More BSF Delays

[steve]

The impending doom may take a little longer than feared:

 

BBC News Link

"Local authorities plans show that we expect 12 new schools to be open by December 2008, 35 more in 2008-09, 115 more in 2009-10, 165 more in 2010-11, and then around 200 a year and rising thereafter," said Mr Knight.

 

With 3500 to do that's a long time before even 1/2 are done.

 

If 200 per year after 2012:

 

1700 by end of 2018

All 3500 by end of 2027

 

That would average out at about 1/3 of schools being tied into a BSF ICT contract at any one time.

[Geoff]

I get the impression that it's slowly grinding to a halt personally.

[K.C.Leblanc]

I get the impression that it's slowly grinding to a halt personally.

 

Good call, especialy since we probably won't have labour in 'charge' after the next election.

Edited February 6, 2008 by K.C.Leblanc

[antoeknee]

The academy we are suppose to be going into has just lost its sponsors!

[beeswax]

I think the programme will naturally pick up speed as LEA's learn from the mistakes of those who who went before them. However, one of the main problems still seems to be that there just aren't enough people in the building trade to cover all the bases and council staff have been pared down to the bone over the years.

One of the fears here is that in order to speed the process we'll get into "flat pack" buildings which will go up quickly, not necessarily meet the needs of the school communities, and within a few years start falling apart.

[torledo]

The impending doom may take a little longer than feared:

 

BBC News Link

 

 

With 3500 to do that's a long time before even 1/2 are done.

 

If 200 per year after 2012:

 

1700 by end of 2018

All 3500 by end of 2027

 

That would average out at about 1/3 of schools being tied into a BSF ICT contract at any one time.

 

i read that the target was for 40% of schools in the BSF programme to be rebuilt, the rest would be refurbed or modernised.....

 

it's still a major undertaking to refurb the 1500+ schools that need modernising.....so i'm expecting the proportion of re-build schools to drop from the 40% estimate to about 25%, and attention to be focused on refurbishment. It's often the case that the ambition of large government projects such as this is reined in once the project hits the ground and ministers realise the enormity of the inital promises...

 

Brown was always a shameless headline grabbing tax and spend chancellor.....when the public accepted that public spending was needed to correct the years of under investment it effectively gave the government tacit approval to spend....i think the general attitude is changine to one of extreme scpetism that keeping up those levels of public spending will result in the improvements promised. Spending billions on BSF is just seen as another example of money down the bog. Another bottomless pit.

[GrumbleDook]

Or that once a 'good' design has been done a few times it will become a template for other schools ... we will end up with 20 designs that have to be picked from a catalogue.

 

The secret is to make sure that people *are* learning from mistakes ... and there is still the battle about making sure innovation isn't stifled too.

[broc]

I know of at least one consortium that is bidding flat-pack school buildings, to be constructed outside the UK.

 

I agree with Grumbledooks comment about template schools. This is inevitable, too much time (& money) is being spent discussing the finer points of building design. There are too many consultants and architects involved, all of whom are trying to get their next piece of business....

 

Of course the biggest hurdle of all to the template approach is each HT has his/her view of what their school should look like and they won't want something designed 5 years earlier for a school at the other end of the country!

[Dos_Box]

Of course the biggest hurdle of all to the template approach is each HT has his/her view of what their school should look like and they won't want something designed 5 years earlier for a school at the other end of the country!

 

Or the other end of another country!

[GrumbleDook]

Simple ... it is built so that internal walls can be changed around if they want at a later date. The savings by choosing from a pre-designed catalogue will give a chunk more money back to the school to work with.

 

The only problem is that once cost savings start to happen it will be spotted and less funding will go to an individual build instead ... ah, so *that* is where the future cost savings are going to be!

[broc]

Simple ... it is built so that internal walls can be changed around if they want at a later date. The savings by choosing from a pre-designed catalogue will give a chunk more money back to the school to work with.

