Westerfield College is not “only an idea”, it is a real school site (brick-and-mortar) undergoing refurbishment and fit-out. Beyond presentations, there are concrete elements already in place:

• Policies: All required core policies to start safely are already written and held in a central policy file (currently around 32 policies). Policies are “living documents”, we can always add further policies as needed (e.g., specific welfare areas), but the essential baseline is complete and paid-for.
• Operations: We are actively preparing the site, systems, and staffing plan — not starting from scratch.
• Delivery proof-point: A large on-site summer programme is scheduled ahead of September launch, demonstrating readiness of the site and operations before full-time students arrive.

We plan around the three areas parents usually mean by “teething problems”,  facility readiness, staffing, and financial stability:

1. Facility readiness: The campus is an established education site, not a brand-new build. Refurbishment work will be completed in time, and the school will be operational for a substantial summer programme beforehand, providing a real-world readiness test before September.
2. Technology & installation risk: The technology being installed (e.g., interactive boards) is proven, widely used in schools, and being delivered by experienced suppliers — we are scaling what’s already standard, not experimenting with untested systems.
3. Staffing quality: Recruitment will not be rushed. We will use specialist headhunting / sector recruitment and safe recruitment checks to prevent unsuitable or inexperienced appointments.
4. Financial capacity: The school is funded to operate; we are not relying on goodwill or hope to keep the doors open

Our non-negotiables are academic delivery, safeguarding, and pastoral care. If financial pressure ever arose, we would protect those first.

Any reductions would come from non-essential or discretionary areas that do not affect teaching quality, supervision, safeguarding, or student wellbeing, for example:

• phasing of non-critical enhancements
• discretionary enrichment/extras (where appropriate)
• non-essential expansion timing
• operational efficiencies that do not touch student experience or safety

We would also communicate clearly with families if any changes affected delivery.

It depends on why you’re considering a move — so we would answer this by asking one respectful question first:

“What prompted you to explore alternatives?”

• If it’s academic fit: Westerfield supports clearer pathways, specialist facilities, and structured progression.
• If it’s pastoral/boarding structure: We have a deliberately designed residential culture and strong student support.
• If it’s value: At Westerfield, families receive for the fee level, strong value for outcomes and provision.

We would never advise a move purely for marketing reasons. We will only recommend it if Westerfield genuinely matches the student’s goals and needs better.

We reduce that risk in practical, parent-protective ways:

• Fees timing: Families would not be asked to pay full fees far in advance of starting.
• Deposit protection: Any deposit required would be clearly set out, with refund terms (including protection if the school did not open).
• Clear commitment points: We will provide families with clear milestone confirmations (well ahead of September) so no one is left in uncertainty near results season.
• Contract clarity: Once a student has an unconditional confirmed place and fees are taken under agreed terms, the school has clear obligations.

We agree that parents should not rely on “trust me” statements. That’s why we point families to evidence you can see, such as:

• a real operating site (not a hypothetical build)
• visible progress on readiness
• an operational summer programme before September
• published policies and safeguarding systems
• published partners / progression routes (where relevant)

Our approach is: “Don’t take our word for it, check what is in place and what you can verify.”

Many new schools fail because they carry legacy cost structures and inflexible overheads. Westerfield is being set up with a leaner, more sustainable operating model and strong planning around staffing and delivery.

In short: we’re not inheriting the same structural burdens that often sink new entrants, and we’re building with sustainability and delivery readiness from day one.

A Board of Governors is being formed and will be published (including roles), with a blend of independent and internal members.

Typical governance structure includes:

• Independent governors bringing external oversight and challenge
• Staff governors (e.g., Principal, operations lead) who are accountable to the full board
• specialist input as needed (e.g., safeguarding, education leadership, finance, legal, estates)

Key point for parents: staff involvement is normal in governance; it works because staff are answerable to a wider board with independent challenge.

No. The curriculum model is not theoretical — it is based on established programmes and delivery structures.

• For A Levels, progression is primarily results-led; students do not need “special university relationships” to apply successfully.
• For foundation routes, we will evidence progression through published partner pathways and clear progression support.

Safeguarding is audited and held accountable through multiple layers:

1. Governance: A Board (including safeguarding oversight) challenges decisions and reviews safeguarding practice.
2. Legal compliance: Safeguarding is not optional — the school must comply with statutory safeguarding requirements and guidance.
3. External inspection / standards frameworks: Safeguarding is scrutinised through external standards and inspection expectations (including any relevant accreditation frameworks where applicable).
4. Internal systems: Clear policies, reporting routes, record keeping, training, and safer recruitment create an auditable safeguarding trail.

We prevent this by design:

• Specialist recruitment / headhunting to target proven sector experience
• Safer recruitment checks and structured selection processes
• No “panic hires”: roles are phased and prioritised, with quality protected over speed
• Clear accountability: staff performance and conduct are overseen through leadership and governance structures

We understand the concern, but this is not a “concept only” school. The certainty is grounded in:

• an existing operational site
• real refurbishment/fit-out activity (not speculative construction)
• operational delivery before September (summer programme)
• transparent parent protections on payments and confirmations

We will always separate what is already in place from what is still being finalised, so families are never asked to rely on vague promises.

Evidence includes what can be verified:

• site readiness milestones and delivery activity
• policies and safeguarding systems already written and implemented
• confirmed operational programmes before full opening
• published governance arrangements and named oversight
• published progression support and (where relevant) pathway relationships

Protections include:

• clear contractual terms (offers, deposits, refund conditions)
• statutory safeguarding duties and regulatory expectations
• governance oversight
• external scrutiny via inspection/standards frameworks
• documented procedures that create accountability beyond individuals

We would not ask families to accept both.

• Financial exposure is reduced through sensible payment timing and clear refund/contract protections.
• Academic exposure is reduced through strong staffing decisions, safeguarding/pastoral systems, and clear delivery readiness backed by operational proof-points (including delivery before September).

If a family feels exposure remains too high for their situation, we would rather they choose the option that feels safest, we will not pressure families into risk.