Memorandum submitted by the National Association
of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)
1. NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to contribute
to the Parliamentary Education and Skills Committee Inquiry into
Sustainable Schools including the Building Schools for the Future
Programme and the Academies building programme.
2. NASUWT is the largest union representing
teachers and head teachers throughout the UK.
GENERAL COMMENTS
3. NASUWT welcomes acknowledgement by the
Government of the need to upgrade school building stock in England,
and a commitment to deliver this through long-term funding.
4. NASUWT recognises the ambition of the
DfES to rebuild or renew Englands 3,500 state secondary schools.
The Union also welcomes the recognition that there is a need to
have local debate and discussion about how these initiatives will
be introduced and where funding will be targeted. It is the view
of NASUWT that there is clearly a need for the involvement of
school workforce trade unions in this process.
5. NASUWT believes that school buildings
and facilities should support and meet the educational needs of
all pupils. Buildings that are well designed will have a positive
impact on teaching and learning, which contributes to the raising
of educational standards and lifts the morale of teachers and
pupils.
6. NASUWT notes that the programmes the
Committee is investigating are very new. Many of the BSF projects
are still in the early stages of procurement. The Union has commissioned
a report by Catalyst and Public World concerning Academies, which
is due to be published in July 2006. NASUWT will submit this report
to the Committee once it becomes available. However, it is difficult
to assess conclusively whether the PFI funding mechanism and the
BSF and Academy building programmes are meeting their objectives
at this point in time. NASUWT awaits with interest the findings
of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) five-year evaluation of the
Academies initiative in this regard.
7. NASUWT agrees with the findings of the
Education and Skills Committee's Fifth Report that "the Government
could have limited the number of Academies to 30 or 50 and carried
out an assessment of their effectiveness before expanding the
programme so significantly". The Union also welcomes the
Government's desire to invest resources in areas of educational
underachievement, and agrees with the findings of the Education
and Skills Committee's Fifth Report that the rapid expansion of
the Academy policy comes at the expense of rigorous evaluation.
8. NASUWT has already received an initial
presentation from the architect leading the "Building Schools
for the Future" programme and there are undoubtedly some
impressive schemes being considered. NASUWT's major concern about
this programme is the heavy reliance on private finance (PFI).
9. In the NASUWT report to Annual Conference
2006, The Private Sector and State Education, the Union
reiterates its commitment to maintain the public service ethos
and to protect the interests of members, which must be NASUWT's
overriding priority. In this report the Union applied the following
tests to provision and strategies which involve the private sector:
(i) Pay and other conditions of service—does
private sector involvement compromise in any way the national
pay and conditions of teachers?
(ii) Equality of opportunity—does
private sector involvement adversely affect equality in the workplace,
lead to discriminatory effects or undermine wider social cohesion?
(iii) Union recognition—does
private sector involvement result in problems for trade unions
in terms of recognition and legitimate access in support of members?
(iv) Democratic accountability—does
private sector involvement prohibit democratic participation and
undermine or remove accountability?
(v) Value for public money—does
private sector involvement lead to increased burdens on, and risks
for, the public purse in the short, medium or long term?
(vi) Raising standards of education—does
private sector involvement result in better standards of educational
provision?
10. NASUWT recognises that issues relating
to the involvement of private sector companies in education are
complex. The Union's six tests provide a critical framework for
interrogating the nature and impact of private sector companies'
involvement in state education and in determining whether such
involvement constitutes privatisation.
11. The Private Sector and State Education
report concludes that in a number of instances the involvement
of private companies has led to detrimental outcomes for schools,
the workforce, pupils and local communities. For example, where
an Academy directly replaces an existing school, the Transfer
of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations apply
to those employees who transfer over. However, since Academies
are not bound by national agreements on pay and working conditions,
a two-tier workforce is created where the Academy does not agree
to apply these agreements, which in the view of the Union will
undoubtedly create tensions amongst staff, resulting in low morale
amongst the school workforce and inferior working conditions.
Parity of pay and conditions of service must be established in
law for teachers in Academies with their colleagues in state schools
to remedy this situation.
12. The Union will continue its campaign
to highlight the impact the PFI funding methodology has on school
budgets and asset management. NASUWT will apply the Union's six
tests to all current and new initiatives and oppose those which
fail to meet them.
13. Specific comments relating to the questions
asked by the Committee's inquiry follow the chapters as outlined
in the inquiry document.
