Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

1.1. Local authorities have been invited by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to submit Expressions of Interest (EoI) for entry to the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. These EoIs must include a statement of how BSF investment will transform secondary education and a priority list of schools for investment, based on geographical groupings. Ministers will announce a revised national programme for BSF early in 2009, which will determine the anticipated entry date for each authority.

1.2. This report seeks authority for the proposed submission to the DCSF, including the proposed grouping and prioritisation of schools.

2) Issues Covered in Report:

2.1. This report sets out the background to the DCSF's invitation to authorities to submit EoIs, the proposed outcomes for BSF across Hampshire and in particular for the areas with the highest priority for investment. A proposed rationale for prioritisation on an area basis is set out and a split of the county into ten areas is proposed in ranked order of priority.

3) Recommendations:

3.1. That:

a) the education strategy for Building Schools for the Future outcomes attached at Appendix A; and

b) the prioritisation of schools for investment through Building Schools for the Future as set out in Appendix B

be approved for submission to the Department for Education and Skills, subject to the Director of Children's Services being authorised to make minor drafting amendments to the education strategy prior to submission.

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

1.1 This report seeks authority for the submission to the Department for Children, Schools and Families of a revised Expression of Interest for entry to the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. This is in response to revised guidance from the DCSF issued in September 2008 on the management nationally of future waves of BSF. This included an invitation to authorities to set out priority groupings of secondary schools and special schools with secondary age pupils for inclusion in the programme, in the context of an education strategy statement explaining how BSF investment will transform secondary education across the authority's area.

1.2 The overall aims of BSF and the framework for its national rollout and management were announced in 2003 and were summarised in a report to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) on 24 July 2008. Key points were:

o national prioritisation of authorities' entry to the programme determined by a combination of social and educational need, without reference to other criteria;

o authorities placed in a series of Waves, from 1 to 15, to be rolled out over a ten to fifteen year period. Hampshire was included in Wave 7 and all subsequent waves, with 2011 as the indicative year of entry to the programme;

o schools to be included in each wave based on areas shown in original Expressions of Interest (EoI) submitted by authorities in 2003.

2) Contextual Information:

Revised guidance from the DCSF on the future management of Building Schools for the Future

2.1. Revised guidance issued in September 2008 made a number of significant changes to the arrangements announced in 2003, as summarised below:

· Prioritisation through pre-determined waves is now replaced by a national re-assessment of priorities, based on revised Expressions of Interest to be submitted by authorities by 30 November 2008, to include:

- An updated statement of the authority's transformational vision for BSF;

- Re-prioritisation of an authority's secondary and secondary age special schools into groups with an anticipated BSF investment value for each group of about £100m (£80m for the highest priority group);

- The broadening of prioritisation criteria to include the following:

_ Social and educational need (measured by Tax Credit data and achievement of five A*-C GCSE passes, including English and mathematics, in 2008). The combination of these factors will be the principal method used by ministers to prioritise nationally;

_ Building need;

_ Contribution to local or regional regeneration;

_ School reorganisation issues and surplus places;

_ Sustainable communities and new population or housing growth.

- All groups of schools, except the first, highest priority group to be geographically coherent.

2.2. Submissions will be considered by ministers and a revised national priority list will be issued early in 2009. Those authorities near the top of the list will be invited to submit Statements of Readiness to Deliver soon afterwards. The new arrangements place much greater emphasis on authorities' capacity to deliver the programme, rather than adhering to a pre-determined priority order, as in the past.

3) Key Issues:

Vision for the outcomes to be achieved through BSF investment

3.1. All authorities are required to submit as part of their EoIs a statement setting out what they expect to achieve for schools and communities in their area as a result of the major investment which BSF will bring. This education strategy statement has been prepared by drawing on a range of existing policies, applied to the BSF programme, in particular "Maximising well-being through education", the principles of which were approved by the Executive Member Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) on 11 October 2007. The statement is set out at Appendix A for approval.

Approach to prioritisation of schools for BSF investment

3.2. The prioritisation criteria against which BSF EoI's will be assessed are set out in paragraph 2.1. It is clear from the DCSF's revised guidance that most emphasis in the assessment process will continue to be laid on social and educational need, which is consistent with an approach of targeting areas of greatest need first.

