Conclusions and recommendations
Background to Building Schools for the Future
1. It
is worth emphasising the scale and scope of BSF; there is no
project like it anywhere in the world. Not since the huge Victorian
and post-war building waves has there been investment in our school
capital stock on this scale. (Paragraph 18)
2. We welcome the
ambitions of the programme and intend this report to assist in
maximising its effect on improving the quality and sustainability
of the environments for learning in this country. (Paragraph 18)
The current situation
3. Our
inquiry has led us to recognise the importance of early planning
and so to believe that delay in the programme is a less significant
risk to its success than inadequate preliminary thinking and clarity
at a local level about what is required (Paragraph 21)
Procurement problems
4. The
participation of teachers, other school staff and pupils in the
planning process is vital to the success of school redevelopment
projects, and this needs to be acknowledged by all those involved.
As the comments collected by Teachers' TV show, those working
in schools have a clear understanding of what is needed in a building
to create a positive learning environment. Involving them in the
earliest stages may require time, but will help to develop robust
plans which will contribute to the success of the process. (Paragraph
35)
5. There clearly have
been problems with the authorities in the early waves of BSF,
but the fact that the project has slipped from its early targets
is not necessarily significant. What does matter is whether those
authorities who have suffered delays have been able to resolve
problems and come up with proposals that are robust and achievable,
and whether lessons have been learned for those authorities coming
into the process at later stages so there is no repetition of
the same delays and difficulties. (Paragraph 39)
Learning the early lessons
6. The
DCSF and Partnerships for Schools should develop as a priority
a knowledge management and learning strategy to support authorities,
schools, contractors, suppliers and others involved in BSF to
share best practice and learning as the programme develops. (Paragraph
44)
7. There is a strong
argument that on the basis of cost and time savings some of the
choices on these nuts and bolts issues could be restricted. PfS
have made some progress on this with, for example, guidance on
the general principles for design of toilet blocks. There needs
to be a discussion about how to build on this kind of initiative
to make the most of the market position of Building Schools for
the Future on a whole range of procurement issues. (Paragraph
49)
8. We ask the DCSF
to respond to the criticism of procurement of ICT, and to set
out its plans for ensuring that ICT procurement within BSF does
enable technological development to be properly taken into account.
(Paragraph 52)
9. There is a very
strong argument that the initial 'visioning' phase should be lengthened.
All authorities in the waves so far announced should already be
addressing the issue of what they want of their schools. The difficulties
faced by the earliest waves of authorities in coping with deadlines
suggest that this would be time well spent. (Paragraph 53)
10. The development
for all BSF projects of 'good clients' who are knowledgeable about
the process should be a key aim for authorities, Partnerships
for Schools and the DCSF. (Paragraph 54)
11. The clearest message
of all, therefore, from both BSF and the Academies programme is
to take the time to get it right at the beginning and to maintain
dialogue the users of the building. To give authorities and schools
the time to think about what they want to do and the way that
they want to do it is the best way to ensure that what emerges
at the end is an excellent learning environment, rather than a
striking building which does not meet the needs of its users as
well as it should. (Paragraph 58)
PFI and capital funding
12. While
we take the point that it is the viability of the project in the
first instance that is the main risk factor, it seems to us that
there are risks associated with PFI as a funding method. (Paragraph
67)
13. We ask the DCSF
to make a clear public statement on how many PFI schools have
closed prematurely, what the overall cost to the public purse
has been and how it monitors schools in danger. (Paragraph 68)
14. We ask for confirmation
that local authorities are required to set out in their BSF plans
the full revenue costs of the project and details of how they
plan to meet them over the full term of the contract. (Paragraph
69)
15. The Government
needs to set out more clearly than it has done so far its assessment
of the sustainability of the levels of revenue commitments across
local authorities in general; how DCSF and Partnerships for Schools
make judgements about how well authorities have planned to ensure
that schools will be sustainable given projected future numbers
of pupils; and the lessons that it has learned from those PFI
funded schools which have been forced to close. (Paragraph 71)
Primary schools
16.
The challenges facing the primary capital programme could be addressed
more effectively if the DFES could ensure that:
- all involved in delivering
the primary programme have a clear view of how it interacts with
BSF;
- explicit national goals are set out to assist
those at local level who are making hard choices, including clear
guidance on what DCSF means by personalised learning in the primary
context;
- as with the BSF programme there must be real
clarity about how and to what extent this £7 billion programme
is to contribute to transforming education. (Paragraph 78)
Further Education
17. In
order to provide properly integrated secondary education in any
given area, the funding systems in place should be designed to
encourage working in partnership. The DCSF should examine the
way BSF, further education and primary capital projects are funded
to ensure that partnership working designed to increase the range
of learning opportunities available to students is rewarded and
that there is as great a degree of flexibility as possible to
help local authorities, schools and colleges to maximise the benefit
for children and young people in their areas. (Paragraph 83)
18. These examples
show how complicated it can be to achieve integrated provision
from different sectors, but they also illustrate that the only
way to ensure that there is effective educational provision in
an area is through the co-operative efforts of those working locally.
With the division of DfES into Children, Schools and Families
and Innovation, Universities and Skills this level of co-operative
effort will be equally important at the national level. (Paragraph
86)
19. We ask the Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills to set out its policy
on the appropriateness of PFI as a means of financing the redevelopment
of colleges. (Paragraph 95)
20. We applaud the
commitment shown by the LSC in stating these principles that need
to be met and providing funding to offset any additional cost
(although not all sustainable features incur extra costs). This
checklist would be useful for anyone seeking to build sustainable
educational buildings, not just Further Education colleges. (Paragraph
98)
Educational transformation
21. The
crucial question here, and one that the Department does not answer
in this document, is what do we want education to be in the 21st
century? (Paragraph 100)
22. This suggests
that, as we commented earlier, the early phase of development
of what is now called the Strategy for Change is key to the success
of the whole process. People need to be given enough time to think
through the issues about how secondary education should be provided
in their area before they are required to start making firm decisions.
A clear statement of the national ambitions for 21st century education
could help to provide guidance and challenge to this local decision-making
process. (Paragraph 103)
Local decisions versus Government policy
23. Given
the amount of expenditure which is being authorised, it is right
that the DCSF should satisfy itself that it is being spent appropriately.
On the other hand, it does not look much like "devolving
resource and power to local level" if there is a detailed
check list of Government objectives which have to be addressed
to allow a project to be signed off. (Paragraph 107)
24. While it is important
to ensure that expenditure is properly monitored, we have seen
no evidence that local authorities have put forward particularly
inappropriate plans for their BSF projects. The Government should
have the courage of its convictions, and allow local authorities
greater flexibility to develop local solutions within a clear
framework of priorities, such as the need to promote innovative
approaches to learning and the need to embed sustainability.
(Paragraph 108)
25. The DCSF should
place a requirement on local authorities to ensure that One School
Pathfinders are used as test beds for ways to transform education.
(Paragraph 111)
26. If the Government
is serious about wanting BSF to provide educational transformation,
it ought to be encouraging local authorities to be more innovative.
(Paragraph 114)
Developing the use of ICT
27. We
believe that ICT is a vital area for the development of education
over the coming years, but that does not mean that each school
needs to have a bespoke system created for it which differs from
systems in all other schools. (Paragraph 118)
28. We recommend that
information about systems in use is made widely known amongst
authorities in later waves of BSF so that they can take advantage
of the experience of those which have already procured their ICT.
(Paragraph 118)
29. Guidance on making
the most of ICT and examples of good practice should be issued
by the DCSF. (Paragraph 120)
Future proofing
30. There
should be a post-occupancy review of every school within the BSF
programme so that a proper assessment can be made of what has
worked well and what has caused difficulties, on procurement
and construction issues and also on the design and conception
of the school. These reviews should be given the widest possible
circulation so that all those involved in BSF, in the current
waves and in the future, can use them to ensure that mistakes
are not repeated, that good ideas are adopted more widely and
that the desired flexibility for the future is in place. Transformation
of education for the 21st century will only occur if we learn
the lessons about what works best. (Paragraph 124)
31. When planning
the development of schools in an area, local authorities must
ensure that the way provision for 14-19 education is to be made
and in which responsibility for delivering each of the diploma
lines is to be shared is considered at an early stage. It is important
that schools should be seen as a system, not just individual institutions.
