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?

So you can call in surveyors and engineers and ask them to look at school buildings in a massive 2 year survey and come out of it actually having no idea whether your buildings are made out of a material that has been known for years to be dodgy and in some instances to have collapsed.

That's a bit of an oversight, isn't it? How did that happen?

I used dilapidated as a general term not a technical term @TizerorFizz

A local school has a building that has been condemned and cannot be used. Most people when talking about it will say dilapidated, others might call it a pile of crap, but obviously it is the fact that its structural integrity is fucked that it has been condemned! That building would have been built under an LEA

Yes. But building of certain construction types are not built to last forever. Clearly the Essex, Suffolk and Kent schools were built by the LEA. Unfortunately to a price and probably with a contract with a RAAC supplier. I have not said LEAs built better. What I’ve said is LEAs knew what they had built. Crap or otherwise.

As for the big surveying organisations! As I said, not engineers. The “surveyors” needed training!!! Surely that tells you something? Oh dear.

It's a bit hard to argue that the government doesn't have any responsibility for the state of schools when it commissioned one massive safety survey (including hiring engineers) of the whole school estate a few years ago to find out which bits needed replacing, and are in the middle of the same exercise now. It clearly seems to think it does.

What also seems ridiculous is to berate headteachers for not knowing whether their schools contain RAAC when they've had various surveys of their school that haven't uncovered it (therefore they think they're ok) only to be told that the surveys are crap and wouldn't find it.

At the same time, the govt seems to think that RAAC can be found by a headteacher going around with a hammer tapping walls, so it's not entirely clear why on the one hand it's completely unreasonable to think that surveyors and engineers could spot it, but on the other, totally reasonable to think that headteachers could.

I rather suspect they were mechanical engineers looking at heating etc. They certainly didn’t have structural engineers looking at every school. You also don’t understand how buildings are constructed. If surveyors or engineers had the original working drawings and contract details, they would have known where to look. Ditto the mats when they took over responsibility for the buildings.

RAAC was manufactured off site. It was a system build form of concrete and not poured on site. So it’s not like a bridge or tower blocks. It was aerated and contained steel rods for reinforcing. By and large it’s used in roofs and between floors, so not visible. The huge issue is water ingress corroding the steels.

The point is that if mats had the building drawings and build contract info, they might have got surveys conducted with some knowledge of what might be there. Without the knowledge, it’s a case of having to actually look. If the RAAC is in a flat roof structure, you have to take quite a lot of action to find it. Never mind work out if it’s structurally sound. There’s little evidence schools have been inspected to a standard to discover structural integrity issues with RAAC. The surveys appear to be more of a condition survey without depth of expertise being used.

They certainly didn’t have structural engineers looking at every school.

Yes, which is odd, don't you think, given that the DfE survey of schools was done with the specific intention of finding out which schools needing repairing or rebuilding. It means that we are now in a situation where 100-odd schools are closed and more will need to be closed but we don't know which ones because the survey which was meant to look for problems in school buildings didn't look for RAAC. Whose balls-up was that?

Did the DfE hire surveying companies saying 'we need a thorough look at school buildings to find where the problems are' and the companies said 'absolutely, here you go' without mentioning that it was missing the RAAC element, or did they go 'option 1 is a survey of everything except the thing that in a few years time will close a bunch of schools, option 2 includes that thing but is more expensive, which do you want?'

Incidentally, it looks more likely to be a DfE balls-up because the story is now coming out that the DfE bought a load of buildings for their Free Schools programme and didn't have them properly surveyed (which is what Tizer was criticising MATs for not doing) for even basic stuff like asbestos before spending millions of taxpayers money, and then having to spend millions of taxpayers money trying to fix the problems discovered post-purchase.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/10/uk-government-did-not-carry-out-detailed-surveys-before-it-bought-free-schools-sites

"In another case, the government’s Education Funding Agency (EFA)bought a former air traffic control training site next to Bournemouth airport to house Parkfield free school, on the basis of a four-page vendor’s report. Detailed surveys including asbestos were not carried out until after the purchase. The rebuild was plagued with problems, including a protected colony of bats, asbestos and even the potential threat of unexploded bombs from the second world war."

So it seems like the DfE can be quite slack when it comes to surveys.

noblegiraffe
The schools conditions data summary findings from 2021

From your link, the findings were published in 2021 but the data collection programme ran from 2017-2019.

the government ... commissioned one massive safety survey

The government commissioned a data collection programme, not a safety survey.

What also seems ridiculous is to berate headteachers for not knowing whether their schools contain RAAC when they've had various surveys of their school that haven't uncovered it (therefore they think they're ok) only to be told that the surveys are crap and wouldn't find it.

Did the headteachers (and responsible bodies) read the 2017 guidance?

The CDC is a data collection programme; it is not a full condition survey of the type often commissioned locally by responsible bodies. The ESFA will collect data on all government maintained schools in England. We recognise that schools and their responsible bodies commission asset management surveys which may appear similar in scope. The CDC is designed to achieve the particular objectives detailed below and be consistent across the school estate...

Limitations: The CDC cannot on its own, provide enough information to support a comprehensive condition report for any individual establishment that is suitable for asset management planning. This is because: it is not invasive (only visible condition is inspected) it is not structural (critical structural repairs may not be identified) it does not report on hazardous materials (principally asbestos) it does not address critical health and safety requirements such as fire and intruder alarm functionality (although surveyors observing major health and safety issues will report these directly to the school) it does not take into account building use or capacity it does not provide descriptions of defects and remedies or cost information for schools or responsible bodies...