NASUWT recommends that:
— current BSF guidance from the DfES
should be amended to explicitly include an obligation to consult
with the recognised school workforce trade unions within the local
area on all BSF and Academy building projects;
— the Union's six tests, which provide
a critical framework for interrogating the nature and impact of
private sector companies' involvement in state education and in
determining whether such involvement constitutes privatisation,
are adapted by the Committee in assessing the success of PFI mechanisms
and BSF builds;
— parity of pay and conditions of service
be established in law for teachers in Academies with their colleagues
in state schools; and
— no new Academy builds and BSF projects
are undertaken until detailed analysis is available from the PricewaterhouseCooper
five-year study of whether PFI is delivering on public sector
PFI procurement within the BSF and Academies building projects.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
SUSTAINABILITY
Will BSF ensure that schools are sustainable environmentally,
economically and socially?
14. Having considered the opinions of members,
as well as reports by PwC, the Treasury and others, NASUWT has
concerns about the ability of the BSF programme, as it is currently
configured, to ensure that schools are sustainable environmentally,
economically and socially. In particular, NASUWT notes that the
Treasury's March 2006 report, PFI: strengthening long-term
partnerships concluded that PFI is not delivering value for
money in all areas and needs to be improved in this and in allowing
greater flexibilities to be built into contracts to undertake
necessary variations that allow schools to adapt to evolving educational
needs, thus casting doubt on the ability of PFI-led BSF projects
to deliver economically sustainable schools.
15. NASUWT believes that the Government
has a vital role to play in ensuring that schools are sustainable
by creating a regulatory framework for contracts for new build
and refurbishment of school buildings within the programme.
Will schools built under BSF satisfy the Government's
definition of sustainable development as being that which meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs?
16. NASUWT welcomes the recognition that
good, sustainable design is an important factor in ensuring schools
meet the needs of the school and local community. Because the
BSF programme is still in its early stages, it is not yet possible
to assess whether BSF will meet the sustainable development targets.
However, the Union has concerns about whether other PFI-led projects
in schools and Academies have delivered in terms of facilitating
constructive learning environments that meet both the current
and future educational needs of all pupils. For example, concerns
have been raised about Academy buildings and whether they are
suitable learning environments to replace existing schools. In
the case of Unity Academy in Middlesbrough, no staff room was
included in the original build and other design defects were also
identified. Further, NASUWT members continue to highlight cases
where schools have incurred additional costs as a result of the
need to renegotiate contracts with private sector parties in order
to fulfil commitments to Every Child Matters and extended
schools as well as legal commitments.
How effective are the tools currently used in
BSF to secure sustainable school design, including the Building
Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)?
17. NASUWT welcomes the commitment to creating
environmentally sustainable buildings and believes that the Government
can play a very important role in leading the way in the creation
of a more environmentally sustainable learning environment.
18. In 2004, the European Commission published
a helpful handbook on environmental public procurement entitled
"Buying Green". The guidance is designed to assist public
bodies launch green purchasing policies whilst acting within the
confines and requirements of EU procurement law. The handbook
suggests simple and effective approaches to be adopted as standard
in procurement and contains examples of green purchasing by public
bodies across the EU. NASUWT recommends that the "Buying
Green" handbook is distributed to all BSF and Academy building
project groups to assist them in creating environmentally sustainable
buildings.
19. NASUWT welcomes the requirements set
out in the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment
Method. It is important to ensure that all developments are monitored
and evaluated throughout the procurement, planning, construction
and commissioning phases, as well as during the lifetime use of
the buildings to ensure that compliance with the BREEAM requirements
is met.
NASUWT recommends that:
— the European Commission "Buying
Green" handbook is distributed to all BSF and Academy building
project groups to assist them in creating environmentally sustainable
buildings;
— an analysis is undertaken of whether
the BSF and Academies building programmes have delivered good,
sustainable designs that facilitate constructive learning environments
that meet the educational needs of all pupils in secondary schools
and Academies; and
— a programme of monitoring and evaluation
is put in place to ensure that the BREEAM requirements are met
throughout the lifetime of school buildings.
FUTURE LEARNING
NEEDS
20. The effectiveness of BSF in defining
and responding to learners' current and future needs, developing
educational and organisational change that complements new buildings,
transforming school learning and design, integrating with other
policy and funding areas and producing a balance between the strategic
needs of local authorities and the needs of schools, communities
and learners is a matter for future determination, since the Union
believes that the programme is not sufficiently advanced to allow
conclusions to be drawn.
21. NASUWT welcomes the duties which were
imposed on schools and local authorities under the Special Education
Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA), to ensure the accessibility
of buildings for pupils, staff, parents and other visitors. NASUWT
believes that these duties should apply, even within schools where
there are no, or few, pupils or staff with disabilities.
