Building Schools for the Future
[2] Fourteen local education authorities were asked to take part in the first wave of the Building Schools for the Future programme for the fiscal year 2005/6.Critics have pointed to Gove's decision to scrap the BSF scheme in the drive to save money as a central factor in the delays to repairs and new builds.[12][13][14] The BSF programme had historically been dogged by sporadic or no management at the top, with Richard Bowker (Chair and Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority) leaving his post after eight months.[citation needed] Private Eye noted high staff costs in December 2009, stating that the Chief Executive and top four directors received about £750,000 p.a.[17] Funding to Local Authorities would only be confirmed once they had submitted and gained approval for their 'Strategy for Change' (SfC) describing how they would address the PCP priorities.However, the LEPs were not only responsible for the construction of the buildings but also for co-ordinating and overseeing the educational transformation and community regeneration that the investment can support.The scale of the building programme was far larger than the capacity of the available pool of experienced architects and designers, while the educators running the developments had very little prior experience of commissioning such major construction works.There was little sharing of best practice and learning between authorities, schools, contractors, suppliers and others involved in BSF, and the timescales discouraged thorough planning.[citation needed] Bidders for funding claimed that the work to put together a bid was onerous and costly, and required the navigation of many government bodies.The co-ordinating body, Partnerships for Schools, was reportedly focused on construction procurement without a full understanding of all the other factors involved.The House of Commons Select Committee expressed concerns that, whilst this investment in spaces to support learning was unprecedented, the enormous scale of the project was not being managed to ensure that its scope and aims remained appropriate.[24] The upgrade programme took place at a time when building standards were being substantially rewritten to incorporate improved energy efficiency and green construction methods.