After a long wait, we finally have the Independent Review of Education Capital – the James Review – which sets out the 16 recommendations for the reform of the way schools are procured, designed and built. Probably the biggest headline grabbing elements are:

• the much aired challenges, problems and waste associated with the Building Schools for the Future programme
• the suggestion that free schools capital budgets should be retained centrally
• that Partnerships for Schools should have an even larger remit and reach as a central body including negotiating contracts with the construction industry

There are also the issues we raised in our previous blog posts around: greater standardisation, the reduction in red tape around planning and building regulations, the use of faster procurement routes and a move away from the goals of school capital programmes being focused on ‘educational transformation’ to look instead at building condition and pupil places. He also recommends that new buildings should be based on a set of standardised design templates (referencing the kind of model used by Dixons and TESCOs) – yet will incorporate “the latest thinking on educational requirements.

The author of the report, Sebastian James, Operations Director for Dixons, says that the current system was “complex, time-consuming, expensive and opaque and that savings of up to 30% could be made by streamlining it” and that a “lack of expertise” among those procuring the buildings – often head teachers – meant there was little opportunity to lower costs or improve building methods”.

Already the review has sparked some interesting comment including Neil O’Brien, Director of Policy Exchange who in his Telegraph blog (as well as their report Building Blocks) is highly critical not only of BSF but also of the role of Partnerships for Schools.

We are currently preparing our analysis and response – but in the meantime the review document and letter from Sebastian James can be found at the Department of Education website.

Related posts:

1. Capital ‘James’ Review – our submission
2. Still waiting for Sebastian James…
3. Responding to the James review

The long heralded James Review on the future of schools capital seems to have had more pencilled-in launch dates than a NASA Shuttle. But we are pretty confident it will be launched shortly… For an industry that thrives on certainty, local authorities that need to plan and schools that need investment, this delay has implications. Rumours often fill information voids; some are plainly ridiculous, some really do represent debate within the Review team and Government. What we do know for sure are the three key watchwords for the James Review: building condition, standardisation and more for less.

That still leaves some big questions – what’s to be said about Labour’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. Were there any redeeming features about BSF? How can we ensure proper design for teaching and quality with an off-site modular approach? Is it sustainable and enduring to issue summary cost cuts to present and future projects? How do you incubate real innovation in an era of more for less? Shouldn’t Academy sponsors just be trusted with the capital spend – without intermediaries? How can Free Schools be created, work and really look and feel different to the parents involved?

Yesterday, I defended some aspects of BSF at a round table event chaired by Sir Mike Tomlinson. What I couldn’t defend was the silence of too many professionals and organisations, at the time, about what was really wrong with the BSF delivery process. The multiple professions involved should have done their own house-keeping. We wasted too many opportunities to get BSF right. We should have put our own house in order – not incrementally but properly.

School buildings are also becoming an even more deeply political subject and if you have any doubt, Michael Gove speaking at the Spectator conference last week said:

“People blame us. But if you are upset, the guilty men are Gordon Brown and Ed Balls; and the Treasury were responsible. The last Labour Government deliberately chose the most expensive route to build schools. I’m as angry as anyone else about the state of some of our school buildings”

There was also an equally lively exchange this week in the House of Commons:

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): The Secretary of State’s comments about the state of the school estate in comparison to what it was like after the Conservative Government in 1997 are nothing short of a disgrace. The reality is that this year the average secondary school has had its budget for maintenance and repairs cut from more than £105,000 to less than £20,000 this year. The Secretary of State has spectacularly failed to stand up for our schools and our schoolchildren. Does that not fatally expose how vacuous his claims are to have found more resources for schools this year?

Michael Gove: That question was beautifully written, almost as though it had been carved in marble by a master mason. The truth is that no one on that side of the House can afford to clamber on to their high horse when it comes to school buildings. It was that side of the House that inherited a golden economic legacy and squandered it. It was that side of the House that betrayed a generation of young people by giving us a record deficit and a record debt. It was that side of the House that presided over a schools building programme that was reckless, profligate and inefficient. It was that side of the House that put political convenience and partisanship ahead of our young people. Frankly, even though the hon. Gentleman was not in the last Parliament, every time he comes to that Dispatch Box to talk about the state of our education system or school buildings, there is only one word we need to hear from him, and that word is sorry (Source: Hansard)

The state of school buildings clearly matters to the coalition and the opposition as well as to our schools and communities. Indeed it is this passion for the fabric of schools that started our own organisation. But not everything lasts forever – BSF had its day. We at the BCSE have also had to rethink how we shape and respond to the new landscape ahead. We are an independent charity and not party political. We have tried to be a cool voice in a heated debate.

Lets hope the launch of the James Review heralds the rational debate this important subject needs. Also keep an eye on this Wednesday’s budget for some positive news on ways forward for investment in our schools and colleges.

Related posts:

1. Capital ‘James’ Review – our submission
2. Responding to the James review
3. Waiting for Superman: Free Schools vs Local Schools – the debate starts here

On Monday 22 November, we are lucky enough to be hosting the first UK screening of the Oscar shortlisted film ‘Waiting for Superman‘ that has rocked the US education system and is set to send the debate about Free Schools in the UK into orbit. We know that the film will generate a huge amount of debate between… in the Blue Corner - Free School promoters and advocates such as Michael Gove, Toby Young and Rachel Wolf vs in the Red Corner - Free School detractors and critics including Christine Blower from the NUT and Fiona Millar, Melissa Benn and co at the Local Schools Network. Well let the debate start here…Our screening on Monday is followed by a debate with a panel including myself, US Founder and CEO of TeachFirst Brett Wigdortz, James Turner Head of Policy at the Sutton Trust and Janet Cullen, Headteacher of Lea Valley School. And if you think that debate will spark some fireworks, there will no doubt be a ‘bonfire and new years eve style’ display after the event in the media, the education press and blogosphere.

So lets light the fuse for this debate now, ahead of our screening, so we have some views to start our discussion on Monday.

Let us know what you feel about Charter Schools in the US or Free Schools in the UK and (if you are in the US) what issues were raised for you in the film? There is a wealth of coverage of the film in the US – where it has sparked debate across the country. The official WfS website is here and there is notwaitingforsuperman.org which shares some of the less favourable reaction to the film in the US.

Back to the UK – I’ll also share with you a comment from Toby Young himself – who said to me last week in an email:

‘You must understand what this film is really about… the film portrays charter school pioneers as true American heroes and the US teaching unions as blinkered and self-serving. It’s an eviscerating attack on the American teaching unions and a ringing endorsement of the American charter school movement’.

So to translate this for a UK context…

Free schools pioneers are heroes and teaching unions and the views that the local schools network represents are intransigent and holding back the education system…

Is that enough to start the debate?… comments welcome… and much more to come after the screening. Watch this space…

Related posts:

1. Let’s be proud of our schools – set them free
2. Free Schools Thinking – what is our new report saying?
3. Free Schools Thinking launched

We all have a memory of that place we call school. A moment of insight or fun; a teacher that inspired; the classroom; the sports field; an art room; a playground; a science experiment; the awful toilets. Our childhood in our schools has for many a particular and enduring place in our memories. And schools stir great passions and great divides – when in fact there is more to connect us together than divide us. And in an increasingly competitive education system globally, there is now more to gain from having a common sense view about our schools – so we don’t fall further behind Singapore, Finland or China.So what we must do is set our teachers free, set our schools free and set the system free. The trajectory of government legislation in this area is exceptionally positive – new academies provide greater freedoms in terms of staff pay, conditions and the curriculum and, as middle class parents are now saying in a recent Durham University report the results are starting to add up. Free Schools too have enormous potential to address a major problem of a lack of school places – resulting from a population timebomb of children coming into the system – and they put parents, charities and teachers into the driving seat of setting up their own school. Critically both policies are based on a growing evidence base in Charter Schools in the US, which have radically changed the education system in America.

But despite this, the education system – much like the National Health Service – is like a large tanker. It takes time to turn around, takes pioneering leaders to show the way and takes courage from the large majority of frontline teachers who, despite caricature, are small ‘c’ conservative in nature. So the question for us is – have we set the bar high enough? Are we being ambitious enough in the change we want in education? And can we free up schools even further so they and we are able to compete with other countries?

Our report launched last week, Free Schools Thinking, encourages teachers, parents and government to deliver even greater freedoms, at a faster pace of change and beyond just freeing up the model of schooling (academies and free schools) and the supply side (academy sponsors, chains of schools). More fundamentally we should be freeing up all schools in terms of:

• the time when teaching and learning takes place, including longer teaching days;
• the people who help to support schools including local businesses and entrepreneurs;
• the spaces where learning takes place including corridors, playgrounds and after school clubs;
• the places where schools can be located including redundant offices, government buildings and factories.

Free Schools Thinking also entails an understanding that school environments can be a major tool for school improvement. Every top private school, academy and comprehensive knows they must invest some of their budget in creating ‘decent school environments’ to inspire and develop future leaders of this country. And this is not about the bricks and mortar or glass atriums – which we know are just a means to an end. This is about common sense elements such as light, temperature, air quality, acoustics and decent furniture – which are important in our workplaces but sadly not in all schools. It is vital to refresh, refurbish or reuse schools to ensure they function well, last for a generation and make a difference in terms of results and achievement.

The bureaucracy surrounding such programmes such as Building Schools for the Future were an insult to our architects, construction companies and suppliers who are in fact not just building some of the best schools in the UK, but are exporting British products and expertise to a global market. The waste represented in this policy represented the ‘Worst of Britain’. Freeing up our schools to think differently about the way education is delivered, reducing bureaucracy, stripping away planning laws and rewarding excellence is the ‘Best of Britain’ and vital if we are to compete with the fastest moving economies and education systems in the world.

Let us be proud of our schools – let us set them free.

Note: this post is adapted from a ‘Platform article’ written by Ian Fordham on ConservativeHome – the most visited grassroots Conservative Party website in the UK

Related posts:

1. Free Schools Thinking – what is our new report saying?
2. Free Schools Thinking launched
3. Academies and Free Schools Advisory Service

We are really thrilled to be launching our new BCSE / Centre for School Design publication Free Schools Thinking on the 20 October 2010 – the day of the announcement of the UK Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review. The timing is not a coincidence. We feel strongly that despite budgets in education and across the public sector being cut, that the thinking about education should not be cut back too. Teachers, parents and those working with schools should be encouraged and enabled to ‘free up’ the way they work, the people they work with and the places and spaces where teaching and learning takes place – so they can find new ways of improving their schools and the education system as a whole. Our publication is the result of a unique collaboration between the BCSE, the Centre for School Design and 5 leading architect practices (Architecture PLB, GSS Architecture, Jestico & Whiles, Ryder Architecture and RH Partnership) who co-developed the report over a 5 month period.

The first section of the report looks at the changing policy landscape and puts forward a framework that encourages schools and those working with them to rethink the spaces and places where teaching and learning takes place and the time and people who help to support learning. It argues that many schools are already working in innovative ways and that new policies such as ‘Free Schools’ (regardless of your views on its potential impact) have started to provide an injection of fresh thinking into the way schools are managed, designed and work in practice. But to achieve a step change – we believe passionately that ‘free thinking’ must be applied to all elements of the education system – for us to compete in an increasingly global education market.

The second section of the report looks at a set of new typologies and case studies for schools – looking in depth at the issues, opportunities and challenges associated with locating schools in radically different building types. From public buildings to offices to retail and factories – the report highlights how a free thinking approach might enable a huge, undersused reservoir of public and private sector estate to be used to create exciting and dynamic spaces for teaching and learning. It moves beyond the rhetoric of ‘schools on high streets’ or ‘eduretail’ and looks in detail at the way the education system in the UK might be developed if such projects were delivered and taken up to scale.

We hope that our landmark publication, the first of its kind in the UK, will act as a stimulus for debate about the education system we want in the future. A preview of the report is shown below and the final report will be available in full on this website on the 20 October.

Update: our report has been featured over the weekend in articles on the BBC, the Independent on Sunday, Building Design (£) and Construction News (£)

Related posts:

1. Free schools – connecting the dots
2. Academies and Free Schools Advisory Service
3. Hard politics and new directions for schools

Leading headteacher and member of the BCSE’s Great Schools Inquiry and Commission, Anthony Seldon launches his latest report today which shares 20 ways of ending Factory Schools in England (Centre for Policy Studies).

