Gillian Keegan: how’s the ‘hot mic’ thing gone down with you?

[Crinklycut]

For my part, I don’t think it was very ministerial, and I do wonder how No. 10 all talk to each other these days (do they just swear all the time?) BUT she is a bit right, isn’t she?

The DfE have finally acted to make the public aware that their children are not safe in school. That’s more than anyone else in the Conservative party has done since they cancelled ‘Building Schools for the Future’ in 2010 and during their 13 years of government.

So how’s it gone down with you?

Not necessarily. They are the result of mats and others not knowing what to look for or even know about the construction of their buildings. How would the government know? It’s just too easy to pass the Buck when schools did little to look at the construction of the buildings. The mats have responsibility in the first instance. Then the government should have been involved but hardly anyone mentioned this issue 13 years ago. Did you know about it?

They are the result of mats and others not knowing what to look for or even know about the construction of their buildings.

This is pathetic pleading. We know that at least one school on the list recently bid for a rebuild and was turned down because Rishi cut the budget for rebuilds to the bone. We know that schools on the list were meant to be rebuilt under BSF and had the funding pulled at the last minute.

This is absolutely a failure of government to properly invest in school infrastructure and kids are now paying the price. Pretending that the government didn’t know what a shit state schools were in is stupid when we know the risk level of collapse was presented in reports to the government as highly likely.

They were not ignorant of the state of schools, they did not want to pay to sort it out.

@TizerorFizz so is it only school buildings that are in MATS that are in dilapidated state and have issues with RAAC, all state maintained schools buildings are in pristine condition?

DS went to state maintained Primary school that had 60 year old 'temporary' classrooms, they only got replaced when they had pretty much been condemned

Well obviously not as LAs do not have money either. However my point was a central team would have known what it’s buildings are. County Architects would have designed them. These departments no longer exist in many places.

LAs now issue contracts to consultants to inspect buildings in order to decide what goes into a refurbishment programme. Clearly few schools, other then new ones, have pristine buildings but my argument was that LAs, before they were ripped apart, knew more about their own buildings. It’s inevitable.

I would want to know why a Head put up with shoddy temp buildings for 60 years! Most I know would have engaged with that problem 30 years ago. At 60 years old (which I very much doubt) you would have a very early rare Terrapin. We had a programme of replacing them 30 years ago and undertook county wide surveys to condemn them. It is also part of where schools need to expend and where buildings become surplus. Heads sometimes want to hang on to buildings for flexibility as opposed to need.

Not sure the heads would have necessarily had the money to replace them.

The National Audit Office said in June:

"DfE is accountable for providing those bodies responsible for school buildings with the funding and support to enable them to meet their responsibility to ensure school buildings are safe and well maintained.

Following years of underinvestment, the estate’s overall condition is declining and around 700,000 pupils are learning in a school that the responsible body or DfE believes needs major rebuilding or refurbishment.

Most seriously, DfE recognises significant safety concerns across the estate, and has escalated these concerns to the government risk register.

Although it has made progress in the last year, DfE currently lacks comprehensive information on the extent and severity of these safety issues, which would allow it to develop a longer-term plan to address them. It has announced that, where RAAC is identified in schools, it will provide funding to mitigate any immediate risk.

DfE has improved its understanding of the general condition of school buildings. This has helped it to allocate funding based on better estimates, and target schools assessed to be in the poorest condition.

However, there is a significant gap between the funding available and that which DfE assesses it needs to achieve its aim for school buildings to be safe and in a good condition for those who learn and work there. Funding is also often used for urgent repairs rather than planned maintenance which, as DfE itself acknowledges, risks not offering good long-term value for money.

DfE must ensure that its approach delivers the best value from the resources it currently has available."

Basically, the heads, the responsible bodies and the DfE (the civil servants) know that the buildings are in poor condition and/or dangerous, but the government doesn't give a shit about kids' safety or their education and doesn't want to pay for it to be improved.

No point in wondering why heads haven't done anything about it, we know exactly why.

No point in wondering why the DfE haven't done enough about it, we know that too.

Money has been urgently asked for by everyone involved and those critical requests have been rejected by those in charge of the purse strings, including by our now Prime Minister when he was Chancellor.