(Paragraph 125)
Personalisation
32. The
DCSF should provide a clear vision of what it wants from personalisation,
with guidance about how it might be realised in BSF projects,
not as a prescription but in order to inform the debate on how
schools should operate in the future. (Paragraph 130)
Accountability framework
33. We
recommend that Ofsted, in consultation with the DCSF, should draw
up and publish for consultation a protocol on how its inspection
regime is to be modified for schools in BSF. (Paragraph 132)
Sustainability
34. As
the Sustainable Development Commission told us, the schools estate
contributes 2% to national carbon emissions overall, but that
figure represents almost 15% of UK public sector carbon emissions.
If the Government is to meet a target of at least 60% reduction
against the 1990 baseline, and if it intends to set an example
by the way in which it looks after the public sector building
stock, it clearly has to address the issue of schools' carbon
emissions. (Paragraph 140)
The costs of reducing schools' carbon footprint
35. We
welcome the extra funding the Government is to provide to help
achieve its target of carbon neutrality. We hope that this will
be carried forward into the general funding of the BSF programme.
However, the Government should specify what proportion of the
total carbon emissions will be achieved through carbon offsetting.
The ideal would clearly be for all new school buildings and plant
to be carbon neutral. (Paragraph 150)
36. We recommend that
the Government provides funding on the basis of an amount per
pupil rather than an amount per square metre where authorities
request it. (Paragraph 151)
37. Greater flexibility
on building standards, emphasising that they are guidance rather
than requirements, would allow authorities at local level a greater
degree of choice over their school estates, and allow them to
find the most suitable ways of making schools in their area more
sustainable. (Paragraph 152)
Sustainable procurement
38. We
ask the DCSF and Partnerships for Schools to tell us how the recommendations
of the Sustainable Procurement Task Force are being implemented
in BSF. We also ask for a response on whether they consider that
using 30% of recycled material in construction would be cost neutral
and, if so, whether they will consider raising the level required
. (Paragraph 158)
Is BSF the best way to spend £45 billion
on education?
39. We
are not arguing that BSF is a waste of money or that it should
not proceed. Indeed it represents an unprecedented opportunity
to ensure that all of the physical spaces which pupils occupy
effectively support their learning. What we are saying is that,
given the scale of the project and the amount of money proposed
to be spent, there is a danger that everyone involved will concentrate
on getting through to the end and that the question of whether
the project's scope and aims remain appropriate will not be asked.
(Paragraph 171)
40. We ask the DCSF
in its reply to give us a considered response to the issues we
raise here so that we can be assured that it does have a process
of regularly reviewing the question of whether this is best way
in which to spend £45 billion on education. (Paragraph 171)
The Management of the BSF project
41. The
BSF project provides a good test as to whether the DCSF has taken
on board all of the lessons of the Capability Review, and at present
it appears that it has not. More effective strategic planning,
a more clearly defined view of the role of local authorities and
less micro-management would undoubtedly help the authorities who
are developing their plans for BSF. (Paragraph 175)
42. We believe that,
within a clear basic framework, local authorities should be given
more freedom to shape their local school system as they consider
appropriate. (Paragraph 176)
43. One thing which
could make life much more straightforward would be to establish
one gateway for an authority's discussions with central Government
about its BSF project. (Paragraph 177)
How will we know if BSF has been a success?
44. We
believe that there should be a set of clear objectives by which
to judge how well the project is progressing. We ask the DCSF
to define what it considers to be the key indicators that will
demonstrate the success or otherwise of BSF in its response to
this report. Given that new Public Service Agreement targets will
be set this autumn for the new Comprehensive Spending Review,
we also recommend that progress on BSF ought to be one of the
areas which the Department should have as one of its high level
targets. (Paragraph 179)
45. Schools and authorities
should be supported and encouraged by the DCSF, and by Ministers
in particular, to explore new approaches which may help to improve
attainment overall and particularly for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds who typically have low levels of engagement with the
school system (Paragraph 181)
46. The policy initiative
that all new schools designed from now on must be carbon neutral
is welcome, but it is now important that the policy is effectively
delivered. We would welcome further information on how the carbon
emissions of school buildings are going to be measured, and we
urge a consistent approach for all schools. (Paragraph 185)
Scrutiny of Building Schools for the Future
47. The
Government's increased capital expenditure on schools is welcome;
the task now is to ensure that is spent as effectively as possible.
(Paragraph 186)
| 
