Archived decisions

Building Schools For The Future

Consultation Response Form

Launch date: 26 February 2003

The closing date for this consultation is 30 May 2003.

Your comments must reach us by that date.

Ref: DFES/0134a/2003

Note when

Use:

_

tab key, only to access input boxes;

completing

_

scroll bar to navigate the form;

electronically:

_

mouse to access hyperlink.

The information you send to us may need to be passed to colleagues within the Department for Education and Skills and/or published in a summary of responses received in response to this consultation. We will assume that you are content for us to do this, and that if you are replying by e-mail, your consent overrides any confidentiality disclaimer that is generated by your organisation's IT system, unless you specifically include a request to the contrary in the main text of your submission to us.

The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make available on public request, individual consultation responses. This will extend to your comments unless you inform us that you wish them to remain confidential.

Please insert `X' if you want us to keep your response confidential

Name

Shirley Turner/Bob Eardley

Organisation (if applicable)

Hampshire County Council

Address

The Castle

Winchester

Hampshire

SO23 8UG

If your enquiry is related to the policy content of the consultation you can contact Philip Parker at::

Telephone:

020 7925 6566

Email:

[email protected]

If you have a query relating to the consultation process you can contact:

Telephone:

01928 794888

Fax:

01928 794 311

Email:

[email protected]

Please insert `X' in one of the following boxes that best describes you as a respondent.

Primary School

Secondary School

X

LEA

School Governor

Construction Industry Body

Other (please specify)

_

Question 1

Do you agree the case for a new approach to managing the extra capital investment that will be available in 2005-06?

Agree

X

Disagree

Not Sure

Comments:

The significant increase in investment in school buildings is welcome but the preferred route would be for the funding allocations to be given to LEAs, through the Single Capital Pot, for local decision-making, rather than a national bidding process. This proposed approach goes against the policy of giving local authorities greater freedom in the use of capital resources, and does not concur with the Office of Deputy Prime Minister's version of localism.

The announcement will generate anxiety and potentially raise false hopes. Schools and LEAs will want to get in quickly at the start in 2005/06 because of uncertainty over whether the level of investment will continue. Preparation of bids for submission in the summer will prejudice large, rural LEAs; it will work to the advantage of small compact LEAs. This does not represent equality of opportunity unless the DfES is going to direct the year in LEAs are eligible to bid.

This approach does not appear to be consistent with the Asset Management Plan (AMP) process. LEAs have been working over the last three years to embed the AMP process into all of their strategic planning of capital resources and the proposed way forward runs contrary to that process.

DfES must indicate to all LEAs if there are to be focussed priorities that will exclude some LEAs e.g. deprivation, poor condition, or low standards. To successful and achieving LEAs who do not fall into these categories, this funding could be seen to be rewarding "failure" to maintain school buildings adequately in the past.

The proposed approach seems to imply that for those authorities where secondary projects are not considered of high priority, most of the block allocated capital resources should be directed at primary schools, leaving a vacuum for the needs of secondary schools. There appears to be no mention of a strategy for investment in special schools.

Much greater clarity is required about where responsibility will lie for which decisions, and where accountability will lie for decisions about the design, quality and location of new buildings, and also the consequences of these decisions.

Question 1a

What other issues do you think we should take into account?

Comments:

Throughout the consultation paper, no account has been taken of the need for strategic investment in special schools.

A "bidding" process is not consistent with the DfES' previous policy of moving towards mainly formulaic allocations that provide a measure of certainty to LEAs about allocations, which supports effective strategic planning.

The concept of targeting greatest need is accepted, but this could be achieved either by giving all LEAs a formulaic allocation, so that they could target the highest needs locally, or allocate only to those LEAs with highest overall needs. This would give everyone some level of confidence about their funding.

The emphasis on raising educational standards and targeting local deprivation in proposed prioritisation criteria suggest that it will be a long time before county councils receive much of the new funding.

Question 2

Do you agree that we should aim to collaborate better with other funding and decision making bodies to help achieve wider policy goals?

Agree

Disagree

Not Sure

Comments:

Yes, a more strategic approach to the allocation of capital funds across all government departments would assist local strategic plans to be more joined up. There is also a need to collaborate and join up the thinking between other funding and decision-making bodies, as well as the need to raise awareness in other government departments and agencies, all of which would lead to clarity in long-term funding allocations. Issues will come to light as the 14-19 Agenda and the Extended School initiatives develop and as they become clearer they should be taken into account in this new approach.

Question 2a

How might this best be achieved?

Comments:

Reduce the number of decision bodies and agencies i.e. NOF, Sure Start, NEDA, Lottery, Sport England, etc and give LEAs greater oversight of what happens locally.

For all government departments to target and fund agreed aims and objectives and prioritise their spending profiles to the issues raised in the consultation paper.

