1. Good Estate Management for Schools
Simon Lindsay
Capital Capability and Efficiency
Capital Directorate

2. “A school building is part of the hidden ethos of a school, and can be instrumental in shaping its operation.”
Headteacher, May 2018
“More money spent by schools on buildings means less money spent on great teachers, or school trips, or mental health provision.”

3. What does it look like?

7. Top 10 estate checks Are we managing the estate effectively?
Who is responsible for the estate?
Do we have the necessary skills, knowledge and capacity to manage the estate?
How do we manage the estate?
What is the condition of the buildings?
Are we complying with our legal responsibilities?
What do we do in emergencies?
What funding is available for investment in the estate?
Are we spending wisely on the estate?
Can we become more efficient with our expenditure?
Source: Top 10 estate checks for boards

8. Assess your position… Source: Organisational self assessment
Source: Organisational self assessment

9. User perspectives:
Challenges and support needs articulated by schools and RBs
Capital Efficiency and Capability Team

10. Context and high-level summary
Good Estate Management for Schools (GEMS) guidance launched in April We undertook research to better understand schools’ challenges and priorities in managing their estates.
Key items arising from feedback on GEMS:
GEMS was well-received amongst responders, with an extremely high approval rating.
Offered a comprehensive overview of information on managing the school estate - easy to understand, and useful to share with governors and staff.
Some users find it hard to access the information they need through the site. There is clear demand for more tools (checklists, case studies, exemplars) to help them apply the guidance.
The following slides detail feedback on pivotal themes – some inform our next steps on GEMS, others are of broader application.
The research approach (June-Sept 2018) employed a range of methodologies and covered different RB types and roles.
283 responses to survey; 8 depth interviews and 6 focus groups
Findings offer insight into the needs and concerns of our users.

11. Strong themes (across the research):
Funding
Health and Safety
Training and professionalisation
Procurement
Sources of support
Roles and responsibilities
Communication and engagement
Funding
86% of responsible bodies listed funding as one of their top estates challenges; 60% listed maintenance as one of their top estates priorities
Various sources (SRM slides, NGA article) highlight schools’ non-staff budget is reducing which impacts on estate funding
The research found estates were perceived as an easy area to cut - not top of SLT’s priorities
Some schools reported ‘perverse incentive’ to keep schools in poor condition and spend down their capital reserves e.g. to access emergency funding
Health and Safety
41% of respondents listed health and safety and 23% listed compliance amongst their top estates priorities
Advice and guidance on H&S and compliance fragmented across different sites/sources. Perceived as confusing by users.
Some respondents felt that they did not have the necessary H&S and compliance training
Respondents struggled judge whether advice by private consultants was reliable/correct, particularly around further works
Some estates staff lack support from SLT on H&S and compliance issues – “it’s a school wide issue (like Safeguarding)”
No Ofsted-like body with oversight for the school estate to hold them to account
Training and professionalisation
Some staff still struggle to access the information that they need for their role, and to understand who holds responsibility for estates issues (e.g. SBP, governor, head teacher)
Staff time and training were listed as one of schools’ top challenges after funding
Smaller schools do not necessarily have dedicated professional estates staff
Demand for a minimum qualification for those with estate management responsibilities
Procurement
School estate staff lack confidence and expertise in sourcing good quality and reliable contractors.
Some schools were worried about being overcharged by suppliers
RBs struggle with the bureaucratic processes of tendering and procuring, which is made more difficult by trying to schedule projects around term-time and timescale of funding awards.
Lack of confidence in health and safety/compliance expertise means schools often not confident they are sourcing the best suppliers
Sources of support
Local authorities were cited as the most useful source of support by respondents (43%), followed by the Key (18%), gov.uk (13%) and HSE (11%)
LAs are relied on heavily but this support is reducing rapidly and is increasingly patchy and varied: what will replace this support?
Gov.uk and HSE are trusted sources of support but many commented that the sites are not user-friendly and that they have difficulty accessing the information they need
Many respondents said that they need multiple expensive subscriptions to get the necessary advice and guidance they need, adding further to funding pressures
Some schools do not have an estates professional, and do not want to pay for expensive advice for one-off questions
Many respondents requested a single point of contact/helpline for estates issues.
Users wanted differentiated communication/tools: e.g. types of RBs; roles within RBs.
There was some appetite for a newsletter / update on Capital issues
MATs find that guidance, outputs and tools can be presented or focussed towards single schools rather than trusts
We tend to focus on SBPs, governors, head teachers. There is not much information / engagement with frontline estates staff
Responsible Bodies felt there wasn’t a comprehensive, joined-up approach to communications

12. Training and professionalisation
Research Findings
Some staff still struggle to access the information that they need for their role, and to understand who holds responsibility for estates issues (e.g. SBP, governor, head teacher)
Staff time and training were listed as one of schools’ top challenges after funding
Smaller schools do not necessarily have dedicated professional estates staff
Demand for a minimum qualification for those with estate management responsibilities
Options/Actions
Define and promote professional standards for estate management and develop opportunities for workforce training
Work with School Resource Management programme to integrate training on the school estate.
EEWG are assessing how their members access training and what gaps exist in training offer (~ 10,000 members) – CEC to work with them to influence what the market offers

13. What do we want to do next?

14. Strengthening capability
Improvements and additions to GEMS based on user feedback
More support for those responsible for health and safety of school premises and compliance with legislation
Work with sector leads on a coordinated training offer / skills framework
Embed good estate management practice in DfE initiatives:
Training/professionalisation: School Business Professional, NPQs
Procurement: Buying for Schools
Continue to promote the use of GEMS
Explore opportunities to reflect GEMS / the estate in condition funding, AFH, Audit.
Good Estate Management:
improving the GOV.UK content, and presentation: tools and guidance e.g. projects
Health and Safety
Coordinating internally; working with HSE:
Focus on: Accessibility of the content, adding new tools; Need to not step into role of HSE, or RBs: making the system work better for them
Training and professionalisation
Working with sector on training offer and skills framework;
integrating into qualifications (eg NPQs); think about where can access professional expertise
Do we need to do more: minimum qualification / funding?
Procurement
Already lots: buying hubs; national deals; training.
Challenging to incorporate Estate element (not just physical but professional / tools); more guidance
Sources of support
TTN,
EBDOG,
Starting a discussion internally about role of department;
Communications: Using existing networks and programmes (buying and SRM) to work towards a more comprehensive, joined-up approach to communications; whilst considering whether need something bespoke on estate
??? Many respondents requested a single point of contact/helpline for estates issues.
Funding:
Internally asking to review terms and conditions of grant; Raising the profile (AFH and audit)

