Free Schools - What scares the teaching profession so much?
Discussion
You certainly seem wedded to LAs. I'm not 
since what matters to me isn't based on a particularly vested interest. As to Academies which were mostly introduced under Labour in the past (but this is changing rapidly) and Free Schools (only Conservative and far less costly) this thread is about Free Schools and response to them - though legally they are both Academies.
Personally I hope and expect that following the next General Election there will be more reforms in the Free Schools mould where real choice is given to parents and pupils, and taxpayers in general, also beyond that an increase in policies where surviving command and control socialism at local level or regional level is abolished.
since what matters to me isn't based on a particularly vested interest. As to Academies which were mostly introduced under Labour in the past (but this is changing rapidly) and Free Schools (only Conservative and far less costly) this thread is about Free Schools and response to them - though legally they are both Academies.Personally I hope and expect that following the next General Election there will be more reforms in the Free Schools mould where real choice is given to parents and pupils, and taxpayers in general, also beyond that an increase in policies where surviving command and control socialism at local level or regional level is abolished.
IroningMan said:
Presumably, when a teaching union goes on strike over a grievance with 'the employer', those teachers employed by Academies and Free Schools will be no more able to join in than those employed at Eton?
:Yes:One of the reasons why Unions are well unchuffed about independent schools.
just to qualify that though - it depends on the nature of the grievance. For example
Teacher A gets sacked by the LA - only Teachers employed in LA maintained schools could strike.
Changes to national pay & conditions - Only those teachers affected can strike (might include Academy teachers as well if they are covered by STPCD)
Countdown said:
A quick question for you; how are Free Schools less costly than Academies?
OK I think I get the smiley given that these two types of school both fall within the Academy category, if not, you'll doubtless say more.Already covered in the thread, Free School capital costs are, and will be, lower. Not least because Academy buildings were part of unaffordable Labour largesse, but because Free Schools take as a starting point BB98 or BB99 less five percent. However that's just the start of it. Contractors know that the rules of the game have changed, DfE is under new management.
Revenue monies are costed at the same level as the LA average as per other posts in the thread. The thing with Free Schools is that the ability and the desire to spend at prehistoric levels aren't there.
Overall, less costly.
Its worrying how far apart we are on our understanding of this
TB
Academy buildings weren’t “Labour largesse”. A huge number of secondary schools are coming to the end of their useful life and need rebuilding. It was (and is) costing uneconomic amounts to keep repairing them. Combined with demographic changes, falling school numbers in some areas and rising numbers in other areas, the Academy building programme was designed to address these issues. In any case capital budgets have never been devolved down to school level and have no impact on schools budgets apart from FM costs.
Where will Free schools operate from? If it’s existing premises there’s no change in capital cost. If its new premises then the capital funds will be additional – the money will have to come from somewhere.
“Contractors know the game has changed” ?? You are having a laugh.
DfE is under new management ?? When the DCSF disappeared and the DfE appeared the same people were in the same offices with the same telephone numbers. Except that they now operate from London as well as Darlington. And the YPLA are involved somewhere along the line.
I’ve already explained how Academies cost more money in the first few years as a result of diseconomies funding and start up grants. To balance the budget LA schools get less. Trust me on this – they are NOT less costly and initially more costly.
You also suggest they will be less costly because the “desire to spend at prehistoric levels isn’t there” – given that schools revenue spending is controlled at a LOCAL level by the HT how will the desire change? Whose “desire”? Are Free Schools actually going to say to the DfE “please give us less money” Or will they spend as much as they can get (just like maintained schools)?
ETA There is an argument for Free Schools / Academies but we need to be honest about this. Under every method of cost calculation they will be more costly to run than LA schools.
TB
Academy buildings weren’t “Labour largesse”. A huge number of secondary schools are coming to the end of their useful life and need rebuilding. It was (and is) costing uneconomic amounts to keep repairing them. Combined with demographic changes, falling school numbers in some areas and rising numbers in other areas, the Academy building programme was designed to address these issues. In any case capital budgets have never been devolved down to school level and have no impact on schools budgets apart from FM costs.