With an emphasis on a return to “the delight, gratitude and stimulus” in schools his work will resonate with a large number of schools across the country.There is a section on the school environment where he talks about the importance of making your classroom and school attractive and welcoming which will lead to pupils enjoying being in them, learning more and having more pride in their school. Common sense really – when you think about it.

Related posts:

1. Great Schools Commission – a shake up for the system
2. School capital investment – getting our house in order
3. The Swedish Schools model – will they work in the UK?

The BCSE’s Great Schools Inquiry and Commission interim report launch is just over a month away. So now is a good time to reflect on the landscape in which we are now working.

It is clear to me that there is a time when every government policy or spending priority needs a good shake up and the school capital programme is no exception. There are 3 factors at play here:

1. there is a public and political appetite for change and education may not win out over other priorities in a new government
2. in the world of public services there is a growing uncertainty about capital as a panacea to improving outcomes in local communities
3. in the midst of a recession, industry is looking to rationalise and thinking twice about the huge bidding and procurement costs associated with this market.

So what next for this agenda? What is clear is that we know much more about what makes great teaching and learning in the classroom and how to build a great office or home, but much less about what makes a great school and how to ensure school buildings raise attainment and improve pupil and staff well being.

We know there is a ‘patchwork quilt’ of research available about what works, but there is no common methodology, no uk based longitudinal reviews and we avoid much needed post occupancy data that the system needs to learn and improve.

We are also now part of a global movement for change and similar to other countries, we are at a crossroads in major buildings programmes . With limited resources and in the midst of the crunch we have to get better at understanding and prioritising what works. Given the estimated £100bn being invested in the UK and a serious consideration being made of a new procurement framework by Partnerships for Schools, we have a once in a generation chance to get it right.

We need a number of things in place to make sure the whole of the education, design and construction industry gets the most out of this investment. We need a compelling and ambitious vision for what makes great schools for the 21st Century – developed from a robust evidence base and the views of teachers, parents and the young people – who will inhabit these buildings and bring them to life for the next 50 years.

We need industry wide engagement to ensure we circle the wagons around the investment to ensure it doesn’t lose out to political short termism and alternative priorities. And we need to make the economic case for education investment that requires more sophisticated set of metrics and a way of telling the story of the great successes the industry has brought for a range of communities

The present Government deserves praise for massive investment in our education infrastructure. We had become experts at ‘patch’ and ‘mend’. Our teachers and professionals who work with schools shouldn’t have to just make do. Yet, whilst celebrating this investment there are 3 signposts for the future:

1. There should be a greater level of connection in the policy environment between parents and schools; between the centre of government and the practice of schools. There’s also greater value to be gained in the costs and timescales for delivering major policies that could be scaled back and achieve more for less – as David Cameron says its not just pay, pensions it’s a third p – procurement.
2. We need to think deeply enough about how school capital investment and other policies are acting as a real catalyst for school improvement or improving outcomes for young people?  Is the capital investment really acting as a tool for social justice – encouraging self- esteem, civic engagement, respect and well-being. There’s also not enough sharing of what works between schools, down the road, let alone from here to Sweden.
3. And finally – we know that school buildings make a massive contribution to the local economy as much as they do to standards. We know that there is a major industry at stake if investment falters

In a debate like this – we need to make difficult decisions based on what is really working in the most disadvantaged communities. We need to place a much greater emphasis on the environment in which teachers, young people and parents connect together. In times of great difficulty we start to innovate – lets use this as a catalyst to think differently and create great schools for every community

This is an edited version of an article from the newly launched Partnerships Bulletin – as context to the Great Schools Commission. Baroness Estelle Morris, chair of the Commission, will be talking at BSEC this thursday and the interim report of the Commission will be launched in late March 2010.

Related posts:

1. School capital investment – getting our house in order
2. The truth about parent promoted schools
3. Behaviour theory and education – the nudge factor

This is an absolutely vital time. This major investment in school buildings has made a difference, and we really can’t afford to go back to not spending money consistently on infrastructure. The sheer scale of this investment is hard to absorb for many people, and it’s been ill-served by some of the ‘research’ flying around.

The Great Schools Commission [a cross-party group set up by the BCSE and chaired by former education secretary Estelle Morris] is looking at an evidence base in the UK and abroad that says this matters. It’s not about crude research expecting attainment to rise instantly. But when you see new and refurbished buildings that are understood by teachers and learners, and designed to support what the school is, then I think the argument is pretty conclusive.

