Transparency data

Accounting officer assessment: school rebuilding programme (SRP)

Updated 2 April 2024

Applies to England

Accounting officers scrutinise significant policy proposals or plans of major projects, and then assess whether these plans measure up to the standards set out in managing public money.

From April 2017, the government has committed to make a summary of the key points from these assessments available to Parliament when an accounting officer has agreed an assessment of projects within the government’s major projects portfolio (GMPP).

This is a summary of the accounting officer assessment of the school rebuilding programme (SRP).

Background

The school rebuilding programme was announced in June 2020 with funding confirmed at the spending review on 25 November 2020. Buildings at 500 projects will be replaced or refurbished in the 10-year programme. The commitment to rebuild and refurbish the schools most in need is part of government’s wider Schools White Paper commitments, to ensure that by 2030 every child will be taught a broad and ambitious curriculum in a school with high expectations and strong standards of behaviour.

The education infrastructure needs to be safe and effective to ensure existing school buildings remain in service to provide that high-quality education. Over half of the blocks in the school estate were built before 1980. We expect that many of these buildings need to be replaced or significantly refurbished soon because they were designed to last 60 years. Long-term, sustainable investment in improving the condition of the estate is needed to address these issues. A centrally delivered capital programme is an efficient way to deliver large-scale rebuilding of the school estate.

The programme’s objectives are to:

• improve education and pupil well-being at the selected schools by moving pupils out of poor-quality buildings and preventing potential disruption/negative impact on education from the closure of unsafe buildings, monitored through the condition need associated with the schools
• provide energy efficient, net zero ready buildings, more resilient to climate change – reducing carbon emissions, energy use and operating costs, monitored using fuel usage data for the schools
• avoid inefficient spend maintaining buildings that should be replaced, freeing up funding for maintenance to prolong the life of other buildings, monitored through maintenance spend data for the schools
• provide efficient and cost-effective delivery through proven central delivery of projects, using existing and forthcoming procurement frameworks to give greater standardisation, digital design, and the expansion of the use of modern methods of construction (MMC), which will be the default where this represents best value. This objective is monitored by comparing average construction costs against local authority delivered projects
• provide a long-term pipeline of projects to the construction sector, supporting jobs and enabling the Department for Education (DfE) to pilot new approaches to delivery and procurement with suppliers to increase efficiency and productivity

We selected the first 100 schools in 2021 from information held by the Department to make quick progress on some of the poorest condition schools. We consulted publicly in autumn 2021 on how we should decide which schools are in the worst condition for the remaining 400 slots in the programme, including whether to continue to make that decision based only on data by the DfE or by also inviting responsible bodies to submit additional evidence of their own. Based on the consultation, we decided to accept additional evidence and invited nominations in March 2022. We are currently assessing these nominations for the programme. We announced a further 61 schools from these nominations on 12 July 2022. We expect to select up to 239 more schools from the March 2022 nominations by the end of 2022.

Assessment against accounting officer standards

Regularity

Programmes tackling poor condition, funding the repair and/or replacement of capital assets such as SRP are delivered through Section 14 of the 2002 Education Act. The programme continues to comply with Parliamentary requirements for the control of expenditure, with programme funds being applied only to the extent and for the purposes authorised by Parliament.

Propriety

Programme expenditure remains entirely proper, handled in line with managing public money guidance. The delivery of SRP continues within its allocated funding and is governed effectively in accordance with GMPP requirements. We assess that Parliament’s intention for the SRP’s authorised expenditure continues to be met properly. The programme has continued to operate within its Spending Review 2020 (SR20) spending limits and in line with principles and controls set out in managing public money and the HMT Green Book. The programme’s funds are being managed with impartiality, honesty, and with the avoidance of personal gain, waste, and extravagance.

Value for Money

A robust selection process ensures the poorest condition buildings are prioritised and value for money assessments are carried out for each project during the feasibility stage. New school buildings provide modern, fit for purpose buildings for children’s education.

We procure projects using the construction framework 2021 (CF2021) with some procured via the modern methods of construction (MMC) framework instead.

Feasibility

The programme remains deliverable in performance, cost, and time, whilst recognising the risk and complexity associated with a building programme on this scale. The predecessor programme, priority school building programme 2, recently passed its final Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) review, with the IPA noting that the programme has been delivered to time, cost, and quality. The delivery confidence assessment from the last SRP IPA review in October 2021 was amber. The 10 recommendations from this report have either been completed or are on schedule.

The DfE is confident there is capacity in the construction market to deliver the projects.

The design of the programme has benefited from the successful delivery of the Priority School Building Programme and lessons learned have been implemented.

Conclusion

As the accounting officer for the Department for Education, I have prepared this summary to set out the key points which informed my decision.

My overall assessment is that SRP meets the requirements of the 4 accounting officer tests of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility. I am therefore satisfied that the programme is a good use of public resources.

If any of these factors change materially during the lifetime of this programme, I will undertake to prepare a revised summary, setting out my assessment of those factors.

This summary will be published on the government’s website (GOV.UK). Copies will be deposited in the Library of the House of Commons and sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General and Treasury Officer of Accounts.

Susan Acland-Hood

Permanent Secretary