There needs to be a way to fund all this stuff without incredibly high private mark up and pushing higher costs to next generations. We’re still paying now for stuff ages ago and we need that money more now

I don’t how though

@TizerorFizz do you really think successive heads and governing bodies had not tried to get the huts replaced. They had been fighting for years to get the funding. There was great celebration when they eventually got it but it wasn’t sufficient to do everything they wanted so many compromises had to be made.

As to confirming the age, there was an old school photo with 2 of the original huts in the background (some of the other classrooms were slightly more modern but still about 40 years old)

And school had no choice who the contractors were going to be, so not necessarily the best or cost efficient

At 60 years old, I would be concerned as to why they were still there. No doubt converting to an academy would have worked for you. Often new schools are built and free schools came about meaning LAs had severely reduced funding but during 60 years, this wasn’t the case. It would be interesting to know what conversations actually went on.

The schools in our area have had no new buildings since converting to an Academy

@TizerorFizz are you involved in education?

Nope. Not any more. However I might have been lucky that our LA was well run! After 30 years we condemned Portakabins! Not after 60 years. So there’s probably a back story here and nothing to do with RAAC. Most academy converters were given more money. A bribe if you like to go along with government policy. With that comes responsibility that appears to have been lost. Due diligence in knowing your buildings and ensuring safety.

Oh absolutely nothing to do with RAAC but many school estates are in a shocking state, RAAC has just added an additional complication

The real problem seems to be that schools have been surveyed but that doesn't seem to include RAAC.

Why have surveyors, looking for problems in schools buildings, not been properly looking for RAAC?

@noblegiraffe maybe usual Government incompetence and inefficiencies

Yep, the data from this article is fairly horrifying

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/faults-and-leaks-force-two-school-closures-a-day/

Surveyors are NOT structural engineers. My original point stands. LAs knew how schools were built. They designed them. The DofE clearly doesn’t and Mats didn’t bother to have in depth surveys done and find out. The mats have highly paid CEOs. They need to know what they have. This is 100% clear. They have responsibilities. It’s not the government acting alone. If mats do not know what their defects are, how does the government know? What structural engineers do they employ?

@noblegiraffe I suggest you stick to teaching or use your maths and become a structural engineer. Then you would know absolutely everything. I can agree that the government must know the condition of its buildings and draw up plans for repair and replacement at a reasonable cost. However structural engineers are rarely qualified by age 26 plus, let alone have relevant experience, so they cost a lot. This isn’t a job for q nerdy maths geek sitting with a computer in an ivory tower. No consultant carrying vast sums of insurance and overheads will be cheap. Why should they be?

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make.

The government did a survey of the state of the school estate, to establish what needed replacing, what needed rebuilding. That survey apparently, although recent, didn't include checking out whether there was any RAAC.

But we've known RAAC is a problem for years. So why weren't they looking for it?

I think everyone apart from the DfE agrees that it is not for a headteacher armed with a hammer to try to establish whether there is RAAC in the building.

Maybe the Government could fund structural surveys for schools then @TizerorFizz

LAs allowed RAAC to be used

They did!

The schools conditions data summary findings from 2021

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/989912/Condition_of_School_Buildings_Survey_CDC1_-_key_findings_report.pdf

They went to pretty much every school and assessed it. So why didn't they look for RAAC?

The IStructE currently has 22 structural engineers listed with the relevant experience. There are undoubtedly more but it’s a job that should have been done over the last 12 or so years. Initially instigated by those responsible for H&S. if it’s known about, why didn’t CEOs act?

I do agree the government doesn’t know the issues but that’s because no one asked the questions in a timely manner. It’s too easy to say it’s someone else’s fault.

The more pertinent question is "why when the question 'does this school contain defective elements' was asked, did the experts not think to suggest that RAAC may be one of these elements that would need replacing and so should be actively looked for when the survey of the entire school estate was done?"

@TizerorFizz a school that didn’t qualify to be part of the current rebuilding programme as it wasn’t dilapidated enough has now been found to have RAAC and is dangerous. That would have surveyors etc all over it to justify the bid, how was that missed?

You have used the term surveyor. Do you understand the difference between Surveyors and structural engineers? Plus if you had the original working drawings you would know what materials were used. There’s a reason why Essex, Kent and Suffolk have high numbers of RAAC usage.

Structural integrity isn’t the same as dilapidated. That’s the central issue. People recognise dilapidation but they have no idea about structural integrity! It’s unseen and your average surveyor has no idea. What they usually do if they are worried about a building is call in a structural engineer!!