22. The preparation of plans relating to
the sufficiency and suitability of school buildings, as reflected
in the production of such documents as the Education Development
Plans and the Asset Management Plans, provides a mechanism for
assuring disability access to meet future learning needs. NASUWT
believes that local authorities have a particularly vital role
to play in the conduct of accessibility audits. The Union regards
it as imperative that the contribution of local authorities must
be extended to include co-ordination of accessibility audits across
all provisions, including Academies, to safeguard against the
emergence of a two-tier system.
23. The Union believes that much of the
success of the planning duty will rest on the capacity of schools
to deliver the changes needed. This is not simply a question of
financial resources, although the Union believes that this is
an area which requires review. The question of staff time is also
critical. NASUWT does not believe that it should be regarded as
part of the teacher's or head teacher's job to undertake accessibility
audits and evaluations. Neither should the content of such audits
across the education estate be left to the differential interpretations
applied by individual schools. The conduct of high-quality accessibility
audits requires the recruitment of specialist personnel at the
local authority level.
24. The Government is rightly committed
to an inclusive education system. Given this, BSF programmes should
include an explicit requirement for all new build and refurbishment
projects to demonstrate how the needs of pupils with SEN and disabilities
will be met. This should be supported by clear criteria for judging
how effectively this is addressed in contract specifications,
invitations to tender, the awarding of contracts, the monitoring,
managing and enforcing of contracts, and so on.
25. There is also the issue of design of
extended schools and whether they are fit for purpose for teaching
and learning. NASUWT believes that the Government's extended schools
agenda will provide opportunities for public bodies to work jointly
on the delivery of effective and accessible services for disabled
service users. For example, schools and local authorities are
able to undertake collaborative work with local social services
to provide support to disabled employees and service users. However,
NASUWT regards it as essential that the appropriate trade unions
are consulted on any proposals to undertake joint working in this
area.
26. NASUWT believes that extended schools
have the potential to play a positive role in enhancing the provision
of children's services in local communities, especially where
there is evidence of poverty and social exclusion. The Union welcomes
the Government's commitment that extended schools will not mean
extended hours for teachers and head teachers. However, NASUWT
is wary about the co-location of services alongside education
detracting from the core function of the school building as an
educational establishment. The Union believes that the Government's
policy on extended schools will lead to a deterioration of the
working environment as a result of the extended use of the school
accommodation, and that this should be taken into account in all
BSF projects concerning extended schools.
NASUWT recommends that:
— the Government requires public bodies
to include employment function activities within equality impact
assessments of its services;
— DfES guidance on the BSF building
programmes should include an explicit requirement for all educational
building and refurbishment projects to identify how the needs
of pupils with SEN and disabilities will be met;
— the Government should earmark adequate
and appropriate funding for the recruitment of specialist personnel
at the local authority level to undertake access audits and to
prepare and review accessibility plans on behalf of individual
schools and Academies;
— the content of such audits across
the education estate should not be left to the differential interpretations
applied by individual schools;
— relevant trade unions are consulted
on any proposals to undertake joint working on the delivery of
effective and accessible services for disabled service users;
and
— in all BSF projects concerning extended
schools, the additional deterioration of the working environment
due to the extended use of the school accommodation should be
taken into account and factored into costs.
DELIVERY AND
FUNDING
How well is the BSF delivery and procurement model
working to deliver sustainable schools and best value, including
through Partnerships for Schools and Local Education Partnerships?
27. There has been a long period of underinvestment
in school buildings which has resulted in a degenerated school
building stock leading to a need to repair and rebuild schools.
Options for funding these repairs are often limited.
28. Local authorities in England can use
devolved capital formula, modernisation funding, the targeted
capital fund or, for secondary or all-age schools, Building Schools
for the Future if they are successful in bidding into the initiative.
Other options include applying for national grants such as the
national lottery, seeking specialist school status, becoming an
Academy or a voluntary aided school. The Government's solution
has been to use the private sector to carry out improvements quickly
and cheaply. NASUWT believes that there is too much reliance on
PFI as a funding mechanism and not enough evidence to suggest
it delivers value for money in the long run.
29. Local authorities have engaged with
PFI and PPP in some cases with enthusiasm. Other local authorities
have felt pressurised to use PFI and PPP in order to improve and
modernise public buildings because they have felt that this was
the only way to unlock access to further funding. PFI schemes
involve a private sector consortium signing a contract with the
LA to design, build, finance and operate school buildings. The
PFI provider may also provide facility management as part of the
contract. Local authorities then pay a monthly charge to use the
buildings subject to the terms of the contract. PFI contracts
typically last for 25-35 years. At the end of the contract, control
of the buildings would normally revert back to the LA. However,
as noted in the Treasury's March 2006 report, PFI: strengthening
long-term partnerships, public sector managers consider there
to be too little flexibility within many of these contracts to
allow schools to make minor variations to adapt to changing public
sector priorities and evolving educational requirements.
