Fight the cuts: the case of Building Schools for the Future

Those six councils who took the government to court over its decision to axe Building Schools for the Future have won their case. The judge found that they had not been properly consulted, and ruled that Michael Gove must reconsider.

Here's a report of the news from the BBC.

Our own council, Barnet, like the good loyal Tories they are, found reasons to welcome the axing of Building Schools for the Future when it happened even though they had already spent/wasted money preparing for new school buildings that would now never be built.

They should have appealed too... as we were saying back in August.

Barnet council should appeal over Building Schools for the Future money

Barnet Unison write about the loss of Building Schools for the Future money:

Ravenscroft School – an outstanding school

Ravenscroft was one of six schools which were due for improvements under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. The other Barnet Schools are Bishop Douglass RC, Copthall, Oak Lodge, St Mary’s CE High, The Pavilion.

The reason given for the projects to be scrapped by Education Secretary Michael Gove was: “The whole way we build schools needs radical reform.”

Barnet Schools were not the only schools to receive this bad news. However, some councils responded differently. What was Barnet Council’s response?

Councillor Andrew Harper, Barnet Council’s deputy leader and cabinet member for education, children and families, said: “Of course it is disappointing that the funding earmarked to improve six Barnet schools will not be available, but we knew this day was coming.”

Some Councils decided that there was a need to fight this decision.

· Sandwell Council in the West Midlands has already appointed lawyers in a bid to retrieve funding worth £200m.

· Nottingham City Council and Bradford Metropolitan District Council are also considering legal action.

Sign our petition asking Barnet to appeal the decision to withdraw funding from Ravenscroft and the other five Barnet Schools.

To obtain a copy of the petition email contactus@barnetunison.org.uk or telephone UNISON office 020 8359 2088.

***

Vicki comments: unlikely as it might seem, given their track record in the last few weeks, Barnet Tory administration seem in this case to be doing everything they can to help the central government. They don't want to embarass Cameron and Gove for knocking BSF on the head! What about the interests of Barnet residents, parents, students and education staff? Was it not at least worth an appeal?!

The great Barnet schools sell-off?

I went to the teaching unions' lobby of Parliament today. Originally called to protest at the axing of the Building Schools for the Future scheme, there were also plenty of people asking their MPs questions about the Tories' plans to push schools into becoming academies.

The implications of our own Barnet council's enthusiasm for academies become clearer in this paper - "Conversion of schools to Academy status – transfer of land" - prepared for the Cabinet Resources Commmittee tonight.

All new academy schools will have to be leased to their Academy Trust for 125 years. There is a risk, as the paper acknowledges, that a Trust might try to vary the use of the school land - build some flats? - in which case the council would have to take them to court.

The staff are effectively sold to the new Trust; in theory, under TUPE legislation, the new employer has to keep them on the same terms, conditions, pay, etc, but once a transfer has taken place, there is little to stop the new employer finding a pretext for tearing up the old contract and offering a new, worse, one. This is what happened to the Fremantle care workers.

There are other worrying aspects of academies (to put it mildly). There is no requirement to consult staff, Local Authority or even parents when a school applies to become an academy; an academy trust can ignore the National Curriculum; once a school becomes an academy, governors are usually appointed by the sponsor; with the academies gone, it will be much harder to plan for the needs of non-academy schools and to plan education in the borough generally... I could go on and on.

The Cabinet Resources paper mentions a couple more:

...The grant of 125 year leases to schools adopting Academy status will mean that the Council will have less flexibility in managing its school property portfolio. The Council will only retain a reversionary interest in the school. The Council would no longer have the ability to make changes to schools such as increasing or decreasing the size to meet pupil demand, setting up specialist units in schools or closure.

...The Council is likely to incur significant legal costs in negotiating and granting leases for Academies, if a number of schools choose to convert. The Department for Education (DfE) has indicated that a standard lease template will be produced, which would reduce costs to an extent although resource pressures are likely. Each school converting to Academy status will receive £25,000 from the DfE towards expenditure related to conversion. The Council will seek to recover legal costs from schools where appropriate.

For ideological reasons, Barnet council can't wait to wash its hands of its schools. But the mass conversion to academies sure as hell doesn't look like saving the council any money!

Barnet Anti Academies Alliance was set up at a meeting last week to inform schools, parents, staff and Barnet residents generally about the implications of academies for Barnet education, and to resist the policy. For more information email barnet@antiacademies.org.uk.

The campaign will be producing a newspaper over the summer which will be available for the start of next term, and they are setting up a website with local information. Until those are ready, to find out more about academies, visit the website of the Anti Academies Alliance.

Scrapping Schools for the Future

So, now that Conservative central government has scrapped the Building Schools for the Future scheme, what is Barnet Conservative council going to say?

When they were in line for £80m for Barnet secondary schools, back in September 2009, the scheme was a good idea. Then council leader Mike Freer, and now Conservative MP, also boasted that the council had the expertise to manage the complex contracts for the construction project:

"We are obviously delighted that we have been recognised for our work with schools in the borough.

"We submitted a bid to get the money early, and because they were impressed by our track record and expertise - our ability to deliver First Class Schools on time and on budget - they fast-tracked us to the front of the queue.

"Managing major capital projects is fraught with difficulty, and we feel this was a strong mark in our favour."

The Times series reports on who will be the losers now:

...the projects at Bishop Douglas RC, Copthall, Oak Lodge, St Mary's CE High, The Pavillion, and The Ravenscroft, have all been stopped.

Only East Barnet school, which was opened last month, has successfully been completed under the BFS.

Mr Gove said the national scheme had been “characterised by massive overspends, tragic delays, botched construction projects and needless bureaucracy”.

Would Mike Freer agree? And would it worry him anyway if it were true?

UPDATE: Here, on the Times series website, is what Barnet Tories are saying: "Tory bosses at Barnet Council admit school spending cuts are 'disappointing'"