One topic guaranteed to fuel political debate is education and, accordingly, governmental education strategy has been criticised and revered in equal measure. The previous government’s £55bn Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, with its promise of exemplary facilities for all, was broadly welcomed. But today, many question the dissemination and application of this funding, as highlighted in the recently published Review of Education Capital by Sebastian James (April 2011).
However, in some quarters, the desire for greater independence and freedom in our school system remains. The sentiment grew with the introduction of the academies system and was formalised in legislation by the present government with the introduction of the Academies Act in July 2010.
The combination of drastically reduced funding through BSF, and increases in local control and parental choice, has seen the rate of applications for free schools increase dramatically.
At the heart of the free school doctrine is a challenge to what we expect our schools to look like. Under the free school movement, any type of building could be considered as a potential learning environment, from offices to churches, residential buildings to industrial units.
A fresh approach
So what challenges does the free school movement have for the discipline of facilities management? Free schools require a fresh approach, involving a professional with experience in education who also understands how to negotiate commercial contracts outside the public sector. This kind of knowledge can ensure that contracts and commercial agreements are negotiated to be economically attractive.
An understanding of the issues associated with schools is vital. For example, in terms of FM there are significant child safeguarding issues around a workforce in close proximity to young children. This may involve negotiating access arrangements for work outside school hours or more restrictive management of the workforce. CRB checks may need to be reviewed. From a particularly practical point of view the impact of work during exam periods needs to be factored in. It is possible the school could get into trouble if noise or disruption was considered to impact a child’s grades.
Each building, whether brick-built or industrial-framed, will have its own set of FM issues to plan and prepare a solution for. With a new-build, FM needs can be part of the design, so that effective solutions are built in. Thus, consistent solutions can be used across a range of buildings, simplifying and enhancing the FM solution.
Such advantages will be significantly reduced where an existing building is converted, as many of the built-in problems of, for example, energy consumption, will need to be accepted. A school that occupies a building with single-glazed steel-framed windows will probably also find those windows in poor condition, with little ability to conserve heat. The solution is normally wholesale replacement. This can be difficult if the site is subject to planning constraints on the nature, style and aesthetic look of the windows.
60m2
Traditionally classrooms have been sized 60 square metres (646 square feet) in a square configuration
While it will normally be the case that reusing an existing building requires a smaller capital investment to convert it, its configuration is unlikely to completely suit its new use — compromises must be made.
A new lease of life
The ability to identify, evaluate and negotiate an effective purchase or lease of the building, particularly from a commercial/private landowner, will also need to be factored in. The suitability of a building to become a free school is defined by three things:
- The operational suitability: is the space configured appropriately or can it be configured within a reasonable cost? Can pupils get to it easily and safely?
- Are there any planning/change of use constraints on the site?
- Is the government prepared to negotiate and pay commercial rates for the purchase of a building or lease for the site? Traditionally, schools have been built by public money or used public buildings, ie a free site and/or peppercorn rent. Also, for security of tenure, standard model leases are for 125 years; will commercial owners wish to tie their asset up for such a long time, and if not, how will government approach the issue of a lease ending in 25 years or whatever period is chosen?
The majority of schools built through BSF were on existing Local Authority-owned land so this issue was not relevant. However, the use of existing buildings should not be seen as a disadvantage. The often-traditional aesthetic of some buildings can be appealing and reassuring to parents.
Not all existing buildings are in poor condition either — and can be converted relatively easily. The key is to recognise that new buildings do not have fewer problems than existing buildings — just different ones. And as long as those issues are approached, identified and evaluated correctly, proper and sustainable investment plans can be developed.
Use of space in an existing building requires a certain approach — that of making things fit. Within a new design, space is designated for a bespoke need. In an existing building the constraints and shapes of the existing layout and configuration will require some compromises, or even different ways of working.
Classrooms, which are traditionally sized 60 square metres (646 square feet) in a square, may need imaginative furniture layouts to cater for the same number of pupils within smaller or oddly shaped rooms.
Traditionally science labs have been used as classrooms as well, where students sit in the lab to do their desk work.
But why? With the cost of providing the science facilities isn’t it better to have fewer science ‘labs’ used continually for experiments — and instead provide adjacent smaller write-up areas for students not directly engaged in the experimental work?
This solution works for both newly designed and existing buildings — but it is an approach and different way of working that will assist in using constrained space in converting an existing building.
Managing the FM is actually no different in new or existing buildings, except perhaps for the level of FM required and the cost generated by the degree of difficulty in the FM work — more frequent maintenance of older plant, earlier replacement items, for example, roofs and heating systems.
One of the biggest and most successful ways of limiting costs is the sharing of services with other like-minded schools. This is where new-build has the greatest advantage, in terms of:
- perception of lower risk
- more accurate planning of replacements
- consistent and aligned building services and facilities, such as, boiler or catering equipment, lending itself to similar maintenance tasks and problem diagnosis, potentially by lower skilled individuals.
Schools that can join together to negotiate a combined contract for FM stand more chance of benefiting from economies of scale — but this should not be at the expense of identifying and providing the proper level of FM for that particular site. Given the differences between existing sites this is the area where the new approach of using existing buildings will prove more difficult.
