Well – its been a busy final day before the Easter holidays. Nothing like a 105 page government report to test your stamina!. We were asked this afternoon to comment on a BBC report that headlines the ‘failure of the school building system’ but as I said: there is much to be welcomed in the report’s conclusions. So… the myriad of elements of the Capital Review have been deliberated, cogitated and digested and here is my view of the main conclusions of the report.

Overview
We’ve been saying for a long time that the Building Schools for the Future programme was rightly ambitious but unnecessarily unwieldy, expensive and complicated.  This review mirrors that position.  The key now is to come up with an approach that meets the needs of our children and teachers.

30% savings to school building costs
An ambitious target – whilst this might be true of the pilot school with all industry eyes on it, we must be realistic about that being replicated across all refurbished or newly built schools.

Fit for purpose schools
It’s very good news to see this expression repeated throughout the report.  We hope this leads to the development of a decent school standard, which would ensure that all schools are built to a level that positively supports teaching, learning, sport and play.

Standardisation
There is a role for the standardisation of design – the danger is whether the standard is high or low; that will dictate whether schools have the potential to be fit for purpose. We must ensure there is room for innovation in the future.

Evidence of the impact of school buildings on attainment and behaviour
We’ve always called for a robust programme of research on the impact of new school buildings. There IS clear evidence that school environments matter – detailed research in the form of post occupancy evaluation will also help support good practice around design and construction in the future.

A new central body for school buildings
There’s a role for a new central body to support the school building programme, but we welcome the suggestion that funding could sit within the Department for Education.  This should help support a change in culture in the procurement, design and construction process, which the report says is key to making change happen. We’re sorry the review did not recommend the establishment of a national advisory council which could act as a feedback mechanism direct to the Department – one of our key recommendations in our submission.

Local investment plans
The idea of putting local authorities at the centre of the process is welcome in principle.  The need to manage tensions will be key.

Condition of the school estate
A very welcome recommendation – an ongoing piece of work which tracks the condition of the school estate, which will help central and local government plan and help keep our school estate fit for purpose.

Timetable for recommendations
An ambitious timetable is welcome, particularly after the delays to the review itself.

Related posts:

1. James Review is (finally) here
2. Capital ‘James’ Review – our submission
3. Still waiting for Sebastian James…

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

So the early contours of the new government’s approach to ongoing school rebuilding is becoming a good deal clearer. Michael Gove has a short video statement here that includes a continued commitment to renewal and renovation …..

… and you can watch the full parliamentary statement with the debate that followed in full here :

In summary, 715 school revamps already signed up to the scheme will not now go ahead, with a further 123 academy schemes to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

A good deal more detail can be found following the links on this page. He also argued that a good deal of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme was “massively flawed” and “over-bureaucratic”.

We’ve been busy in the media offering a commentary on this – you can fast-forward to 2 hours 12 minutes into the Radio Five Live breakfast show here on the iPlayer to hear my five-minute interview. Broadly, we’ve been saying that the consequences of cutting the school building programme are significant – we know decent school environments have an impact on pupil attainment, behaviour and wellbeing as well as teacher recruitment and retention.

We’re hoping that the announced review will come up with significant and creative ideas to keep the renewal of our school buildings on track – whether through refurbishment, or refreshing current buildings, or re-using other buildings.

We’re totally in agreement with Michael Gove about the way that waste and bureaucracy have been a real drag on the school building programme – we must find new ways of doing things that are smarter, and more efficient.

But, at the same time, most of all we have to keep our eyes on the prize, and remember that investment in school buildings is also an investment in teachers. Good school buildings deliver results for children, teachers, parents and communities, and help get our children ready for the challenges of adulthood.

Related posts:

1. School capital investment – getting our house in order
2. Wales 21st Century Schools programme
3. New government: long signalled, swift action

Are you waiting for BSF?

Yesterday I spoke at an event entitled, ‘Why wait for BSF?’ , hosted by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. It’s early days for their work on this issue but some of the invited schools had done fantastic work. Like the BCSE’s Big School Makeover schools – these schools had not waited for permission to think about their environment in different ways. The school environment was a tool for improving their schools.

I enjoyed hearing Mark Lovat and Simon Brown from Cramlington Learning Village. These guys and their Head, Derek Wise, had toured the world and brought it all back home tailored to the needs of their learners. Dr Patrick Hazlewood and Barry Worth from the ( new) St John’s School and Community College, Marlborough spoke on BSfN (Building Schools for Nothing ) having raised £22m, then another £4.5m to design, buld and enjoy a new school. Wonderful people; wonderful leaders. Their watchwords, ‘Build your dream big enough…. And never stop making your school better.’ ‘And have a deep rooted philosophy of what education is for.’

Energetic Carl Ward from Sutherland Business and Enterprise College, Telford spoke about the first BSF ICT testbed in the country. Good idea but the spaces needs a little softening. Phil Ward spoke about the experiences of Heston Community School – they didn’t wait for BSF either.

As one Deputy in Melbourne said to our friends from Cramlington, ‘sometimes there’s a need to disturb the physical space to affect the pedagogy’ Well thought through and understood learning spaces allow a variety of approaches to teaching and learning. The Classroom – Plus school.

Related posts:

1. School capital investment – getting our house in order
2. Kunskapsskolan – new dynamics in teaching and learning?

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.