 

 

In a discussion with architects I suggested much the same. I said a 'shed-like' building such as a superstore with services buried in the floor and moveable partitions would allow for greater flexibility as the curriculum changes. He frowned & said the 'brief' was for buildings that had 'character', 'presence', and delivered 'wow-factor' and you could hardly get that from a shed! I suspect the architects of such a design would not get any design awards either, this is far more important to them than a building that works

[CyberNerd]

It sounds like an engineering solution, I'm not surprised architects don't like it.

[torledo]

In a discussion with architects I suggested much the same. I said a 'shed-like' building such as a superstore with services buried in the floor and moveable partitions would allow for greater flexibility as the curriculum changes. He frowned & said the 'brief' was for buildings that had 'character', 'presence', and delivered 'wow-factor' and you could hardly get that from a shed! I suspect the architects of such a design would not get any design awards either, this is far more important to them than a building that works

 

 

as much as i hate architects and planners using the terms 'character' and 'wow factor' i think template schools and, for want of a better word, 'functional' buildings like the one you suggested broc, will be difficult to do becuase part of the construction process now involves impact on the surrounding environment. School design and build is no different to other buildings in that they have a duty to compliment their surroundings and not stick out like a sore thumb.

 

I know that can distract from whether the school is functional and is engineered to fullfill it's purpose. But we've got enough multi-storey car parks, shopping centres, supermarkets and the like blotting our landscape, let's not add new build schools to the list of square shaped eyesores.

[gaz350]

One of the fears here is that in order to speed the process we'll get into "flat pack" buildings which will go up quickly, not necessarily meet the needs of the school communities, and within a few years start falling apart.

 

Funny you should say that we have a school design at the moment with no space to do exams! but a fancy staircase and what is at the top of it......

 

yes you guessed it a bunch of open plan toilets!!!

 

Pathfinder school btw not BSF

[sahmeepee]

He frowned & said the 'brief' was for buildings that had 'character', 'presence', and delivered 'wow-factor'

 

Can we have a *cry* smilie please? How about 'usability', 'flexibility' and 'accessibility'. For a bonus -ity I'll take 'security'.

[broc]

Can we have a *cry* smilie please? How about 'usability', 'flexibility' and 'accessibility'. For a bonus -ity I'll take 'security'.

 

Our HT told the architects that she wanted robust building security; one of the designs we got back was a cross between a sea wall and a tudor fortress opened out .....

[webman]

Simple ... it is built so that internal walls can be changed around if they want at a later date. The savings by choosing from a pre-designed catalogue will give a chunk more money back to the school to work with.

 

Some peoples' back pockets more like.

[Dos_Box]

Even teachers are cottoning onto these problems now - http://www.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2573812&path=/ict/&threadPage=1

 

I would like some input from anyone who has experienced open plan class room teaching. We are having a new school built and the BSF(building schools for futures) is saying that if we want 4 ICT rooms then 3 of them will have to be open plan. This means 120 kids and 3 teachers in a room with 120 computers. There will be no division at all.

 

I would like to know what the implications would be and also what the negative aspects of such a layout would be?

 

I have thought of a few problems. I am opposed to the idea of having an open plan room. I suppose I should also ask for all of the positive points of view although I can't really see that there are any.

 

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and respond.

[GrumbleDook]

as much as i hate architects and planners using the terms 'character' and 'wow factor' i think template schools and, for want of a better word, 'functional' buildings like the one you suggested broc, will be difficult to do becuase part of the construction process now involves impact on the surrounding environment. School design and build is no different to other buildings in that they have a duty to compliment their surroundings and not stick out like a sore thumb.

 

I know that can distract from whether the school is functional and is engineered to fullfill it's purpose. But we've got enough multi-storey car parks, shopping centres, supermarkets and the like blotting our landscape, let's not add new build schools to the list of square shaped eyesores.

 

Most of the designs that are coming through are full of 'wow-factor' but also full of mistakes where the 'wow' turns into 'ow'. Most schools would not get a grey concrete box, but they would still get something worth the effort. If you look at Tesco and Morrisons, they have a similar design for their stores, but with a range of additional options to fit into the locale.

 

It is very easy to have 'extras' that bolt onto the side, the roof and so on to give it a better look and feel, and rooms can be shaped internally to still be interesting and functional.

