'so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power...'
Discussion
"Ty Goddard, director of the British Council for School Environments, said the key now was to find a system and approach that met the national challenge.
"Much of the school estate is beyond its design life, and pupil numbers are growing," he added."
So why was it allowed to get in such a state under the last Government? Hmmmm?
"Much of the school estate is beyond its design life, and pupil numbers are growing," he added."
So why was it allowed to get in such a state under the last Government? Hmmmm?
Tunku said:
So why was it allowed to get in such a state under the last Government? Hmmmm?
Although I am no admirer of the last administration, I'm not convinced that this is a good opportunity to criticise them. Education has always been perceived to be underfunded, at least by some, but that's probably because education can never attain a state of perfection, so it will always need additional funding. I'm not convinced that going to the High Court is the way to resolve this. It seems like a massive waste of money if the regulations are all clearly stated, and given that the ruling was that Gove should have consulted, but scraping the BSF was reasonable, and that it needs no further consideration, I do question why it's gone this far. I would really hope that matters like this can be resolved in a more pragmatic manner in future. I also hope that Waltham Forest, in particular, is accommodated for in some way, and that a lesson is learnt from all sides.
I fear that this is one particular cut that could have maybe be considered more fully, some of the schools in the country are shocking and I've seen the difference decent facilities can make for kids.
Plus, what is the "proper consideration" going to cost? With these things like they are it would have probably been cheaper to build the schools!
Plus, what is the "proper consideration" going to cost? With these things like they are it would have probably been cheaper to build the schools!
As I understand it the current Government is not opposed to building new schools but is desparate to get out of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme which commits it to rebuild hundreds of schools mostly on PFI contracts.
Since to programme was announced in 2004 the original £45bn budget has increased to £55bn.
The current Government's view is that:
1. We can't afford £55bn (or whatever the final cost will actually be),
2. The quality of the schools being built under BSF is debatable,
3. That the PFI contracts are being poorly negotiated.
Since to programme was announced in 2004 the original £45bn budget has increased to £55bn.
The current Government's view is that:
1. We can't afford £55bn (or whatever the final cost will actually be),
2. The quality of the schools being built under BSF is debatable,
3. That the PFI contracts are being poorly negotiated.
ralphrj said:
As I understand it the current Government is not opposed to building new schools but is desparate to get out of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme which commits it to rebuild hundreds of schools mostly on PFI contracts.
Since to programme was announced in 2004 the original £45bn budget has increased to £55bn.
The current Government's view is that:
1. We can't afford £55bn (or whatever the final cost will actually be),
2. The quality of the schools being built under BSF is debatable,
3. That the PFI contracts are being poorly negotiated.
AgreedSince to programme was announced in 2004 the original £45bn budget has increased to £55bn.
The current Government's view is that:
1. We can't afford £55bn (or whatever the final cost will actually be),
2. The quality of the schools being built under BSF is debatable,
3. That the PFI contracts are being poorly negotiated.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff