黑洞社区

It only takes a glance at social media and internet message boards aimed at parents to realise the extent of the crisis of capacity in England鈥檚 school estate. Websites like Mumsnet, which is visited by 14 million parents each week, are awash with tales of woe from worried parents despairing at getting their children places at good local schools, with threads running to hundreds of responses. One post from April 2013, from a mum who has been told she can鈥檛 get her second child into the same school as her first, is typical: 鈥淲e live in a rural area and have only one car. I am expecting in November 鈥� it would be a nightmare for me to have my two older children in different schools.鈥�

Justine Roberts, chief executive of the message board, says: 鈥淲hat parents really want are more good schools available to all. Too often in local areas there will only be one good school which is hugely oversubscribed. That means that the notion of choice in some areas doesn鈥檛 exist. There is too much pressure on the primary schools that are known to be good.鈥�

It鈥檚 not surprising that parents are upset. The basic problem is a shortage of school places, which is affecting much of the country. The government estimates that between now and 2023, a total of 880,000 school places are required and, according to the Local Government Association (LGA), the problem is now so severe as to have reached a tipping point, where councils have run out of space and cash to extend schools. With huge pressure on councils to meet an immediate demand for primary places (which will turn into a big shortfall in secondary places in the next couple of years), increasing numbers are turning to short-term solutions such as temporary structures, and converting empty commercial buildings. In 2013 the then coalition government promised to give the Department for Education (DfE) 拢21bn of capital funding to spend on schools, colleges and universities over the course of the coming five-year parliament, and the new government is so far sticking by this figure. So does this funding give the new Conservative government a chance of meeting its pledge to offer a good primary school place for every child? Or are more parents going to face the nightmare of long school journeys and siblings at different schools?

The government鈥檚 rhetoric must be matched by its chequebook, rather than leaving local authorities to pick up the tab

David Simmonds, LGA

On the face of it 拢21bn sounds like an enormous amount of money, and certainly it was trumpeted by chancellor George Osborne and Treasury secretary Danny Alexander when it was announced as proof of the government鈥檚 willingness to invest in the nation鈥檚 schools. The reality is it actually represents a 16% cut on the capital funding found between 2010 and 2015. And of course this money has to do much more than just fund new school places: there is also the challenge of upgrading and replacing dilapidated schools and expanding higher education. On an annual basis, it is only just over half (54%) of what was being spent each year at the end of Labour鈥檚 last term in office.

The crisis in places has been caused by a demographic shift in the nation鈥檚 population. While the Conservatives blame the Labour administration for failing to tackle the problem when finances were less constrained, the fact is pupil numbers only started rising in 2010, with Labour鈥檚 time in office characterised by falling school rolls. Not surprisingly, perhaps, funding was targeted elsewhere. The majority of additional pupil places are presently met by extending existing school buildings, but councils will also open new schools where they can.

Despite the overall capital funding cut there are some positive signs. The Conservative Party鈥檚 election manifesto pledges to spend 拢7bn of the 拢21bn capital funding providing 鈥済ood school places鈥� over this parliament. This compares with about 拢5bn spent on what it calls 鈥渂asic need鈥� provision in the last five years - and therefore may imply an uplift in funding in this area, though it is not clear if the figures are directly comparable, as the 拢7bn may include funding for free schools.

Budget decisions taken during the last parliament have identified the first three years of this funding, to the tune of 拢3.6bn. To hit the promised 拢7bn total spend, that would leave 拢3.4bn to be found for the final two years - which seems unlikely. However, even at the current rate it would imply an uplift of 20%, something that would undoubtedly be welcome.

Unfortunately the good news ends there. With contractors in high demand as the economy improves, construction costs are rising fast. The RICS鈥� building cost information service forecasts that prices will rise by even more than the 20% uplift in funding - by 28% over the same period. Therefore it is likely that the funding identified will, at best, struggle to keep pace with inflation.

But that is the least of the difficulties. The DfE鈥檚 own pupil projection figures show that due to the impact of migration and a rising birth rate, 566,000 school places will have to be created over the course of this parliament. This is an increase of 25% on the 447,000 created over the last five years - a huge additional uplift which means the money will have to go even further. According to the LGA, 拢12bn is needed to fund the increase in places by 2023, which works out at 拢7.5bn for this parliament - more than will be allocated, to judge by both the 拢7bn which has been promised and the current run-rate of identified funding.

This is particularly troubling because many think the current level of funding is pretty inadequate. The LGA says local councils, which have a legal duty to provide enough places even though they no longer have direct control of many schools, have been forced to borrow money, cut back on school maintenance and abandon other building projects in order to fund the growing number of places. Last year the organisation, quoting a survey of councils, estimated the funding 鈥渂lack hole鈥� at around 拢1bn between 2011/12 and 2016/17. This is at a time when town hall budgets have already been stripped to the bone by five years of spending austerity. The London Borough of Ealing, for example, said it borrowed 拢114m, made cuts of 拢11m to other capital budgets and pulled in 拢4m of Section 106 money to cover what it saw as a 拢129m funding shortfall for the construction of new school buildings. Overall in London, councils claim that just short of half of the cost of new places is being met by local, rather than central, government.