 

They manage it in Sweden, US and Australia when throwing up large numbers of buildings, but every school wants something 'special'.

 

I think a reality check of function vs form maybe needed by some LAs and Heads, but most Heads of academies I have spoken with have admitted they would have preferred something that was cheaper to put up, more functional and with th flexibilty of change at a later date. At least they do get these Heads together now to talk about it ... and share experiences ... and it does get fed back via SSAT and other groups.

[gaz350]

Our HT told the architects that she wanted robust building security; one of the designs we got back was a cross between a sea wall and a tudor fortress opened out .....

 

you've seen multiple designs?

during consultation with staff they asked if we wanted resource areas in subject areas instead of just in 1 central area..... staff said Yes good idea if they could have it in addition to a Learning Resource Centre (aka Library) but guess what the Head + Architects interrupted that as.

 

"staff dont want a central LRC"

 

So now we are also fighting "BB98" (which was done before work force reform!! great idea to follow that then!!!) work space outside of classrooms is seriously lacking for support staff.

 

oh the joy!

Edited February 6, 2008 by gaz350

[GrumbleDook]

Even teachers are cottoning onto these problems now - http://www.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2573812&path=/ict/&threadPage=1

 

Forget the idea of it being ICT suites ... there is a good body of evidence that show team teaching in this manner significantly moves on learning. It has been done by those innovative schools that are now going to lose out as they are having prescribed to them their facilities and have support staff with key skills stripped out.

[webman]

there is a good body of evidence that show team teaching in this manner significantly moves on learning.

 

Do you have a link for this?

[broc]

you've seen multiple designs?

during consultation with staff they asked if we wanted resource areas in subject areas instead of just in 1 central area..... staff said Yes good idea if they could have it in addition to a Learning Resource Centre (aka Library) but guess what the Head + Architects interrupted that as.

 

"staff dont want a central LRC"

 

So now we are also fighting "BB98" (which was done before work force reform!! great idea to follow that then!!!) work space outside of classrooms is seriously lacking for support staff.

 

oh the joy!

 

BB98 is a terrible burden upon free thinking & vision in schools. If you want staffrooms, management offices, individual subject resource areas or dare I say somewhere for an ICT technician to hide out you can only have these at the expense of smaller classrooms etc. Even storage and corridor space can affect classroom size. If you get rid of corridors and make the kids circulate around the outside of the building you might be able to have an extra office or two

[TechMonkey]

My my local primary schools were rebuilt and a new secondary built under a PFI scheme and they all got identical bunker/warehouse designs. Can't say they are heidious but my old primary went from a lovely 1930s school with lots of open areas and huge field to the current boxes. Design was archeitect driven so very impractical in places, implementation was commercial so no clue about school needs. Promises were dumped and threats made that if schools didn't tow the line the company would pull out and leave them with nothing. Staff are seeing if the school lasts 10 years let alone the contracted 20. I'm sure it woudln't happen either but the expectation is that the last few years will be hell due to nothing being done before hand over.

Not sure if the company accounts could be got but it is almost certain they are coining it.

 

Not sure how related the PFI and BSF plans are related but if private sector are involved I can't see them being too far off & the same problems occuring

[Grommit]

Most of the designs that are coming through are full of 'wow-factor' but also full of mistakes where the 'wow' turns into 'ow'. Most schools would not get a grey concrete box, but they would still get something worth the effort. If you look at Tesco and Morrisons, they have a similar design for their stores, but with a range of additional options to fit into the locale.

 

It is very easy to have 'extras' that bolt onto the side, the roof and so on to give it a better look and feel, and rooms can be shaped internally to still be interesting and functional.

 

They manage it in Sweden, US and Australia when throwing up large numbers of buildings, but every school wants something 'special'.

 

I think a reality check of function vs form maybe needed by some LAs and Heads, but most Heads of academies I have spoken with have admitted they would have preferred something that was cheaper to put up, more functional and with th flexibilty of change at a later date. At least they do get these Heads together now to talk about it ... and share experiences ... and it does get fed back via SSAT and other groups.

 

It's called Design over Function

 

We have a lot of it here