Many of the UK's school buildings are in an alarming state of disrepair, therefore, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's baby, Building Schools for the Future was welcomed by pupils, staff and parents, when it was announced in 2004. Of course, it was clear that there would be some difficult transitional years, while the bidding and building work took place, but the end results would surely be worth it.
Yet while there are definitely some success stories, the majority of column inches over the last few years have been critical of the progress of BSF. There have been concerns over the funding of the project from the very start. The Government was keen for the new schools to be paid for by Privately Financed Initiatives (PFIs) where private companies pay for the buildings and lease the back to the schools on a long-term contract. The large majority of new schools will be built with PFI money although the Government will pay for the refurbishments.
However, PFI has led to some confusion - the new academies, for example, have all opted out of PFI preferring to keep control over building and ownership. It seems there are worries that if schools do not own the buildings could they end up not being able to use them all the time? For example, if community projects were using the school in the evenings?
Then there is the procurement process itself. The project is designed to bring "waves" of local authorities through the scheme. The first six waves covering 50 local authorities and 600 school remodelling projects were announced at the end of 2006. The problem was that few local authorities signed contracts at the time, largely because many do not know how to handle such vast rebuilding projects.
This has led to major delays. At the end of 2007, there were only 14 new schools built, out of the 100 expected. By the end of this year, it is estimated that there will be just 56 new schools and not the 200 predicted.
A DfES spokesman said of the problems, "Addressing decades of underinvestment will not happen overnight - that is why this government has committed record investment in schools buildings across the board. We have addressed the key challenges to delivering this unprecedented building project. We have streamlined the planning and design process; improved management and leadership ability at local authority level and are now making good ground."
The contractors have also hindered BSF - even before they have laid a brick. Firstly they have had to contend with the costly bidding process. This is the latest aspect of BSF to come under fire. It is claimed that enough money to fund a new school in every local authority is being lost because of the costly and burdensome bidding process.
Ty Goddard, director of the British Council for School Environments, which represents hundreds of schools, local authorities and building companies has written to Ed Balls. For more than 100 contracts there are 3 short-listed firms to be considered with costs of £2m and more. "Each single bidders costs put together could fund a new primary school," he said. "There is massive consensus among construction firms, teachers and architects that the BSF procurement process is mismanaged."
Goddard wants to see local authorities work with designers to come up with plans and then put them out to bidders - a system known as smart PFI that was developed by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Construction giant Jarvis eventually pulled out of the majority of its school projects after it became crippled by the costs. Its projects faced major delays due to PFI and who was going to take responsibility for the finished project.
And perhaps the timing of BSF itself is a factor. Barry Sheerman, Labour MP pointed out, "There is a dramatic pressure on the construction industry. A massive hospital building programme, the Olympics in 2012 - not to mention the biggest construction project in Europe, the new terminal five at Heathrow."
Perhaps the lowest point came when in January last year, Tim Byles, chief executive of Partnership for Schools which is delivering the BSF programme admitted the Governments plans were "over-ambitious and not deliverable" and said it would result in the closure of some schools. Mr. Byles said he expected there to be fewer schools at the end of BSF. For example on Merseyside there are plans to consolidate 12 schools into just seven.
Steve Sinnott, the general secretary of the NUT said at the time that the situation was "absolutely unforgivable". "We have a building stock that is not fit for purpose. Some schools are little better than slums."
And if that wasn't bad enough - there was even criticism of the schools that had been rebuilt. A report by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment in (Cabe) 2007 found that only one in five schools built since 2000 were of excellent design. Nine out of 10 of the worst were built using PFI money. The government then asked that Cabe form part of a new assessment panel to monitor and evaluate the designs for every BSF school.
So, is it all doom and gloom? Not according to Jim Knight, Schools Minister, who believes the press is missing the point. "There has been some criticism of BSF," he admitted. "But that criticism has overlooked some really important achievements. Already across our capital programmes, contracts have been signed covering more than 800 new-build or refurbished schools. More schools have been built in the past five years than in the past 25."
The Government asked consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers to compile an independent evaluation of BSF. Its results were published in December 2007. It concluded:
"Barriers to the BSF process included the perceived high levels of complexity associated with the programme, and some uncertainties around the clustering arrangements were identified, e.g. only one quarter of headteachers agreed/strongly agreed that BSF clustering arrangements had enabled them to plan more effectively to meet the wider needs of the area. Research participants also highlighted specific resourcing constraints, including a lack of time, support and finance, and there was perceived to be a general lack of transparency in relation to information, dialogue and funding."
But the report also found that there remains optimism for the project among those involved. "There are high expectations of BSF with the majority of teachers believing that the BSF programme will support educational transformation," the report reads.
The report suggests the following improvements should be put in place to ensure the smoother delivery of BSF:
- Everyone involved should learn from best practice and share information: for example, by undertaking visits to schools involved in similar building projects;
- PfS should make more effective use of appropriate guidance and information: a checklist of guidelines and information relating to each of the key stages in the process should be made available to schools and Local Authorities;
- PfS should continue to develop more effective methods for consulting all stakeholders: a pool of information on effective consultation methods appropriate for all stakeholders, (including headteachers, governing bodies. staff, pupils, parents and the wider community), should be drawn up based partly on the findings from this evaluation;
- Everyone involved (including PfS, Local Authorities and schools) should ensure more meaningful involvement of staff, pupils and other stakeholders: particularly in the design of the new or refurbished buildings in order to achieve a successful outcome; and
- Schools should provide the appropriate amount and type of resource to the programme: in particular, where schools have had the financial resources to appoint a dedicated BSF manager, the evidence suggests that the process has been smoother and more efficient.
