‘Building Schools for the Future’: reflections on a new social architecture

Abstract

The Labour Government launched the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme (BSF) in February 2003 with the aim of refurbishing or rebuilding all secondary schools in England over a 15‐year period, with an anticipated budget of £45 billion. In this article, we locate BSF in a wider public policy context which has already had important implications in other sectors of public provision. The local improvement finance trusts (LIFTs) initiative within the National Health Service (NHS) is of particular relevance to this discussion both because it reflects contemporary developments within New Public Management and because it also reveals new ways of extending and developing the private finance initiative (PFI) approach to public provision. We shall also consider the purposes and ‘delivery’ mechanisms of BSF and identify some of the key commentaries which have been provided by parliamentary reports and other evaluations. Although still in the early stages of its implementation, the BSF is of such significance for the future shape and form of educational provision that it is important to begin the process of considering possible directions and dimensions for a research agenda which will provide a secure empirical and analytical foundation on which to base discussion.

Keywords:

• critical analysis
• politics
• school building
• transformation
• new public management
• private finance initiative (PFI)
• private sector

Notes

1. For readers who require more information, PfS provides regularly updated, detailed guidance on the process of applying for inclusion in the BSF (see http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/about/aboutbsf.jsp).

2. PUK was established as PPPs with 51% private sector equity ownership, and the balance owned by HM Treasury (44%) and by Scottish Ministers (5%). The DCSF/PUK joint venture was ended in 2009. PUK now provides 50% of the running costs of PfS, sits on the board and provides staff on secondment. In October 2009, the remit of PfS was considerably extended.

3. The purposes of BSF become much clearer in the context of these local plans although some puzzles are compounded. Following criticism (Select Committee 2007) that the DCFS' vision in relation to ‘educational transformation’ was not always clear, PfS (2009, 5) has defined ‘transformation’. However, our own analysis of SfC documents suggests that a level of parroting is occurring.

4. A wave is the term given to a group of BSF projects in a number of authorities with funding starting in a particular financial year.

5. ‘The Project Review Group oversees the approval process for LA PFI projects that receive Government support. It is the gatekeeper for the delivery of PFI credit funding to the local authority PFI programme’ (http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/ppp_projectreview_group.htm).

6. BSFI is a limited liability partnership established by the DCSF and PUK, to work with PfS to invest in the BSF.

7. PfS has produced a ‘toolkit’ consisting of nine documents to support the successful establishment and operation of LEPs, the last of which (Practitioner Note 9 – Value for Money in Exclusivity) ‘discusses the key components that need to be assessed to demonstrate that a LEP is delivering value for money’ (http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/library/LEP_Practitioner_Note_9.jsp, accessed March 28, 2010).

8. One such review was undertaken by Rudd, Reed, and Smith (2008) on behalf of the National Foundation for Educational Research.

9. Changes in employment patterns and working conditions ensuing from the introduction of LIFTs have been highlighted in UNISON's guidance (2003).

10. The KPMG Report (2009) concludes that ‘Educational performance in newly rebuilt PFI schools improves faster than in conventional ones’ (2).

11. Thanks to our anonymous reviewer for this information and for that about the Lord Chancellor's rights in relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Research could explore why the relevant authorities do not currently use their powers and to identify where it would be appropriate for them to do so.

12. Following the General Election in May 2010, a Conservative‐led coalition government was formed. In July, the new Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, announced the closure of the BSF programme. We have explored the political and educational implications of this policy change in Hatcher and Jones (2011).