15. Give your views Contact us By email: GEMS.esfacapital@education.gov.uk
Visit the website
schools-tools

16. The central role of local authorities
Support
Challenge
Advise
Promote
Communicate
Fund
Prioritise
Survey ?
Enforce ?
Funding
Talking to policy leads,
SR,
SRM,
Prioritising (SFH and audit)
Health and Safety
Tricky for us
Advice and guidance on H&S and compliance fragmented: talking to HSE; EE Group.
Some respondents felt that they did not have the necessary H&S and compliance training
Respondents struggled judge whether advice by private consultants was reliable/correct, particularly around further works
Some estates staff lack support from SLT on H&S and compliance issues – “it’s a school wide issue (like Safeguarding)”
No Ofsted-like body with oversight for the school estate to hold them to account
Training and professionalisation
Some staff still struggle to access the information that they need for their role, and to understand who holds responsibility for estates issues (e.g. SBP, governor, head teacher)
Staff time and training were listed as one of schools’ top challenges after funding
Smaller schools do not necessarily have dedicated professional estates staff
Demand for a minimum qualification for those with estate management responsibilities
Procurement
School estate staff lack confidence and expertise in sourcing good quality and reliable contractors.
Some schools were worried about being overcharged by suppliers
RBs struggle with the bureaucratic processes of tendering and procuring, which is made more difficult by trying to schedule projects around term-time and timescale of funding awards.
Lack of confidence in health and safety/compliance expertise means schools often not confident they are sourcing the best suppliers
Sources of support
Local authorities were cited as the most useful source of support by respondents (43%), followed by the Key (18%), gov.uk (13%) and HSE (11%)
LAs are relied on heavily but this support is reducing rapidly and is increasingly patchy and varied: what will replace this support?
Gov.uk and HSE are trusted sources of support but many commented that the sites are not user-friendly and that they have difficulty accessing the information they need
Many respondents said that they need multiple expensive subscriptions to get the necessary advice and guidance they need, adding further to funding pressures
Some schools do not have an estates professional, and do not want to pay for expensive advice for one-off questions
Many respondents requested a single point of contact/helpline for estates issues.
Users wanted differentiated communication/tools: e.g. types of RBs; roles within RBs.
There was some appetite for a newsletter / update on Capital issues
MATs find that guidance, outputs and tools can be presented or focussed towards single schools rather than trusts
We tend to focus on SBPs, governors, head teachers. There is not much information / engagement with frontline estates staff
Responsible Bodies felt there wasn’t a comprehensive, joined-up approach to communications

17. Questions for discussion
What are the most important roles of the local authority in good estate management ?
What should the priorities be for the department in further development of GEMS ?
What examples of excellent support from local authorities are out there, and how can we help to roll these out ?
Funding
Talking to policy leads,
SR,
SRM,
Prioritising (SFH and audit)
Health and Safety
Tricky for us
Advice and guidance on H&S and compliance fragmented: talking to HSE; EE Group.
Some respondents felt that they did not have the necessary H&S and compliance training
Respondents struggled judge whether advice by private consultants was reliable/correct, particularly around further works
Some estates staff lack support from SLT on H&S and compliance issues – “it’s a school wide issue (like Safeguarding)”
No Ofsted-like body with oversight for the school estate to hold them to account
Training and professionalisation
Some staff still struggle to access the information that they need for their role, and to understand who holds responsibility for estates issues (e.g. SBP, governor, head teacher)
Staff time and training were listed as one of schools’ top challenges after funding
Smaller schools do not necessarily have dedicated professional estates staff
Demand for a minimum qualification for those with estate management responsibilities
Procurement
School estate staff lack confidence and expertise in sourcing good quality and reliable contractors.
Some schools were worried about being overcharged by suppliers
RBs struggle with the bureaucratic processes of tendering and procuring, which is made more difficult by trying to schedule projects around term-time and timescale of funding awards.
Lack of confidence in health and safety/compliance expertise means schools often not confident they are sourcing the best suppliers
Sources of support
Local authorities were cited as the most useful source of support by respondents (43%), followed by the Key (18%), gov.uk (13%) and HSE (11%)
LAs are relied on heavily but this support is reducing rapidly and is increasingly patchy and varied: what will replace this support?
Gov.uk and HSE are trusted sources of support but many commented that the sites are not user-friendly and that they have difficulty accessing the information they need
Many respondents said that they need multiple expensive subscriptions to get the necessary advice and guidance they need, adding further to funding pressures
Some schools do not have an estates professional, and do not want to pay for expensive advice for one-off questions
Many respondents requested a single point of contact/helpline for estates issues.
Users wanted differentiated communication/tools: e.g. types of RBs; roles within RBs.
There was some appetite for a newsletter / update on Capital issues
MATs find that guidance, outputs and tools can be presented or focussed towards single schools rather than trusts
We tend to focus on SBPs, governors, head teachers. There is not much information / engagement with frontline estates staff
Responsible Bodies felt there wasn’t a comprehensive, joined-up approach to communications