Flagship schools: On shaky foundations

Billions of pounds are being spent on rebuilding the nation's secondary schools. But many - including two from top architect Lord Foster - have attracted criticism.

New schools are going up everywhere. A multi-billion building bonanza is under way, intended to revamp every school in the country.

But as more buildings open up, problems are coming to light. Design flaws are being reported. And experts are starting to query whether the programme is capable of delivering the radical change intended. They fear it might simply result in a lot of "old new schools".

A recent school audit by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), said that half of the schools built since 2001 have been completed to only a poor or mediocre standard, and that nearly all had failed to tackle basic issues of environmental sustainability such as providing natural daylight and ventilation.

Meanwhile, this summer's hot weather prompted complaints by heads in new schools of overheated classrooms and windows that would not open fully. And, next week, a poll of more than 1,000 children, including those in new school buildings, run by the school design advisory body School Works, will show that more than 60 per cent of them find classrooms cramped and stuffy.

Even some of the glittering new academies have evoked criticism. The Bexley Business academy, designed by Lord Foster, included impractical open-sided classrooms, and, in north London, the Capital City Academy, also designed by Foster, was built without a staffroom, and had to have its atrium remodelled, according to the head Phillip O'Hear. Sir Cyril Taylor, of the Schools and Academies Trust, has described the situation as "a nightmare" and vowed that future academies will be "functional buildings built of brick" to standardised designs.

So why is this spending spree throwing up such problems? The majority of new-school building now comes under the Building Schools for the Future programme, the successor to the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Under this programme, as with PFI, contracts to build new schools are delivered via competitive tendering. Consortia, led by large contractors, bid to deliver packages of new schools to local education authorities, and bids are scored according to weighted measures. But critics say that education authorities are inexperienced in dealing with major building programmes, that consultation with heads and teachers can be sketchy, and that the pressure to get the schools built is squeezing out thoughtful design.

Peter Clegg, of Fielden Clegg Bradley architects, a practice experienced in school design, which has just built Northampton Academy, says the process is "seriously flawed".

"Competitive bidding is not how you get good buildings. You get them by careful discussion with a client. School representatives can be completely overwhelmed by three people all offering to build them a new school. Then everything is done in a rush, and only a tiny percentage of weighting is given to design. "The first generation of new schools, built through PFI, had a lot wrong with them, with narrow corridors and classrooms with few windows. Standards have been raised, but the system we have at the moment is still not going to provide quality. There is too much pressure from on high to get stuff out, cut costs, and deliver on time and on budget."

Matt Bell, director of campaigns and education at CABE, says: "Sometimes people in education can think anything new is better. It's really important that they are given the opportunity to get out and see other good stuff. And getting the brief right at the start is absolutely vital. With the private market, people do what's in the brief.

"What bids are judged on is also pivotal. At the moment, it is speed and cost but not design. Only three per cent of weighting is given to design quality. We need to give equal weight to quality, speed and cost. After all, we're aiming to transform the way children learn, and we need buildings that will inspire people. People are more aware of that now, but there's still a hell of a lot of pressure just to get things out."

There is a real danger we are building new old schools, according to Ty Goddard, director of the newly-formed British Council for School Environments, a forum for discussion on school design. "This is a massive agenda, yet we are so locked into the culture of patch and mend, that we might not go that extra mile."

Tomorrow's schools need to offer personalised learning, an extended school day, and be a hub of their community. They need to be flexible and adaptable for new ways of learning. And to get this, he says, there must be more co-operation between government departments, in-built mechanisms for learning from experience, a close look at local authorities' capacity to deal with major building programmes, and an exploration of how to make full use of building innovations such as new methods of off-site modular construction.

"It's about not being territorial, but all talking the same language and asking the key questions about whether the system is able to deliver."

But Russell Andrews, director of education and planning at Partnerships for Schools, which is responsible for delivering the BSfF programme, says the system is improving. Projects now have to have a CABE enabler, giving design advice, and councils must prove that they have the money and capacity to handle a proposed programme. "There has been a degree of naivety about this in the past."

And the time issue is a balancing act. "Some schools feel over-consulted. They feel they have waited two years and they want their new school. The local education authority needs to have a good debate, but, at the same time, we have to be sure to push things through."

Malcolm Trobe, president of the Association of School and College Leaders, understands that tension. He supervised a major rebuild at his school, Malmesbury School, in Wiltshire, which replaced mobile classrooms, temporary accommodation and a split site. "CABE criticised us for poor design, but they never even came to see us, so I'm not a great fan of CABE. And we got 95 per cent of what we asked for. But it is vital to consult on a day-to-day basis during the design process on things like pupil movement and storage. We had a big fight for pupil lockers.

In general, his members report mixed experiences over new schools. Whether they are satisfied depends on the size of the cost envelope, the expertise in the local authority, the flexibility of the partner and their experience of building schools, and how easy it is to get involved in the design process. And some heads have got tangled up in real problems when builders have gone broke.

"My main problem was cheeseparing," says Malcolm Noble, headteacher of Bexleyheath School, an 11 to 19 comprehensive in south-east London, whose school has had £20m worth of rebuilding and refurbishment.

"The concept we wanted was essentially what we got, but we wanted to provide places for children to shelter in wet weather, which is never considered important, and there was a gap when it came to the whole funding for ICT."

But Chris Wilkinson, a principal of Wilkinson Eyre architects, who are building six new schools, including the John Madejski Academy in Reading, the design academy sponsored by James Dyson, and four schools in Bristol, under the first Building Schools for the Future programme, has little patience with critics of the renewal programme. "This is a huge investment. It's great news. All the top practices, the people at the very top of the design field, are working on it, and the initiatives that have come through the DfES are brilliant."

The Department has funded leading architects to produce exemplar school and classroom designs, in order to stretch imaginative thinking on schools of the future. "The schools we are building are exciting, and cater for new ways of working," says Wilkinson. "And there is a detailed process for consulting on how they run. This is the most enormous opportunity.

"People have known about it since 2004, and if they can't rise to it now I'd say they are letting the side down. I'd say to them: get real."

Varndean School, Brighton

Four years ago, Varndean School, an 11 to 16 comprehensive in Brighton, had two new extensions built as part of a £105m private finance initiative scheme by Jarvis to renovate four schools in Brighton. One extension included drama studios, technology rooms and canteen space; the other a new sports hall.

"When the head of drama saw the drama studios, she burst into tears," says headteacher Andy Schofield. "They were basically two empty rooms painted black. They should have had customised flooring, soundproofing, staging, lighting, but there was none of that.

"The sports hall is quite nice, but there's no entrance. You can't get into it except through the boys' changing rooms. They forgot to put the electrics in the walls, so they had to put ducts on afterwards. There's one corridor that looks like something you find at the back of a hotel when you go out the fire exit."

His list goes on: holes in the roof, fire doors with two-inch gaps underneath, blocked fire exits and rubble everywhere.

"The buildings didn't conform to regulations and were signed off before they were finished."

This particular PFI contract is notorious for problems, and has been sold by Jarvis, but Schofield believes the private financing process does not foster good schools. "When firms are bidding, they'll give you anything you want. They put user-friendly people in the bids team and it all seems nice. But, later on, it's all, 'We're not building that wall' and you're saying, 'But we can't have a classroom with only three walls' and they're saying 'Well we're just not building it.'

"And if your local authority's rubbish at dealing with it, you've basically had it."