Memorandum submitted by BT Education and
Local Government
SUSTAINABLE SCHOOLS
UNDER BSF
This paper presents the response from BT Education
and Local Government to the call for input issued by the Education
and Skills Select Committee inquiry into sustainable schools.
The views expressed are those of BT as a potential
ICT provider in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.
We have not commented on issues outside the scope of this capability
but we have attempted to show how the role of ICT provider is
affected, and in some cases compromised, by the interface with
other BSF participants.
BSF provides the opportunity to achieve true
transformation of teaching and learning, and by virtue of that,
real sustainability. ICT services have a key role to play in facilitating
this transformation, as acknowledged by the DfES harnessing technology
strategy. BT has first hand experience of operational and service
transformation within the local government arena and if this could
be effectively provided within the BSF programme the following
could certainly be achieved.
— Sustainability—The environmental
economic and social aspects of schools would be enhanced by provision
of accessible, modern ICT infrastructure, which is fit for purpose.
This would facilitate the delivery of personalised learning, workforce
reform, anywhere/anytime learning and enable learning to be an
activity rather than something uniquely associated with institutions
and fixed school hours.
— Future Learning Needs—Schools
and individual learners would be equipped with facilities that
evolve and develop with changing industry standards, social change
and learner expectation.
— Delivery and Funding—BSF partnerships
would deliver self financing infrastructure from the savings and
efficiencies achieved by ICT driven transformation and innovation.
The first wave of BSF projects have failed to
achieve any of these results and the programme is missing opportunities,
and potentially substantial efficiencies, that could be gained
from the development of shared services. This appears to be at
odds with other government strategies where the development of
shared services across multiple agencies and establishments is
being positively encouraged.
There seems to be a variety of reasons for this.
Some of them are associated with the punitive commercial and legal
framework of BSF, others relate to the procurement process and
to a lack of real commitment to transformation.
The attitude and approach we have seen in BSF
is better described as merely securing new buildings and treating
ICT as a commodity service.
Commercial Terms
These place unrealistic terms and risks on
ICT providers and the effect has been to discourage participation
in the programme. We know of several examples where significant
ICT providers (including BT) have left BSF bids because of the
unacceptable nature of the commercial terms. The result is that
BSF projects are dominated by construction issues and much of
the potential for transformation and delivery of genuinely sustainable
learning environments is lost.
Procurement Method
The procurement method is overly time consuming,
complex and expensive. Average bid costs for each project can
be up to £350,000 for an ICT provider and significantly more
for a construction or prime bidder. Also, resultant revenues are
several years downstream. This creates a significant cash flow
and risk issues which are often not justified by the resulting
contract value.
Commitment to transformation
Whilst BSF loudly acclaimed the role of ICT
the reality is that it consists of little more than a pre determined
technical specification to be delivered at least cost. The most
important element of ICT enabled transformation, change management,
has only recently been brought within scope, and requirements
are defined in terms of outputs rather than outcomes. In most
cases it appears there is adequate funding for impressive new
buildings but the percentage of cost associated with ICT is inadequate.
We believe sustainability in terms of energy
efficiency and building methods probably is being achieved. This
however only emphasises that BSF is emerging as a building programme,
rather than a transformational one and that it likely to fall
far short of delivering genuinely sustainable learning environments
that are fit for purpose in the long term. The ICT agenda is focussed
almost exclusively on the teaching and learning process. Little
consideration has been given to the way that ICT could be used
to influence school design and operation. Opportunities that would
have a positive long-term impact on sustainability but which require
a "spend to save" mentality in order to implement are
being lost.
The role of ICT in BSF is being seen as that
of a supplementary teaching and learning facility rather than
a transformational tool. This actually adds unsustainable cost
and little is being done to change the existing cost and environmental
parameters. This means that BSF projects are likely to end up
with the same number of schools, teachers, teaching assistants,
the same curriculum, hours of operation and unproductive holiday
periods. All of this, in our view, mitigates against sustainability.
ICT has not been established as a differentiator
in BSF. The approach we have seen has been to procure ICT to satisfy
a minimum standard at least cost. This has resulted in many of
the opportunities for innovation, value-add and transformation
that ICT can facilitate being lost.
ICT funding in BSF is inappropriate and inadequate.
The BSF approach to ICT provides lump sum capital of £1,450
per student for ICT services, plus £200 per student for ICT
infrastructure. This gives the clear impression that all ICT should
be affordable within these limits and activity discourages innovation.
The approach also ignores the fact that delivery of good and sustainable
ICT service is dependant on a consistent revenue budget and an
ongoing commitment to refresh expenditure. BSF has ignored both
of these issues and passed the responsibility directly onto schools.
With a view to enabling delivery of sustainable
ICT infrastructure we believe that BSF must be carefully interfaced
with revenue budgets. Adequate revenue funding, to provide for
items such as ongoing managed service, training and refresh of
ICT, is in many ways more important than the initial capital investment
and so coordination in this area will be vital for the delivery
of effective, long-term ICT services.
The procurement process in BSF is unsustainable
for the supplier industry in terms of cost, complexity, scale,
risk, and value. Supposed managed services are being watered down
to least price component purchase and the most important elements
of delivering transformation with ICT as a key lever are missing.
Experience of the procurement process also shows that opportunities
for innovation are squeezed out by the focus on fixed funding
levels.
Projects which have attempted to procure ICT
separately from building and property aspects of BSF have been
discouraged, but in our view this approach should be given further
consideration. If a business model could be found that allows
this approach it would encourage ICT innovation and value-add
approaches, that would in turn support long term sustainability.
It is essential that BSF capital investment
is conducted in a way that will integrate with other investment
programmes. This applies to programmes in other public service
agencies, such as health, as much as it does for other schools.
It is also important that individual schools are recognised as
part of an overall school community and that BSF investment is
conducted with consideration to wider area issues. Only in this
way will it be possible to enable technology and innovation, such
as delivery of professional quality ICT managed services, which
will be vital to the delivery of a sustainable service.
Particular ways in which BSF could provide sustainable
schools, which play a role at the heart of the community would
be:
— Delivering school ICT infrastructure
that is fit for purpose, inspirational and equipped to deliver
enhanced educational outcomes.
— Delivering school ICT infrastructure
that will support development of new, more efficient ways of teaching.
— Providing safe and energy efficient
schools that become a model for other community groups.
— Facilitating innovation, the development
of personalised teaching and learning.
— Supporting workforce reform through
the provision of technology enabled environments and modern ICT
services such as wireless, mobile and Internet enabled technologies.
— Enabling the development and delivery
of extended school concepts.
— Equipping schools to engage with
and attract a variety of stakeholder groups in the community—parents,
other schools, teachers and governors, voluntary groups, sports
organisations, businesses and other public sector agencies.
— Enabling virtual working by people
within and beyond the school (peripatetic employees, students/pupils,
home/school, school/school, teacher/teacher and continuous professional
development).
— Facilitating high levels of Continuous
Professional Development (CPD) for teachers and teaching assistants.
— Driving innovation and development
of ICT systems that support building management, administration
functions and utility management.
Current arrangements and particularly the partnership
and legal framework of BSF make all of the above virtually impossible
to achieve.
It is our belief that the transformation and
sustainability ambitions of BSF could only be achieved if the
programme was ICT rather than construction led. It would also
require a genuine commitment to transformation of traditional
processes, cultures and rules and a realisation that decisions
about buildings and ICT are largely dependant upon an agreed model
of change.
June 2006
| 
