Then why was one of its 'headline' objectives to 'Respond to population changes' - you will see this clearly in your linked document. And the peak in funding planned for 2010-11 (also in your linked document. Hmm sounds a bit like investing in providing new places where needed, and when do you think those places generated via the investment in 2010-11 would be ready ... hmm, maybe about now.
But Gove scrapped it and is now up sh*t creek without out a paddle, needing quarter of a million new places in weeks and without a plan.
Yes, but only one of several objectives, and the least important. Balls doesn't even mention it.
You really can't argue that the main purpose of the programme was to increase the number of places. Here's what Balls said:
"This is a once-in-a-generation chance to transform primary education in every part of the country - to sweep away buildings now reaching the end of their shelf life and drive up the quality of our schools."
Much talk of sweeping away and flim-flam about how shiny the new stuff would be, absolutely zilch about new places.
Sure, as an incidental part of the programme, more places would be built, but that wasn't the focussed objective of the initiative, it was a side benefit.
You're using a classic Labour argument: let's spend £2bn, of which a couple of hundred million might actually have been targeted at the purpose. Of course Gove scrapped that wasteful approach. Quite right too.
Who to believe ? the blustering Carlotta Vance or Professor Davey who provided detailed evidence in support of his argument ?
Senile,
You are aware that the "Prof" is a vested interest in the pre-school business, no...?
:greece-is-the-word:
And why is that relevant - beyond being very aware of the problems facing parents trying to get their kids into primary schools. And of course if you are in the pre-school world there is much less time to respond to changes in birth rates etc.
But there is no statutory obligation on the government to ensure sufficient places for all 2 year olds that need them. There is a statutory obligation on the government to ensure sufficient places for all 4 year olds that need them.
You're using a classic Labour argument: let's spend £2bn, of which a couple of hundred million might actually have been targeted at the purpose.
Rather than the Gove approach - which is to spend a fortune on his vanity free schools, which are providing tiny numbers of places often in areas where there is no issue with capacity and then suddenly realise he's ignored the train about to hit him - his failure to provide enough school places.
But glad you accept that responding to population changes was one of the key objectives of the programme. Guess what, many of the schemes completed under the Building Schools for the Future programme weren't about flashy flagship project, no they were often about improving facilities and creating additional capacity.
If infrastructure spending creates more economic activitiy which will reduce the deficit later on then how come we're in trouble after 13 years of Labour borrowing and spending billions on PFI and other infrastructure projects?
"no they were often about improving facilities and creating additional capacity."
How much extra capacity was created and how much proposed in the school building work that Gove cancelled? Lets have some numbers or its all just you speculating.
'Rather than the Gove approach - which is to spend a fortune on his vanity free schools, which are providing tiny numbers of places often in areas where there is no issue with capacity'
There is a statutory obligatioN on the government to ensure sufficient places for all 4 year olds that need them.
Could you point out to the uneducated from where this obligation arises?
It is in the various education acts, and is normally phrased as an obligation on the local education authority for their local area but in reality rests, in its entirety for the country as a whole, with the government.
The oral evidence to the Public Account Select Committee is quite interesting, according to the Permanent Secretary to the DoE, the Gove approach to school capacity is:
"Since the general election, the Government has, basically, tripled year-on-year the amount it has put into Basic Need—particularly in primary schools. Its big strategic decision, right at the beginning of this Parliament, was to move money out of a programme that was focused on rebuilding existing secondary schools and invest much more heavily in Basic Need in primary schools,"
@ProfessorDavey So you were in fact being disingenuous. The general obligation to provide education to meet the needs of the population and the obligation to provide sufficient schools for those needs falls on local authorities, not on the Secretary of State (sections 13-14 of the Education Act 1996, as amended). What you meant was that there might be deleterious political consequences for the Secretary of State were local authorities to default in respect of their obligations.
Because there was a worldwide recession It was on the news
And Osborne fans would argue that its the Eurozone crisis, although that was happening when he stopped spending on infrastructure and took to boasting about the growth he'd established, which the Tories always forget to mention.
So the massive infrastructure spending that happened before the recession didn't help mitigate it's effects? Surely the spending has beneficial effects beyond the year that the spending occurs? If not then it doesn't sounds like a wise use of money at all.
On a non partisan line both parties are to blame for the housebuilding issue that has crippled us for forty years
Well I can't argue with that, but we're in a minority I'm afraid. Even those priced out seem against house building from my own personal experience.
@ProfessorDavey So you were in fact being disingenuous. The general obligation to provide education to meet the needs of the population and the obligation to provide sufficient schools for those needs falls on local authorities, not on the Secretary of State (sections 13-14 of the Education Act 1996, as amended). What you meant was that there might be deleterious political consequences for the Secretary of State were local authorities to default in respect of their obligations.
Nope section 11 sets out the duty of the secretary of state over and above those 'bodies in receipt of public funds', i.e. local authorities. Consequences of failure to comply with statutory duties do not only rest with the local authorities.
'Free schools which opened in September 2012 received post-opening funding in addition to their per-pupil funding. The only exception to this relates to independent schools becoming free schools which do not receive additional funding except where there are exceptional circumstances.
Post-opening funding is designed to enable schools to cover essential initial costs, such as buying books and equipment; and to meet the costs arising as the school builds up its cohorts over time - as they could not otherwise meet the full cost of a headteacher and other senior staff from the per pupil funding initially received. This funding is essential to meet the additional costs associated with starting a brand new school. Similar support has always been provided to new academies, for example: the King Solomon Academy, the Brent Academy, the Wren Academy, and The City Academy, Hackney (opened 2007 to 2009) all received between £634,000 and £1,374,820 of start-up funding during their first year of opening.'
The oral evidence to the Public Account Select Committee is quite interesting, according to the Permanent Secretary to the DoE, the Gove approach to school capacity is:
"Since the general election, the Government has, basically, tripled year-on-year the amount it has put into Basic Need—particularly in primary schools. Its big strategic decision, right at the beginning of this Parliament, was to move money out of a programme that was focused on rebuilding existing secondary schools and invest much more heavily in Basic Need in primary schools,"
The Department does not know whether it is achieving value for money with the funding it provides to deliver new school places. The Department believes that local authorities will be able to deliver the 256,000 places required by September 2014 with the £5 billion of public money it is now providing. However, it does not yet understand how authorities are delivering these places, the costs to local authorities, the legitimate variation of costs between authorities or the relative value for money of authorities’ different approaches. The Department intends to collect new information from authorities on where places are being delivered and the costs of delivery in June 2013, but has not yet determined how this information will be used.
The Department’s assumption about local authorities’ contribution to the cost of delivering school places was made without robust evidence and without proper regard being given to the reduction in local authority spending. Local authorities have been using funding from other programmes to meet demand for school places, despite the Department’s view that its funding is now sufficient to cover the costs of delivery. The Department’s assumed contribution was a broad, national estimate and did not take account of local factors that might lead to individual authorities contributing more or less than the national estimate. In 2012-13, 64% of authorities were drawing on maintenance funding to pay for extra school places, storing up unknown maintenance costs for the future. In addition, the Department has not considered wider pressures on local authorities resulting from reduced budgets in its assumptions. The Department should develop more realistic assumptions about the level of financial contribution authorities can be expected to make to delivering school places, which take account of the wider financial challenges authorities face.
Local authorities can direct maintained schools to expand or close, depending on fluctuations in demand, but do not have this power over academies or free schools. Local authorities cannot create new schools that are not academies or free schools although authorities may encourage bids for creating free schools in their areas.
That's not a Messiah, thats a f*cking shambles.
Absolutely - if you read the whole report the overall conclusion is of a government who really had no grip whatsoever on this impending timebomb and have finally, at the 11th hour woken up. So they say that the latest announcements (in March this year) are only now beginning to give 'relatively more funding to areas projecting the greatest pressure on places' - so prior to that pressure on places seemed to be an irrelevance for funding decisions.
What on earth has Gove been doing for the last three years if it takes until March 2013 to wake up to the fact that you might just want to target your funding for investment in areas that actually need them.
The Left may find it hard to comprehend that the state cannot forever underwrite unsustainable benefits, but more and more of today’s young people do not
From the article -
Research carried out by Ipsos MORI into the attitudes of the so-called Generation Y group of people born after 1980 has shattered the assumptions of the progressive Left. It found that support for the Conservatives among this group has doubled at a time of austerity and public-sector reform. The findings have caused bewilderment among Labour cheerleaders, not least the growing acceptance among 20- and 30-somethings that they need to be much more self-reliant and should not expect the state always to be there to look after them. Researchers believe that Conservative messages about individual responsibility and a tougher line on welfare are resonating strongly.
And the article finishes with -
Dealing with these new realities is the biggest challenge in modern British politics, and it is one that the Conservatives are better placed than Labour to confront – ironically, by adopting many of the public service reforms once espoused by the Blairites. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, looks like a man with nowhere to go.
Never has eugenics been beaten by the Labour Party's fabian hatred of the lower-classes. Hitler and Stalin slaughtered millions; Labour created a monster that murdered those upon which they have contempt; shieled within a bureauxcratic monster that denied reality.
They feel safe; that is brave. Their contempt of God - and kowtowing to 'Allah' - has cursed them more than I can....
Comments
You really can't argue that the main purpose of the programme was to increase the number of places. Here's what Balls said:
"This is a once-in-a-generation chance to transform primary education in every part of the country - to sweep away buildings now reaching the end of their shelf life and drive up the quality of our schools."
Much talk of sweeping away and flim-flam about how shiny the new stuff would be, absolutely zilch about new places.
Sure, as an incidental part of the programme, more places would be built, but that wasn't the focussed objective of the initiative, it was a side benefit.
You're using a classic Labour argument: let's spend £2bn, of which a couple of hundred million might actually have been targeted at the purpose. Of course Gove scrapped that wasteful approach. Quite right too.
But there is no statutory obligation on the government to ensure sufficient places for all 2 year olds that need them. There is a statutory obligation on the government to ensure sufficient places for all 4 year olds that need them.
"But they still need a further 250,000 - so their 'plans' have abjectly failed if they have only created 40% of the new places they need. "
So you actually think that in September this year there will be 250,000 school age kids walking the streets because they can't get into school?
But glad you accept that responding to population changes was one of the key objectives of the programme. Guess what, many of the schemes completed under the Building Schools for the Future programme weren't about flashy flagship project, no they were often about improving facilities and creating additional capacity.
How much extra capacity was created and how much proposed in the school building work that Gove cancelled? Lets have some numbers or its all just you speculating.
'Rather than the Gove approach - which is to spend a fortune on his vanity free schools, which are providing tiny numbers of places often in areas where there is no issue with capacity'
No issue with capacity,just crap schools.
"Since the general election, the Government has, basically, tripled year-on-year the amount it has put into Basic Need—particularly in primary schools. Its big strategic decision, right at the beginning of this Parliament, was to move money out of a programme that was focused on rebuilding existing secondary schools and invest much more heavily in Basic Need
in primary schools,"
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/359/359.pdf
Looks like a good call by Gove to me.
So you were in fact being disingenuous. The general obligation to provide education to meet the needs of the population and the obligation to provide sufficient schools for those needs falls on local authorities, not on the Secretary of State (sections 13-14 of the Education Act 1996, as amended). What you meant was that there might be deleterious political consequences for the Secretary of State were local authorities to default in respect of their obligations.
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools/b00222175/open/post-opening-expenditure
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/request-for-impact-assessments-for-wave-1-approved-free-schools
'Davey is on a roll...never known him to be right about anything..fun to watch the blethering tho..bit worried that he is actually teaching kids.'
The next thing we'll discover is that it's Labour local authorities dragging their feet & not providing places.. .
'Free schools which opened in September 2012 received post-opening funding in addition to their per-pupil funding. The only exception to this relates to independent schools becoming free schools which do not receive additional funding except where there are exceptional circumstances.
Post-opening funding is designed to enable schools to cover essential initial costs, such as buying books and equipment; and to meet the costs arising as the school builds up its cohorts over time - as they could not otherwise meet the full cost of a headteacher and other senior staff from the per pupil funding initially received. This funding is essential to meet the additional costs associated with starting a brand new school. Similar support has always been provided to new academies, for example: the King Solomon Academy, the Brent Academy, the Wren Academy, and The City Academy, Hackney (opened 2007 to 2009) all received between £634,000 and £1,374,820 of start-up funding during their first year of opening.'
Time to act Mr Miliband. Tmrw's @thetimes leader warns that the unions are dragging Labour away from the mainstream http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3803512.ece
Party aims to step up pressure on Tories by backing in-out referendum on Europe as early as its autumn conference
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/28/labour-early-vote-uk-eu-membership?CMP=twt_gu
What on earth has Gove been doing for the last three years if it takes until March 2013 to wake up to the fact that you might just want to target your funding for investment in areas that actually need them.
Absolute shambles.
The Left may find it hard to comprehend that the state cannot forever underwrite unsustainable benefits, but more and more of today’s young people do not
From the article -
Research carried out by Ipsos MORI into the attitudes of the so-called Generation Y group of people born after 1980 has shattered the assumptions of the progressive Left. It found that support for the Conservatives among this group has doubled at a time of austerity and public-sector reform. The findings have caused bewilderment among Labour cheerleaders, not least the growing acceptance among 20- and 30-somethings that they need to be much more self-reliant and should not expect the state always to be there to look after them. Researchers believe that Conservative messages about individual responsibility and a tougher line on welfare are resonating strongly.
And the article finishes with -
Dealing with these new realities is the biggest challenge in modern British politics, and it is one that the Conservatives are better placed than Labour to confront – ironically, by adopting many of the public service reforms once espoused by the Blairites. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, looks like a man with nowhere to go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10148576/A-brave-new-world-for-Generation-Y.html
Never has eugenics been beaten by the Labour Party's fabian hatred of the lower-classes. Hitler and Stalin slaughtered millions; Labour created a monster that murdered those upon which they have contempt; shieled within a bureauxcratic monster that denied reality.
They feel safe; that is brave. Their contempt of God - and kowtowing to 'Allah' - has cursed them more than I can....