Comparison with locally held condition data. The CDC data does not replace locally held condition surveys. The information obtained during the CDC programme does not and is not intended to replace any of the current arrangements that exist at responsible body or school level to gather detailed building condition survey data. CDC data is less detailed than condition data held by schools or responsible bodies. CDC does not involve an intrusive survey. This means that surveyors will undertake a visual inspection only and will not access roof voids, remove ceiling tiles or test any ‘plant’ equipment such as boilers and heaters whilst on site. However, data collected during the CDC may be a useful supplement to locally held condition data, and be helpful as a starting point for the development of local maintenance programmes. It should not be viewed as a replacement.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/condition-data-collection-programme-information-and-guidance

From your link, the findings were published in 2021

Yes, that's why I called it the data summary findings from 2021.

The government commissioned a data collection programme, not a safety survey.

So they spent taxpayer money sending around surveyors and engineers to assess the condition of school buildings and came out with data that was worse than useless because it didn't actually assess the condition of school buildings?

Are you Gillian Keegan @Clavinova (I hope so!)

All this chat by the DofE about responsible bodies, is that because the DofE is an irresponsible body?

noblegiraffe
So they spent taxpayer money sending around surveyors and engineers to assess the condition of school buildings and came out with data that was worse than useless because it didn't actually assess the condition of school buildings?

Visible condition inspections were carried out. Who has said that the data collected 2017 - 2019 is worse than useless (other than you)? It's supposed to be a rolling programme anyway - the new data collection schedule runs from 2021 to 2026.

Labour's Building Schools for the Future programme had different criteria for the prioritising of funds;

The BSF programme started with two core criteria for prioritising the areas to receive funding: a. level of deprivation of local area – the greater the deprivation, the higher the priority accorded; and b. attainment – the lower the attainment, the higher the priority accorded. Dilapidation and the general state of school buildings was not part of the consideration when deciding which areas should be first to receive BSF funding. Local Authorities did sometimes take condition into account when allocating funding within an area but also a large number of other factors. The result is that there is poor correlation overall between the condition of schools and the order in which they were refurbished or rebuilt.

Crinklycut
Are you Gillian Keegan @ Clavinova (I hope so!)

No I'm not - sorry to disappoint.

I should have known from the lack of swearing! @Clavinova

(but I am disappointed!).

@Clavinova what was the point of that survey? Was it worth the money?

@Clavinova All this has been pointed out to noble. Unfortunately her political agenda means she won’t take on board what I have said and I suspect won’t listen to you. It’s quite clear what the survey was by the type of people engaged. Not structural engineering consultants!

Plus it’s already been pointed out how BSF schools were identified but she won’t accept that either. There’s around 13 schools on the BSF list with RAAC.

Ive explained the difference between locally held info and a “survey” by people that needed training until I’m blue in the face. It’s somewhat irrelevant regarding the date!! Plus I’ve tried to explain why RAAC needs inspecting by qualified structural engineers, of whom there are not that many. However local info was the key to this and it’s been lost.

@TizerorFizz what is your solution to the issue?

And I just want to point out that you’ve done an amazing job @TizerorFizz .

God only knows what actual job you have to know all this stuff, but people could—by this stage— probably write quite good Master’s dissertations based on this thread. All credit to you. You have been very generous in sharing your expertise.

And I agree @toomuchlaundry … drive it home now @TizerorFizz

What is the answer?

I may be being obtuse but if surveyors can't assess this, why are headteachers with screwdrivers expected to?

I think the government now needs to draw up a list of structural engineering consultancies who can look at schools. Difficult to know which are the most urgent and, believe it or not, some LAs are making a start! The Institution of Structural Engineers should write to all members and fellows to ascertain if they are in a position to do this work or not. They have a database of engineers. They need to know which consultancies have a track record of dealing with public buildings and structural safety inspections. Then they need to look at where companies are and what schools are in that area. Give the schools a list of qualified engineers who are willing to carry out the inspections and they might get some answers. (Ideas entirely my own but DH FIStructE agrees!)

Unfortunately her political agenda means she won’t take on board what I have said

I have taken on board what you have said! It seems for decades buildings surveys that have been done with the intention of identifying issues with the buildings that need repairs haven't included surveying the building for RAAC. This is despite knowing for decades that RAAC is a life-limited building material, and in recent years knowing that this has led to building collapses.

And it's not simply 'the fault of MATs and the closure of LAs' because we are now seeing various other buildings not involved in education suddenly being identified as containing RAAC and being closed at short notice. Buildings that have been surveyed for condition and safety have not been surveyed for RAAC.

What on earth has been going on with building surveys that this has been missed on such a widespread scale?

And if we are talking about political agendas, your inability to allow any criticism of the government is quite bizarre in the circumstances.

Well indeed. On the one hand it is far too difficult to find in mere building surveys and requires extreme expertise, and on the other hand the DfE thought it enough to just ask headteachers if they reckoned their school was affected.

Jeez! The mats should have known about their estate before now!!

By the way, DH is the expert. I’m passing on his views!!

And free schools were (are) set up by charities and others after undergoing “a rigorous assessment and must demonstrate how the proposal will meet key criteria, and how the school will be financially viable whilst offering a broad and balanced curriculum”.

Key wording is “financially viable”. This more or less stops anyone doing a full structural survey and finding out what issues there might be. These schools opened because parents, businesses, agitators and charities wanted them. Where did they have to satisfy anyone they had safe buildings? Now none of the issues are down to them.