Where will Free schools operate from? If it’s existing premises there’s no change in capital cost. If its new premises then the capital funds will be additional – the money will have to come from somewhere.
“Contractors know the game has changed” ?? You are having a laugh.
DfE is under new management ?? When the DCSF disappeared and the DfE appeared the same people were in the same offices with the same telephone numbers. Except that they now operate from London as well as Darlington. And the YPLA are involved somewhere along the line.
I’ve already explained how Academies cost more money in the first few years as a result of diseconomies funding and start up grants. To balance the budget LA schools get less. Trust me on this – they are NOT less costly and initially more costly.
You also suggest they will be less costly because the “desire to spend at prehistoric levels isn’t there” – given that schools revenue spending is controlled at a LOCAL level by the HT how will the desire change? Whose “desire”? Are Free Schools actually going to say to the DfE “please give us less money” Or will they spend as much as they can get (just like maintained schools)?
ETA There is an argument for Free Schools / Academies but we need to be honest about this. Under every method of cost calculation they will be more costly to run than LA schools.
Edited by Countdown on Thursday 8th September 15:14
Countdown said:
I
Academy buildings weren’t “Labour largesse”. A huge number of secondary schools are coming to the end of their useful life and need rebuilding. It was (and is) costing uneconomic amounts to keep repairing them. Combined with demographic changes, falling school numbers in some areas and rising numbers in other areas, the Academy building programme was designed to address these issues. In any case capital budgets have never been devolved down to school level and have no impact on schools budgets apart from FM costs.
I have to disagree. Of the £2.2bn announced in the Building Schools for the Future project, £1.2bn is PFI credits. Plus, some local authorities were told to accept Academies in place of traditional schoold in order to secure BSF funding in their area.Academy buildings weren’t “Labour largesse”. A huge number of secondary schools are coming to the end of their useful life and need rebuilding. It was (and is) costing uneconomic amounts to keep repairing them. Combined with demographic changes, falling school numbers in some areas and rising numbers in other areas, the Academy building programme was designed to address these issues. In any case capital budgets have never been devolved down to school level and have no impact on schools budgets apart from FM costs.
So a) Academies were forced on LAs by the Labour government to showcase thier shiny new idea;
and b) Over half the bill is on PFI, and we all know what a good deal for the taxpayer that is, don't we?
I don't see how it is Labour largesse. Whether the CTCs/Academies had come along or not the schools would still have needed to be rebuilt (and the need is still there). There was nothing to stop LAs building them themselves, apart from lack of money. The BSF/PFI option happened to suit all parties concerned.
I agree with you about the PFI debacle but again, in fairness, the Tories would have done the same thing.
I agree with you about the PFI debacle but again, in fairness, the Tories would have done the same thing.
Countdown said:
Its worrying how far apart we are on our understanding of this
TB
Academy buildings weren’t “Labour largesse”.
They were, not because buldings weren't coming to the end of their useful life, but because of the inflated prices paid to build replacements. There was no need to accept and pay for designs for iconic buildings when something less expensive would have fitted the bill. TB
Academy buildings weren’t “Labour largesse”.
It's too easy to find examples. We've had past Academy building costs put at £20m+ (me) and about £30m from another PHer but there are few cheaper and plenty more expensive, including Darwen Academy where the cost spiralled from £34m to £49m, together with Bridge Academy (London) costing about £47 million and Thomas Deacon Academy (Peterborough) at £45 million. A Labour era Academy in north Kent has been repeatedly criticized for being extravagant in design, insufficiently robust, and needlessly expensive. If a public inquiry is held the cost is not included in Academy build prices, some highways alterations are excluded, and so on.
No responsible government should have let this happen let alone continue, it certainly was Labour largesse.
Countdown said:
Its worrying how far apart we are on our understanding of this
Oh yes, and btw, my understanding is fine thanks! If entering into discussion with correspondents on an issue I do them the courtesy of knowing what they're talking about.