3.3. Accordingly, a series of geographically coherent groups of schools has been identified which meets the investment value parameters set by the DCSF. This work has been completed in the context of a comprehensive desktop review, carried out in conjunction with the Acting Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services, to identify anticipated modernisation needs across the secondary estate. DCSF funding formulae for BSF have been used to establish costings for groups of schools. These groups have then been prioritised, giving equal weight to social and education need criteria.

3.4. Other criteria have also been considered, but on balance are not sufficiently significant to justify changing the overall prioritisation, particularly as these will be given subsidiary weighting by minsters. For example, in the case of building need, with the exception of one school in Havant, there are no over-riding reasons requiring early replacement of the buildings. In terms of regeneration, those areas in the highest priority groups represent locations where BSF investment is most likely to be able to contribute to wider local regeneration strategies.

3.5 School reorganisation issues are likely to arise in several areas of the county, because of the underlying fall in secondary school numbers. Again, areas with high levels of surplus places figure in the highest priority groups of schools and it is anticipated that area reviews will be conducted where necessary in advance of BSF investment. Linked to this issue is the prospect of significant housing growth in some areas of the county, mainly through the South-east Plan. Currently, there are no specific proposals other than those arising from the earlier County Structure Plan (Review), which are taken into account in the long-term forecasts of pupil numbers which will accompany the EoI submission. Until further details of the likely implications of the South-east Plan in specific areas are known, it would be unwise to use the possibility of major housing developments as a key driver in prioritisation for BSF investment.

3.6 The proposed prioritisation of schools for BSF investment is set out for approval at Appendix B.

4) Implications for the first wave of BSF investment in Hampshire:

4.1 The Government policy change to limit the size of the first BSF project to £80m means that the Havant Consortium group of schools intended as the County Council's first submission for inclusion in the BSF programme will need to be split, as the overall investment value for these schools is estimated at about £120m.

4.2 A preliminary consultation on the future pattern of secondary school provision in the Havant Consortium area in the context of BSF has recently concluded. The issues addressed in this consultation are complex and responses are currently being analysed, in preparation for a future report to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education). This will recommend a "preferred option" for statutory consultation, which will in practice very likely consist of a series of proposals covering each school in the area.

4.3 To meet the DCSF's timetable for submission of a revised EoI, it is necessary to decide now on a split of the area to meet the £80m expenditure limit. This decision should be taken in the context of attainment, social demography and local school organisation issues and especially those affecting Park Community School, Staunton Community Sports College and Warblington School, which are located in the east of the area. In particular, it should be recognised that if these schools are to be included in the first investment phase it will be necessary to establish the future pattern of provision as early as possible in 2009; this is consistent with the planned timetable for future consultation. Those schools not included in the first phase would be linked with the second priority area, Gosport, to form Phase 2 of the BSF programme.

4.4 It is clear from analysis of the social and educational need indices which ministers will use to decide priorities, that the schools in the east of Havant have the greatest need. Not to include them in the first phase would have a significant effect on the chances of the County Council joining the programme in the early future phases of BSF and would mean that schools requiring early investment would be disadvantaged by a later start The prioritisation strategy in Appendix B therefore includes the schools in the east of Havant in the highest priority group. To make up the £80m anticipated investment value of this group, the three special schools in the area, Woodlands Education Centre, Cowplain Community School, The Hayling College and Horndean Technology College are included in this group. As a decision on a preferred consultation option has not yet been taken, all schools in east of Havant are included in the priority list.

5) Financial implications

5.1 The planned delivery model for BSF established by central government envisages funding split more or less equally between capital grant (for refurbishment work) and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits (for most new builds). BSF funds are allocated through a pupil number driven formula on the basis that 50% of the floor area within each local authority's BSF wave can be "new build", i.e. completely new facilities will be built. The remaining floor area is funded so that 35% can be remodelled and 15% undergo refurbishment. The floor area is calculated using the national space guidelines for secondary schools in DCSF Building Bulletin 98 for the current number of schools in that particular wave. Local authorities are expected to contribute financially to at least 10% of the overall programme costs through maximisation of investment opportunities, e.g. by recycling capital receipts.