Question 3

Do you agree that we should target secondary renewal funding on geographical areas, covering local natural groupings of schools, even where these would cross local authority boundaries?

Agree

X

Disagree

Not Sure

Comments:

No, funding should be targeted according to need demonstrated through the AMP process. Tackling schools in a geographical area is artificial and although it may be a concept that is realistic in a metropolitan authority it is inappropriate for a large shire county.

Forecast pupil numbers suggest falling rolls, therefore when planning replacement and renewal of secondary schools this should be addressed and is best achieved at local level.

The proposals, as phrased, are considered to be dismissive of the needs of primary schools and for LEAs with large numbers of rural Victorian primary schools in need of renewal and replacement, targeting secondary schools may not be the highest priority.

Nationally, there is a large stock of SCOLA and other modular type buildings in need of renewal and replacement and a significant proportion of these may not be in the "right" geographical areas being identified for investment under this proposal.

It will be difficult to manage secondary schools' expectations when potential refurbishment could be ten years away. Strategic decision-making about investment in buildings in the context of this uncertainty will also be difficult; asset management plans have encouraged a strategic approach.

Question 3a

What special arrangements would we need to consider for London and how might these best work?

Comments:

Question 4

Do you agree that we should develop exemplar designs as a starting point to ensure consistently high standards of design for all new schools?

X

Agree

Disagree

Not Sure

Comments:

Yes, but they should be used only where there is not a history of good and successful design. Exemplar designs should have the flexibility to meet local needs and any future changes to the curriculum.

The consultation paper explains that exemplar designs will only be used when they fit the local environment; local authorities not using exemplar designs should not be discriminated against or have access to funding restricted.

Perhaps these should be exemplar "briefs" rather than "designs", which would recognise the cost of good design, and not be a strait-jacket or a solution, but a framework. Although exemplar designs are to be tailored to address local needs, they are still likely to restrict the options available for local solutions.

Question 4a

How might they best be used in practice to avoid 'reinventing the wheel'?

Comments:

Exemplar designs will not necessarily avoid "reinventing the wheel" as often there are real variations on individual sites that require a specific design solution.

As new education initiatives are introduced, exemplar designs must be reviewed on a regular basis to identify from historic data and from end users on how best to amend and update them.

Question 5

Do you agree that a dedicated national body could help support local plans?

Agree

X

Disagree

Not Sure

Comments:

The local authority should be the procurer, as this fits with the strategic management of school places in an area - any system or process that undermines this would be resisted.

This proposal avoids the key point that a national body is not necessary where effective local capacity exists, although it may be advantageous where it does not, provided its role is clear.

The 4Ps can be seen as a useful support agency.

How the proposed procurement without the local authority impacts on School Organisation Plans and vice versa needs to be clarified.

A national body taking over full responsibility would be a concern, as it could override the views of local people and councils delivering the services for which they are elected.

Whilst it is probably true that a national body will speed implementation, this is likely to be at the expense of fully addressing local needs, while local skills will still be undeveloped. It appears to be a solution devised for the less able being imposed on all.

Question 5a

What views do you have on its composition and role?

Comments:

The national body would be beneficial if its role was one that was supportive and advisory, setting challenges and providing best practice guidelines, which could save money globally on consultancy for PFI.

General comments

Please make any General comments here.

Comments:

The whole tenor of the consultation paper is one of imposition rather than of supporting the meeting of local needs.

The long-term revenue implications of the procurement body have not been covered, nor a number of other technical questions, for example: the ownership of the asset once built; whether the local authority would be expected to maintain a property if it were not client during the procurement and how the Learning and Skills Council is involved where schools have sixth form provision.

The DfES should produce a priority list of authorities over the 10 to 15 year programme which would allow LEAs to plan locally to meet short medium and long term objectives, as there is a strong possibility that priorities will change over this period and authorities towards the end of the programme will lose out.

Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge individual responses unless you tick the box below.

Please acknowledge this reply

Here at the Department for Education and Skills we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, would it be alright if we were to contact you again from time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents?

x

Yes

No

Code of Practice on written consultation

The following seven standards from the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on written consultation should be reproduced in all consultation documents. This is binding on Departments. Ministers' reasons for any departures should be explained.

All UK national public consultations are required to conform to the following standards:

1.

Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy (including legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left at each stage.

2.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.

3.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

4.

Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

5.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.

6.

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and the reasons for decisions finally taken.

7.

Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation

co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this consultation.

Completed questionnaires and other responses, should be sent to the address shown below by
30 May 2003.

Send by post to: Consultation Unit, Department for Education and Skills, Level 1b, Castle View House, Runcorn, WA7 2GJ.

Responses and comments can be sent via e-mail to: [email protected]