Countdown said:
There is an argument for Free Schools / Academies but we need to be honest about this. Under every method of cost calculation they will be more costly to run than LA schools.
Reasoning by assertion and by use of the future tense, crystal ball gazing. An LA crystal ball for the cost guestimates, no doubt 
Friday's winning euro numbers in advance please, we can go halves on the £126m. Nobody else will notice.
Countdown said:
:Yes:
One of the reasons why Unions are well unchuffed about independent schools.
just to qualify that though - it depends on the nature of the grievance. For example
Teacher A gets sacked by the LA - only Teachers employed in LA maintained schools could strike.
Changes to national pay & conditions - Only those teachers affected can strike (might include Academy teachers as well if they are covered by STPCD)
Independent school often join the Teacher Pension Scheme (makes it easier for teachers to move between the State and Independent sectors). During the strike action at the beginning of the summer over changes to the TPS, quite a few independent school teachers (including some at Eton) took part in industrial action.One of the reasons why Unions are well unchuffed about independent schools.
just to qualify that though - it depends on the nature of the grievance. For example
Teacher A gets sacked by the LA - only Teachers employed in LA maintained schools could strike.
Changes to national pay & conditions - Only those teachers affected can strike (might include Academy teachers as well if they are covered by STPCD)
The Grauniad reported on this mass outbreak of militancy.
Tony Little, the Eton headmaster, issued a statement late on Tuesday which read: "Members of ATL at Eton met over the weekend, and have taken the view that they wish to minimise disruption but take the pensions issue forward by other means."
Tony Little, the Eton headmaster, issued a statement late on Tuesday which read: "Members of ATL at Eton met over the weekend, and have taken the view that they wish to minimise disruption but take the pensions issue forward by other means."
turbobloke said:
They were, not because buldings weren't coming to the end of their useful life, but because of the inflated prices paid to build replacements. There was no need to accept and pay for designs for iconic buildings when something less expensive would have fitted the bill.
It's too easy to find examples. We've had past Academy building costs put at £20m+ (me) and about £30m from another PHer but there are few cheaper and plenty more expensive, including Darwen Academy where the cost spiralled from £34m to £49m, together with Bridge Academy (London) costing about £47 million and Thomas Deacon Academy (Peterborough) at £45 million. A Labour era Academy in north Kent has been repeatedly criticized for being extravagant in design, insufficiently robust, and needlessly expensive. If a public inquiry is held the cost is not included in Academy build prices, some highways alterations are excluded, and so on.
No responsible government should have let this happen let alone continue, it certainly was Labour largesse.
The construction contracts for new Academies were tendered to the Private sector using Govt procurement. So either the original budgets were a fair and accurate reflection of the costs, or there was collusion between the big construction companies. (The detailed designs were agreed after the construction firm was appointed.)It's too easy to find examples. We've had past Academy building costs put at £20m+ (me) and about £30m from another PHer but there are few cheaper and plenty more expensive, including Darwen Academy where the cost spiralled from £34m to £49m, together with Bridge Academy (London) costing about £47 million and Thomas Deacon Academy (Peterborough) at £45 million. A Labour era Academy in north Kent has been repeatedly criticized for being extravagant in design, insufficiently robust, and needlessly expensive. If a public inquiry is held the cost is not included in Academy build prices, some highways alterations are excluded, and so on.
No responsible government should have let this happen let alone continue, it certainly was Labour largesse.
I’m aware of the overspends at Darwen Aldridge CA and Thomas Deacon. In DACAs case the views of senior Academy staff were that the problems were down to the private sector consultancy firm employed to oversee the implementation of the New Build, my understanding is that they were sacked. I’m less familiar with TD, I know there was problems with the Architects and there are ongoing issues with heating, ventilation, and maintenance of the large glass surfaces. With both of these there were significant failings from private sector consultants and architects. Its easy (indeed traditional on PH) to blame Labour for everything, the reality is that the blame needs to be shared around a few different parties.