6) Outline of Options:

6.1. Option 1:

Do nothing. The County Council is not required to submit an EoI, but failure to do so would preclude consideration by ministers for entry to the BSF programme. This would mean that Hampshire secondary schools and secondary age special schools would miss the opportunity for major capital investment in their buildings.

6.2 Option 2:

Adopt an alternative approach to prioritisation. Other prioritisation models could be followed, e.g. building need. Ministers have, however, made it clear that social and educational need will be used to prioritise submissions nationally. To use an alternative approach would, therefore, disadvantage the County Council in securing entry to the programme.

7) Option Analysis / Comparison:

7.1. Alternative options and the reasons for their rejection are set out in section 6.

8) Conclusions:

8.1. Entry to the BSF programme will secure major capital investment for Hampshire secondary schools and secondary age special schools which will lead to improved life chances and educational outcomes, as well as significant wider benefits to communities. The Expression of Interest sets out the County Council's position and aim to secure early entry to the BSF programme.

9) Recommendations:

9.1 Please see Executive Summary for recommendations

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Appendix A

Strategic Education Plans

Maximising well being through Education is Hampshire's vision for secondary education. Underlying its principles are the Unicef Report The Well-being of Children and Young People in Rich Countries and the Children's Plan: Brighter Futures. It has been subject to extensive consultation with governors and headteachers in all 71 secondary schools. This vision sets out Hampshire's commitment to enabling all young people to progress into healthy, safe and economically independent adulthood. It recognises the crucial link between well-being and educational attainment and sets out measures to ensure that all, including vulnerable and underachieving groups, have high self esteem, ambition and the skills to be adaptable, persistent, happy and successful. These are not just good intentions. Hampshire has implemented a broad spectrum of strategies to deliver the commitments and ambitions in its vision:

· School Improvement Strategy: School Improvement Partners are developing leadership and management capacity across all schools and their governing bodies - ensuring that priorities at schools level are accurately identified and additional support commissioned where needed. Hampshire delivers school improvement strategies through the work of District Managers. The District Managers project manage the work of the local authority's school improvement workforce including School Improvement Partners and members of the advisory team to ensure greater impact of intervention. The School Improvement Strategy will be a major element in the delivery of Hampshire's change management strategy.

· National Challenge Strategy: This focuses on three schools in 2008 and four schools which are close to the benchmark. All of these schools fall into priority programmes for BSF, or the County Council is confident that local authority intervention measures will have secured improvement. In addition Hampshire has a carefully constructed programme, refined each year, to work more intensively with schools that are under-performing irrespective of their headline results. Nine schools (13% of the secondary schools in the county), for example, were identified as needing specific intervention in the period 2006-2008. On average they improved by six percentage points at 5 A*-C GCSE including English and mathematics in 2008, three times the improvement seen across the county.

· 14 - 19 strategy: This is targeted on building area-wide partnerships and re-commissioning provision in each district; this strategy is central to achieving Hampshire's commitment to universal access to higher education, training or employment.

· Inclusion strategy: Hampshire's commitment to success for all is ensuring all young people have provision matched to their individual needs in mainstream or special schools and that they make progress at or above their expected level.

· ICT strategy: This is aimed at making sure that all young people have access to the tools, content and support that they need for learning.

· Choice and diversity: Hampshire has a commitment to supporting collaborative working between schools and across districts (Education Improvement Partnerships) so that all can share knowledge and understanding about best practice. The County Council is committed to work swiftly and incisively to improve outcomes where schools are under-performing. BSF will enable acceleration of programmes in areas of greatest need.

· Narrowing the Gap: The County Council is taking strong action to narrow the gap between the highest and lowest performers across the county. Initial analysis of 2008 data shows that this action is having impact. The Local Authority has just appointed a senior inspector/adviser for Vulnerable Groups to take forward this agenda. The BSF programme will enable greater co-ordination between professionals through co-location of services to remove barriers to learning and secure higher attainment.

· Parenting strategy: This is aimed in particular in areas of high deprivation, at a long-term strategy to engage parents with their children's learning to raise attainment and aspirations and to enable adults to obtain higher level qualifications to reduce the skills gap. The BSF programme will strengthen the opportunities for family learning and ensure that high quality parenting advice is available for parents within co-located services.

Leaders of all of these strategies are contributing to the work of the BSF implementation team and will be central to the delivery of the BSF Strategy for Change across the county and in districts in each phase of the programme.

Hampshire's BSF Strategy for Change is at a very advanced stage of development. Building on the matrix of strategies set out above, the County Council is committed to achieving a step change in performance focused on schools, communities and groups of young people. At the heart of the strategy is the delivery of personalised learning for all and specifically for those facing the greatest challenges. State of the art management information systems will be implemented to inform teachers, support workers, leaders and managers, parents and young people themselves. These systems will enable early identification of need and interventions where needed. Effective information sharing and commissioning of support from across all agencies will be central to the delivery of personalised learning programmes and action to promote individual and group well-being. The County Council will ensure that integrated education and welfare services are targeted in areas of greatest need, that young people have access to a wide range of support from a diversified workforce and that those who need it most will have continuity of support across ages and stages. Technology enabled learning will ensure that young people can continue their work and get support beyond the `school day' - they will have access to the best teaching and best resources available, whatever school they attend.

Hampshire's Strategy for Change will impact on governance, leadership and management, particularly in those areas where greatest priorities exist. The County Council's ambitions will require effective and sustained leadership and partnership working if they are to be achieved. Change management will impact on all areas of schools design and operation, ensuring that the social relationships to support learning are in place, that planning for learning is the driving tool within institutions and that facilities and support are available when and where young people need it. Choice and diversity of provision will ensure that curriculum planning extends opportunity and leads to greater numbers of young people completing further and higher education successfully.

Whilst Hampshire schools overall perform well above national average there are three schools which have not reached the national benchmark of 30% A*-C grades including English and mathematics. There are other schools which have met this threshold over recent years but have not secured sufficient improvement in performance to meet expectations. Hampshire has a very effective track record in improving secondary schools and will intensify its work through the BSF programme. Schools requiring additional support are all located in areas of social deprivation, with complex challenges facing local communities. The BSF programme will be implemented together with a range of community regeneration programmes to ensure that change is wide-reaching and sustainable. The target communities have few families with higher education qualifications, a greater proportion of long-term unemployed, more NEETs at 16 and 17, a high proportion of teenage parents and more young people in the youth justice system. BSF programmes will ensure that services are available to young people at the time and place when they need them and can make best use if them. The County Council will plan for local, multi-agency delivery of services to meet individual needs. The development of the Strategy for Change has involved colleagues from across social care, health, youth and youth offending services, alongside district level regeneration programmes. It has led to an ambitious but deliverable set of commitments.

The establishment of Education Improvement Partnerships, planning for local Children's Trusts and other partnership structures has already ensured better collaboration focused on early identification and intervention for vulnerable young people. BSF will be used to embed this practice more firmly in areas of greatest need and to accelerate the rate of improvement already experienced through such work. In particular, a more refined needs analysis will be developed, with more effective commissioning of services at local level and greater flexibility in the use of resources. BSF will have an impact across the local community. This will be especially effective in meeting individual learning needs in mainstream schools, through specialist provision and in special schools. BSF will enable greater integration and co-location and significantly increase the level and range of outreach work already being successfully delivered by special schools. Through extended schools, community development programmes, parenting programmes and outreach education learning communities will be built in those districts where the challenges are greatest. High achievement will be a reality for young people, their parents and their communities.

ICT will be crucial to the delivery of the Strategy for Change. Learning is a social activity and the best learning comes from inspirational teaching. But technology has a vital contribution to make: personalised learning programmes, assessment for learning, effective needs analysis, accurate tracking tools, multi-site learning programmes, multi-agency working, all require effective communication tools. Young people are already steeped in an information culture and the BSF strategy will ensure that BSF enables them to access learning in a way which engages, inspires and sustains their curiosity.

Rationale for local prioritisation:

The national priorities of education and social need have been used in planning the order, content and nature of investment through BSF. The programmes also address greatest need in terms of local regeneration, building sustainable communities and reorganising school provision where necessary. The ten groups of schools in the Hampshire programme are sequenced in urgency of need against these national criteria. The first five groups will include all of the remaining schools causing concern and will invest in those communities facing greatest social challenges. Plans are also in hand to meet the specific needs of communities and take into account cross border issues where they are pertinent. The County Council has worked closely with the LSC, colleges and other providers to ensure that post-16 provision is planned within the context of the 14-19 strategy, but also contributes to achieving commitments in the Strategy for Change. Hampshire's approach to partnership working means that a whole district or community solution is essential to the delivery of transformed outcomes. Approval would be sought to commence the first three groups as soon as funding can be released.