I recently met Mr Castle, an assistant head of Elm Green school in Lambeth. He had taught in six schools across London, and spoke of the difference that this majestic building is making. He said “the building allows the staff to teach, it doesn’t get in the way”. They can use double-sized classrooms when they need to, and small ones for quiet work. They have an amazing space called the market square for recreation. It’s making a difference to how he and his fellow teachers feel about teaching.

Getting our house in order

We’ve got to get our house in order, as we cannot justify the costs that have been associated with the Building Schools for the Future programme. But cutting the costs are different from cutting the investment. We need different approaches to procurement. And I think we need a national advisory council at the heart of government that can talk directly about school investment to the secretary of state. Quangos like Partnerships for Schools and BECTA, by their very nature, are not best placed to explain or defend investment to a wider audience.

I’m clear that whatever school system you have, it needs good environments. We’ve got to make the arguments: it’s about the achievements and outcomes for young people, and about jobs. You look around the world and other countries are investing in infrastructure, so it’s also about UK plc. And we should appreciate the skills that we have taken years to build up in design, construction and the supply chain.

Investment on this scale hasn’t just happened because someone waved a magic wand. We had to make a case, and we have to again, with and around other public spending priorities. I was recently at the Conservatives education policy launch, in a fantastic academy in Walworth.  They wouldn¹t have launched it in an allotment shed. I think that we need to communicate to both front benches that this investment matters. And we can’t do it on our own.

This is an edited version from an ‘in conversation piece’ article with Sarah Richardson, Deputy Editor, Building Magazine. Ty is speaking at the BSEC conference next week with a hard hitting presentation – ‘the truth about school buildings’.

Related posts:

1. Technology and school buildings
2. The Swedish Schools model – will they work in the UK?

The role of technology in school building programmes was called into question this week by prominent principal Armando Di-Finizio from Bristol Brunel Academy who was quoted in a Times article saying that millions of pounds were being wasted on “white elephant” technology in schools. He went further to say that there were pressures on schools to buy expensive equipment and that headteachers were being led up the wrong path by ‘IT experts’ and had to contend with a fixation for constantly updating classrooms with the latest gadgets, which had not been tested to destruction.

But was the story all it appeared to be? The subtext for this article, felt to us like it was the opening salvo in the debate about the place of technology within school building investment. But an interesting turn of events happened with a series of tweets from former Principal and Education Adviser Bob Harrison who said  ”I am not sure what the Times article reported was what I heard Armando say on the panel at the Westminster Forum event”.

“I have been supporting schools and colleges with their technology visions for several years now and in the early stages mistakes have clearly been made” said Bob “And there are a number of reasons for this including a local authority or schools lack of clarity about their needs, a tendency for companies to ‘over-promise’ in the competitive dialogue, and a failure, on all sides, to seriously commit to partnership approach. I think a further complication in the Brunel Academy was the change of ICT provider during the BSF process and now the procurement is sharper and schools are better at defining their needs”

It will be interesting to find out what the headteacher thinks about the article. What is clear to us is that technology does have a major role to play in school capital programmes. What we need now is an honest debate about what really works and not a procession of white elephant stories.

No related posts.

While we were launching The Centre for School Design on Monday, we all missed this feature on Radio 4′s PM programme by Andrew Bomford, covering a new English Heritage report.

Broadly, the EH report promotes the renovation of older school buildings rather than the development of new ones – as English Heritage put it, ‘constructive conservation’.

A recent survey by English Heritage of 1,723 adults shows that two thirds think that refurbishing and extending old schools is more environmentally friendly than demolishing them and rebuilding new ones.

In the same survey, 83% of respondents feel that local councils should do more to find new uses for old, empty schools, and almost half (47%) feel that schools with historic character provide a more inspiring educational environment than modern ones. Three in four also say that historic schools contribute to the identity of a local area.

The R4 piece focuses on Elm Court School in Lambeth that was re-opened in March last year.

You can hear the whole thing – it’s only a short four-minute package) via the BBC iPlayer link (38mins and 10 secs in – listen to it as soon as you can as it may only be available for a short time). I’ll be posting a few more thoughts on refresh, refurb and remodelling later this week

No related posts.