Institute of Directors and the TaxPayers' Alliance advise government to scrap BSF

[timbo343]

Ive just been sent this from a supplier.

 

Has anyone else had info regarding this?

 

Gov't told: Cut IT projects and save public cash - ZDNet.co.uk

[alan-d]

The proposals extend to the abolition of public bodies, including Becta. The report said the agency has had "negative consequences" for many schools, stopping them from organising IT facilities and programmes as they see necessary.

 

I don't see how! Becta is only an advisory body it does not dictate policy - the government do! Becta does have its uses though.

 

It said the organisation hinders an open and competitive market, and that if schools allocated money directly, they could purchase the equipment that they required according to their needs. It estimated that abolishing Becta would produce a saving of £11m.

 

Since when does Becta allocate schools money?

[Guest Guest]

I don't see how! Becta is only an advisory body it does not dictate policy - the government do! Becta does have its uses though.

 

IME it has been used as a reason not to use a product "because its not becta approved". Obviously this isnt becta saying this but it has been said, and listened to, none the less.

 

Personal opinion; they approve companies/products which don't meet their own requirements/guidelines so I ask myself what is the point [in atleast that part of their role]?

Edited September 15, 2009 by Guest

[Michael]

I think if one major Government project needs to go it's ID cards, as this will save billions. If it isn't mandatory few will go out and pay their hard earned cash on an ID card and secondly, it's been well discussed that the cards have been cloned.

[sparkeh]

Personal opinion; they approve companies/products which don't meet their own requirements/guidelines so I ask myself what is the point [in atleast that part of their role]?

 

Beat me to it. I believe that Becta accredited certain VLEs that didn't meet their own guidance. I thought accreditation was to help schools with purchasing but you can't have any confidence it in.

 

I think if one major Government project needs to go it's ID cards, as this will save billions. If it isn't mandatory few will go out and pay their hard earned cash on an ID card and secondly, it's been well discussed that the cards have been cloned.

 

Agreed, its hard to actually see what the ID card scheme is actually trying to achieve, any credibility to the fighting terrorism line that is reeled out was destroyed a long time ago by a stream of counter terrorism experts telling us it won't help.

[bossman]

The BSF project albeit the building is probably a good idea although the schools that have been built so far have come out as just mediocre according to Ofsted and in some cases not fit for purpose.

 

As the credit crunch scenario has taken hold the injection of new ideas has fallen by the wayside as consultants are given the heave ho and of course it is the education sector that has to bear the brunt as in, "this is the building you are getting" and there is no other options even when engaged in the early rounds of consultation, as has been mentioned before the architects have been consulted and they have designed the buildings been paid and long gone.

 

The idea seemed brilliant on paper but with so many people involved and so much money at the time to waste it got like a free for all.

 

I feel that cuts in government spending are just the tip of the iceberg and much much more is going to happen over the next 4 years.

 

You can see with what the government is trying to put in place now so that the Conservatives cannot have a go at them via the usual propaganda techniques they have often used in the past.

[SpuffMonkey]

If BSF goes - that will be great - its fundamentally misconceived and a ridiculous failed sleight of hand, that was supposed to look like a good deal by keeping some borrowing off Govt figures, but costs a great deal more over the lifespan of the building than just building them as a Govt/Council project would - and now - the costs have to be put on the Govt figures anyway - so doesn't even succeed in that aim. From the ones I've had a look at - I'd be very surprised if they last as well as the building put up in the 1950's.

 

Shameful!

[sparkeh]

From the ones I've had a look at - I'd be very surprised if they last as well as the building put up in the 1950's.

 

Well I have to agree from experience. One school I have in mind is looking a state after just one year. Seems to have been built on the cheap and its such a shame.

[broc]

If you were a BSF consortium building schools, knowing that you had to hand title to the building over at the end of the 25 year 'lease', would you build a building to last 25 years, 50 years, 100 years......?

[ROBOCOP]

At least under BSF the contractor is on the hook for the building not falling to bits in the first 25 years - when the council just used to pay a builder to build him a school you couldn't see them for dust once they were paid and the place was usually falling to bits after 10 years.

 

Under BSF (and PFI) at the end of the 25-30 year period the contract says the buidling has to be in a nearly new condition so the private company has to fork out a fortune to renovate it before it 'gives it back' to the council who at least should get another 10 years out of it before their own neglect and budget cutting makes it fall into disrepair

[GoldenWonder]

The more I read about BSF, the more I realise what a massive money pit its becoming.

 

Sure, its a great idea to update schools and give them the best equipment but the typical government way is making a £50 printer cost £500!

 

In a way I'll be glad to be out of ICT in education (let face it, tupe=redundant!) as it will be heartbreaking to watch all of my teams hard work dissolved by some gobsh-te consultants.

[beeswax]

At least under BSF the contractor is on the hook for the building not falling to bits in the first 25 years - when the council just used to pay a builder to build him a school you couldn't see them for dust once they were paid and the place was usually falling to bits after 10 years.

Our school was built in 1934. It's not falling to bits but isn't fit for triple the number of pupils and "21st century learning"

[Tallwood_6]

At least under BSF the contractor is on the hook for the building not falling to bits in the first 25 years - when the council just used to pay a builder to build him a school you couldn't see them for dust once they were paid and the place was usually falling to bits after 10 years.

 

Under BSF (and PFI) at the end of the 25-30 year period the contract says the buidling has to be in a nearly new condition so the private company has to fork out a fortune to renovate it before it 'gives it back' to the council who at least should get another 10 years out of it before their own neglect and budget cutting makes it fall into disrepair

 

And you think that the average building contractor will be around for 25 to 30 years? Or at least with the same name

[ROBOCOP]

And you think that the average building contractor will be around for 25 to 30 years? Or at least with the same name

 

Most of the major ones have been around for a very long time,in some cases 100 years - just do a google. Doesn't mean of course they'll be around for another 30 years but there's a fair chance.

 

Even if the builder goes bust the banks have to step-in via direct agreements with the councils.