Group 1: Havant. The nucleus of focus is the Leigh Park area. Served by two secondary schools, Park Community and Staunton Community Sports College, this area has the greatest social and educational need. Surplus places are also high and the buildings need either replacement or major refurbishment. The average TCI score for these two schools is 74%. The local community has established a Community Improvement Partnership (CIP) and has developed the concept of the `Leigh Park Learning Village' as an essential element of regenerating the local community. The County Council's BSF programme will make a major contribution to the achievement of the targets and aspirations of the Partnership. The Partnership brings together schools alongside other representatives serving the community and is intended to secure better outcomes for children and young people through collaborative planning and joint action. Park Community School would require a complete rebuild to enable it to deliver transformed outcomes for its community. Whilst it achieves very high value added for its young people, this needs to be continually built upon if it is to enable all young people to participate successfully post-16. Proposals for the other schools in the area will ensure that Hampshire's Strategy for Change is delivered for all young people in the locality.

Group 2: Havant West and Gosport. These two geographically linked areas contain the next groups of schools with high levels of social need and relatively lower educational attainment.

Group 3: Rushmoor and Bordon. This is the third area for priority action to improve educational outcomes. Social deprivation indices are relatively high and the school estate presents major challenges for both suitability and condition.

Group 4: Basingstoke Town. This group of schools serve the next community with above average indices of social deprivation. The lowest performing school has just been rebuilt and indications are of significant improvement in outcomes.

Groups 5 - 10. Proposals for these groups will continue to focus on communities where relative deprivation is high, where school condition and suitability causes concern and where there is underachievement. They will also respond to local needs generated by falling and rising rolls. These areas contain pockets of new housing development which will increase demand for school places. Small schools in rural areas will be the focus of some schemes.

Readiness to Deliver:

Hampshire is ready to deliver an efficient and effective Building Schools for the Future programme. The Strategy for Change is at an advanced stage of development and has been informed by consultation undertaken with all headteachers and governing bodies on its underpinning principles. Preliminary consultations on school organisation proposals for the Havant area have recently been completed and a preferred option for statutory consultation will be decided upon by the end of 2008. Schools in the first phase have been involved in developing their visions and change management strategies alongside the consultation programme. There are similar consultation programmes ready for the next groups within the programme and each will be completed in a timescale allowing timely implementation of each phase of the project.

The Strategy for Change is transformational, targeted and deliverable. It is joined up with the wider Children's Plan and local regeneration programmes. Capital investment will be coupled with a long-term change management programme to implement the elements of the Strategy for Change and achieve the outcomes it specifies. The capacity needed for the delivery of the programme has been created through the refocusing of current strategies and the additional support needed throughout the procurement and building programme has been identified.

The County Council's proposals are underpinned by detailed and accurate place planning and up-to-date asset management data, which underpin a very clear statement of priorities within each group and for the overall programme.

Hampshire is committed to the delivery of the programme through a local Education Partnership and to a managed service for the delivery of ICT.

Consultation with Partnerships for Schools has elicited early support for the proposal to establish a Local Education Partnership through a non-standard route, using the existing major contracting frameworks that the County Council manages on behalf of Improvement and Efficiency South East (IESE). This approach has the benefits of substantial cost and programme savings whilst achieving the commercial advantages of the standard procurement route. Once established it has potential to provide a vehicle for other local authorities in the region joining the programme now and in later phases. This approach is receiving considerable interest from the more compact authorities in the region.

The project governance and management framework is now firmly in place, is inclusive and effective. Elected members take a leading role and are actively involved in local consultation. Project direction and an implementation team are in place and have capacity to deliver the programme. Additional capacity for the procurement phase has been identified through internal teams and through additional specialist staff to be recruited as needed. Hampshire has substantial experience in large scale procurement and delivery of capital programmes and can demonstrate its ability to deliver BSF on time and on budget.

Risk management is a particularly advanced skill within Hampshire. The County Council's reputation for the delivery of cost effective, award winning programmes derives from a very effective appraisal of the potential risks and effective action to minimise those risks. A detailed BSF risk register is in place and is monitored regularly by the implementation team and BSF Board.

Appendix B

Prioritisation of Hampshire schools for BSF investment

Expression of Interest 30 November 2008

First Priority Project (target c £80m)

Group 1 Havant

Cowplain Community

Staunton Community Sports College, Havant

The Hayling College

Park Community School, Havant

Warblington School

Horndean Technology College

Rachel Madocks School, Cowplain

Woodlands Education Centre, Havant

Glenwood School, Emsworth

Prospect School, Havant

First Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 2 Havant and Gosport

Bay House School and Sixth Form, Gosport

Brune Park Community College, Gosport

Bridgemary Community Sports College, Gosport

Purbrook Park School

Crookhorn College of Technology, Purbrook

Oaklands Catholic VA Secondary, Purbrook

Quayside Education Centre, Gosport

Second Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 3 Rushmoor and East Hants

Cove School, Farnborough

Fernhill School & Language School, Farnborough

Oak Farm Community School, Farnborough

Mill Chase Community Technology College, Bordon

The Connaught School, Aldershot

The Wavell School, Farnborough

Henry Tyndale School, Farnborough

Samuel Cody School, Farnborough

Hollywater School, Bordon

Linden Education Centre, Farnborough

Third Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 4 Basingstoke

Aldworth Science College, Basingstoke

Bishop Challoner Catholic VA Secondary School, Basingstoke

Brighton Hill Community College, Basingstoke

Costello Technology College, Basingstoke

Cranbourne Business and Enterprise College, Basingstoke

Fort Hill Community School, Basingstoke

Everest Community College, Basingstoke

The Vyne Community School, Basingstoke

Dove House School, Basingstoke

Limington House School, Basingstoke

Grangeside School, Basingstoke

Ashwood Education Centre, Basingstoke

Fourth Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 5 Basingstoke and Test Valley

The Clere School and Technology College, Burghclere

The Hurst Community College, Baughurst

Testbourne Community School, Whitchurch

Harrow Way Community School, Andover

John Hanson Community School, Andover

Test Valley School, Stockbridge

Winton School, Andover

Icknield School, Andover

The Mark Way School, Andover

Andover Education Centre

Fifth Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 6 New Forest

Applemore College, Dibden Purlieu

Hardley School and Sixth Form, Holbury

Hounsdown School, Totton

Noadswood School, Dibden Purlieu

Priestlands School, Lymington

Ringwood School

Testwood Sports College, Totton

The Arnewood School, New Milton

The Burgate School and Sixth Form Centre, Fordingbridge

Oak Lodge School, Dibden Purlieu

Salterns School, Totton

Forest Education Centre

Sixth Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 7 Fareham

Brookfield Community School & Language College, Fareham

Cams Hill School, Fareham

Crofton School, Stubbington

Henry Cort Community College, Fareham

Portchester Community School

The Neville Lovett Community School & CEC, Fareham

Baycroft School, Stubbington

Lord Wilson School, Fareham

St Francis School, Fareham

Seventh Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 8 Eastleigh

Wyvern Technology College, Fair Oak

Crestwood College for Business & Enterprise, Eastleigh

Hamble Community Sports College

Quilley School of Engineering, Eastleigh

The Toynbee School, Chandler's Ford

Thornden School, Chandler's Ford

Wildern School, Hedge End

Lakeside School, Eastleigh

The Bridge Education Centre, Eastleigh

Eighth Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 9 Test Valley and Winchester

The Mountbatten School, Romsey

The Romsey School

Henry Beaufort School, Winchester

Kings' School, Winchester

Perin's School, Alresford

Swanmore College of Technology

The Westgate School, Winchester

Osborne School, Winchester

Ninth Follow-on Project (target c £80-100m)

Group 10 East Hants and Hart

Amery Hill School, Alton

Bohunt School, Liphook

Eggar's School, Alton

The Petersfield School

Calthorpe Park School, Fleet

Court Moor School, Fleet

Frogmore Community College, Yateley

Robert May's School, Odiham

Yateley School