When the results of the LGA survey were announced David Simmonds, chairman of the LGA鈥檚 Children and Young People鈥檚 Board, said the scale of this black hole was such that the cost of the creation of new school places could not be met by council taxpayers. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 rhetoric must be matched by its chequebook, rather than leaving local authorities to pick up the tab,鈥� he said.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has also criticised the coalition for basing the funding for new school places on 鈥渋ncomplete information鈥�, noting that it used out of date tender costs, failed to factor in the cost of buying land where necessary, and assumed that most new places would be met by extending existing schools. Referring to the 拢13,780 set aside to fund new places per child, the NAO concluded: 鈥淚t is not yet clear whether this level of funding represents an accurate assessment of the resources required to meet forecast need.鈥� Stephen Beechey, managing director of government affairs at contractor Wates, says: 鈥淭he government needs to seriously review the money it is putting in to fund basic need. It鈥檚 underprovision and it鈥檚 not even dealing with the maintenance backlog either.鈥�

This view is supported by an analysis by consultant EC Harris, which works closely with the government on its education construction programmes. Marcus Fagent, education partner at EC Harris, says the 880,000 places needed by 2023 will actually cost 50% more than the LGA estimates, if you factor in the price of land and the real cost of construction. With a total cost of over 拢11bn between 2015-2020, this could leave the government鈥檚 programme short by more than 拢4bn against currently committed funding. Fagent says the cost of expanding existing schools is increasing and there is less and less land available in urban areas for new free schools, which is increasing costs as the market price has to be paid for sites: 鈥淭he government has to find more efficient ways of redeveloping land held in the public sector, such as redundant hospital sites, and will need to look at cross-funding new schools by bringing through mixed school and commercial developments,鈥� he says.

The government needs to seriously review the money it is putting in to fund basic need. It鈥檚 under provision and it鈥檚 not even dealing with the Maintenance backlog Either

Stephen Beechey, Wates

Jonathan Stewart, managing director at Gleeds, agrees that while contractors, such as Galliford Try - which has developed a modular build system for use on school extensions - are attempting to keep costs down, there is no escaping the challenge of securing land, particularly in London where the need is most severe. According to a London Councils report, the need for new school places is running at twice the level of any other region, with 28% of all the nation鈥檚 new places needed in the capital. Stewart says: 鈥淚n London, how many boroughs have excess space they can just hand over for new schools? Some do, but not many.鈥�

For some, though, even the shortfall identified by the EC Harris analysis could be an optimistic guess, because it assumes that the new government will deliver on its promised level of funding. Former Labour construction minister Nick Raynsford says the industry should be 鈥渧ery nervous indeed鈥� of the government meeting capital funding expectations, given the scale of cuts in spending likely to be required to meet its top-line financial targets. While education has been named as a department 鈥減rotected鈥� from Whitehall cuts, like health and overseas aid, this top line pledge only protects revenue funding.

Certainly there are many other priorities competing for the department鈥檚 拢21bn capital pot. Not least of them is the Conservatives鈥� headline manifesto pledge to open 500 free schools over the course of the next parliament. EC Harris鈥� Fagent estimates this promise, based on the set-up costs of already approved free schools, will be somewhere in the region of 拢5bn. Of course, many of these free schools will be providing additional school places, and therefore will go some way to meeting 鈥渂asic need鈥�. But with no specific free school funding pot, it is unclear where the money will come from. Opponents of the programme, such as Alasdair Smith of the Anti-Academies Alliance, have already accused the government of raiding 鈥渂asic need鈥� funding to support free schools. 鈥淏ecause it has chosen to spend on free schools, the government doesn鈥檛 have enough to spend on local authority schools to extend them,鈥� he says.

In addition to the pull on budgets from free schools, the previous government extended the Priority School 黑洞社区 Programme to replace schools in the worst condition until 2021. This will require a further 拢2bn funding across this parliament. And for those schools not benefiting from the PSBP, there will of course need to be planned repair and maintenance work, with the government in January admitting that 95% of the nation鈥檚 school blocks require some kind of work.

So with the government pledging to increase 鈥渂asic need鈥� funding - albeit by far short of what many say is required - and ramp up the construction of free schools, it seems something will have to slip in order for it to meet its overall plan to cut education capital spend by 16%.

Meanwhile the parents out in the country beyond the corridors of Whitehall just want good quality school places for their children which do not require them to drive miles every morning, or ship siblings to different schools. On the evidence of the numbers, they may have to wait.