#229: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

No the targeted basic need money is for increasing the school to two FE, not just for new buildings, no funds have been bid for to improve the site KCC found money in their budget fir the new school and you can bet they can find money to keep it 1FE, there is also a great deal of money in central govt fir schools that remains unallocated, wouldn't it also be great to see the diocese put their hands in their own pockets. The leased land can be purchased that was in the schools plan from the start. Also the evidence is that the school will not close as stated by roger Gough, roger truelove, lee burgess. If the area faces a shortfall then they will not reduce a school in size and exashabate the situation.

#230: Choose a nickname - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re201 and 203

Yes the money is for an increase to 2FE, however that is impossible with the school on it's current site, even with development the plot of land there is only so large and would not accomodate 2FE.

KCC have stated that the likely course of action will be to reduce to 1/2 FE if this doesn't go ahead, which of course doesn't mean "close". But it is a natural progression that with reduced entry/reduced budget/reduced resource, that the school will not be able to perform to it's current standards. With a reduced in-take, access to any money to improve the current site will be virtually impossible and that points towards eventual closure.

So no-one is saying that if it doesn't go ahead the school will close within a year, but it is a high probability that the school will enter a gradual decline which makes it untenable compared to whatever alternative "new" school has to arrive in place of the proposed development.