One of these is the Headteachers – they want massive buildings with a massive “wow” factor, partly for self-aggrandisement but also partly to attract students to the Academies. Principals and Sponsors are advised countless times about the practical issues of site management by the architects, by the LA, and by PfS but they are ignored. And these are the very people who will be in charge of free schools.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Its worrying how far apart we are on our understanding of this
Oh yes, and btw, my understanding is fine thanks! If entering into discussion with correspondents on an issue I do them the courtesy of knowing what they're talking about.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
There is an argument for Free Schools / Academies but we need to be honest about this. Under every method of cost calculation they will be more costly to run than LA schools.
Reasoning by assertion and by use of the future tense, crystal ball gazing. An LA crystal ball for the cost guestimates, no doubt Countdown said:
Not a crystal ball at all - its based on two years experience of analysing schools and Academy budgets and preparing 5 year financial plans. I'd suggest this method is more accurate than an assertion that "free Schools will be cheaper because the desire to spend isn't there".
By your own earlier admission, you have had no such contact with Free Schools, starting from scratch within a different spending paradigm.My comment was about Free Schools, as in the thread title. So your experience isn't relevant as claimed. No offence intended.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Not a crystal ball at all - its based on two years experience of analysing schools and Academy budgets and preparing 5 year financial plans. I'd suggest this method is more accurate than an assertion that "free Schools will be cheaper because the desire to spend isn't there".
By your own earlier admission, you have had no contact with Free Schools, starting from scratch within a different spending paradigm.My comment was about Free Schools, as in the thread title. So your experience isn't relevant as claimed. No offence intended.
I'm just genuinely curious from a professional standpoint as to how Free Schools can be cheaper when, as far as I can see, the financial model (the funding and the expenditure) is the same as for Academies
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Not a crystal ball at all - its based on two years experience of analysing schools and Academy budgets and preparing 5 year financial plans. I'd suggest this method is more accurate than an assertion that "free Schools will be cheaper because the desire to spend isn't there".
By your own earlier admission, you have had no contact with Free Schools, starting from scratch within a different spending paradigm.My comment was about Free Schools, as in the thread title. So your experience isn't relevant as claimed. No offence intended.
I'm just genuinely curious from a professional standpoint as to how Free Schools can be cheaper when, as far as I can see, the financial model (the funding and the expenditure) is the same as for Academies
Capital costs are reduced since the starting point for Free School discussions is BB98 or BB99 less five percent. Labour largesse Academies produced some iconic buildings that may have taken 'only' the full BB recommendations but then interpreted the design criteria extravagantly in many cases. One significantly exceeded £50m in the end iirc taking all costs into account.
Revenue funding is based on the average for the LA in which the Free School is situated via what the DfE calls a 'simple and transparent' formula, if I remembered their wording correctly. It may well be that particular Labour-established Academies in any Free School's LA exceed this average, your claim is that they are more costly than LA schools so this conclusion must surely fit with your findings and related remarks.
Add these two together - and if the second point isn't conceded due to devilish detail, then the first point will do.
This is a different era, Labour largesse is thankfully out of the window.
Didn't a recent interview with Gove put the average capital cost of a Free School, as per the first 28, at about £6m? Compare that with the first 27 Labour largesse Academy capital costs which averaged nearly £26m in today's money.
Also from the project management side, Free Schools are significantly less expensive. The project management cost of any of the first tranche of Academies wasn't far short of £1m while Free Schools that get put out to tender typically involve about £25k these days. Isn't that about the same as the sums available for similar costs to a secondary school converting to Academy status (under the DfE not DCSF)?
Also from the project management side, Free Schools are significantly less expensive. The project management cost of any of the first tranche of Academies wasn't far short of £1m while Free Schools that get put out to tender typically involve about £25k these days. Isn't that about the same as the sums available for similar costs to a secondary school converting to Academy status (under the DfE not DCSF)?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff