as it would have the effect of leaving the underlying problems unaddressed which necessitated the review of secondary education in the city in the first place. It would mean that a further review would be required causing additional, prolonged uncertainty. It could leave some schools facing the prospect of un-viability as pupil numbers fall. It would not be a good basis for planning the redevelopment of school sites and buildings which will be possible through Building Schools for the Future.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The decision-maker(s) did not declare a personal or prejudicial interest in the Matters set out in the report.

We certify that the decision this document records was made in accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 and is a true and accurate record of that decision. Date: Decision Maker: 19TH July 2007

Proper Officer: Judy Cordell SCRUTINY Note: This decision will come in to force at the expiry of 5 working days from the date of publication subject to any review under the Council’s Scrutiny ‘Call-In’ provisions. Call-In Period Not applicable

Date of Call-in (if applicable) (this suspends implementation) Not applicable Call-in Procedure completed (if applicable) Not applicable Results of Call-in (if applicable) Not applicable

15