30. Although the BSF project is in its infancy,
it is clear that questions need to be raised as to whether the
current PFI funding methodology adopted by the Government in the
BSF project is delivering value for money. NASUWT shares the concerns
the Audit Commission has raised about whether PFI is delivering
best value and agrees that there is a need to make changes to
the procurement process to resolve these concerns.
How successfully are private sector providers
working within the BSF framework to deliver sustainable schools
and best value?
31. NASUWT shares concerns raised in the
Audit Commission's 2003 report concerning whether BSF and Academy
building projects represent best value for money. In particular,
NASUWT shares concerns mirrored in the Treasury's 2006 report
about the inflexibility and cost associated with negotiating changes
to contracts within these schemes. It has become clear that guidance
needs to be issued to local authorities on how to negotiate contracts
which include the potential to negotiate variations.
32. Concerns were also raised in the Treasury
and Audit Commission reports about the quality of the current
builds and whether they represent best value for money or indeed
meet the needs of schools. In the Treasury's March 2006 report,
PFI: strengthening long-term partnerships, research commissioned
by the Treasury reported that 20% of users of PFI projects were
satisfied by the services delivered only half the time. The Audit
Commission's 2003 report includes the findings of experienced
construction professionals from BRE, who assessed schools against
five "design quality matches" specific to school buildings.
The Union is alarmed that BRE found the quality of the PFI sample
of schools was significantly worse than that of the traditionally
funded sample schools. NASUWT calls upon the Government to address
these concerns through consultation with social partners.
33. NASUWT agrees with the finding of the
Audit Commission's 2003 report into PFI in schools that PFI has
yet to come of age and prove its potential for improving value
for money and providing better schools. Consistent with the Government's
current moves to free up local decision making from central control,
the Union agrees that there is a strong case for changing capital
funding incentives to enable options other than PFI to be pursued
equally advantageously. This would open up the PFI mechanism itself
to competition. Further hard work is needed to ensure that new
schools meet the Prime Minister's call for a lasting legacy of
fine civic buildings that play their part in improving educational
attainment.
34. NASUWT is concerned that the Audit Commission's
report found that by the end of 2001 PFI had not yet delivered
some of the most important benefits expected of it, and that the
Treasury's 2006 report noted that "the Government's view
is that the evidence on satisfaction with soft services does not
demonstrate value for money as consistently as other elements
of the framework". For example, the early PFI schools identified
in the Commission's sample were found not to be better designed,
and were not achieving efficiency savings in terms of the cost
and quality of facilities management services.
35. NASUWT is alarmed that the Treasury's
March 2006 report, PFI: strengthening long-term partnerships,
shows that PFI is not delivering value for money in all areas
and needs to be improved in this and in allowing greater flexibilities
to be built into contracts to undertake necessary variations that
allow schools to adapt to evolving educational needs. In this
report, research commissioned by the Treasury reported
that the approvals process within PFI for large variations to
contracts can be complex and 45% of public sector respondents
regarded the PFI payment mechanism as quite difficult or very
difficult to use. Additionally, 45% of users of PFI found the
flexibilities within the PFI service delivery mechanism to be
less flexible than with non-PFI arrangements. Clearly, these are
areas where PFI needs to be improved.
36. NASUWT questions the Government's obsession
with PFI for the reasons cited above. NASUWT demands the end of
ill-advised schemes that threaten the future of the national education
service.
Are BSF funding levels sufficient to deliver sustainable
transformation?
37. The Union can make no comment on this
at the present time. NASUWT awaits with interest the outcomes
of project reviews which will inform the Union's view as to whether
BSF funding levels are sufficient to deliver sustainable transformation.
Are all stakeholders involved in the planning
and delivery process?
38. At present, there is no specific obligation
to consult with the recognised school workforce trade unions.
NASUWT believes that it is important that trade unions are made
aware of any proposals at the earliest possible stage to ensure
they are fully involved in the consultation process. The Union
therefore seeks assurances that DfES BSF guidance will be amended
to explicitly include an obligation to consult with the recognised
school workforce trade unions within the local area on all BSF
and Academy building projects.
NASUWT recommends that:
— guidance be issued to local authorities
on how to negotiate contracts which include the potential to negotiate
variations;
— the regulations should contain specific
reference to consultation with the recognised school workforce
trade unions as part of the process of establishing new schools
and Academies; and
— the social partnership model of working
act as a template for working with school workforce trade unions.
June 2006
| 
