I do like the older type buildings ,like the library,swimming pool etc, however,I like to see progress, and if the new building looks like the pictures ,then it looks exciting,wish I was at school now.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
![Image](http://sydenham.org.uk/mobile.png)
Mangetout wrote:Investment on this scale has got to be good for the area.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
I sympathise with both of you, but things may not be so simple. With reference to Mangetout, people probably said the same about new investment when they tore down the old houses in Deptford and put up those immediately unloved tower blocks - see thread on the Secret History of our Streets. I suspect we have learned from that sort of development, but investment as such is not necessarily good for an area.perryman wrote:Does anyone know where the money for this project is coming from?
Hopefully everyone has learnt their lesson on PFI, given how how wasteful it is - eg see South London Healthcare Trust facing insolvency this month.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18584968
Would be nice to think they will use a normal method of funding.
So it should - it's meant to.marianne wrote:Having looked at your link "Building Schools for the Future", it all looks good to me:
I think this really is the good bit, and why I'm happy enough that it's going to happen. But it doesn't mean it's all good.marianne wrote:Lewisham Schools for the Future Local Education Partnership (LEP) will:
•Over the next 10 years oversee the rebuilding or renovation of secondary schools within Lewisham
This is about how it's going to be paid for. This we don't really understand, and I doubt if anyone in Lewisham does either. In principle it should matter, in the same way that someone could buy a perfectly good car or washing machine, but if they did it by borrowing money from a pay day lender, it might not be such a good idea. In practice, it's harder to say, because, as a relatively deprived borough, Lewisham has a large persistent annual deficit anyway, which the central government finances in one way or another. The way BSF is financed may be a rip-off - as earlier PFI arrangements were before it, and as Michael Gove recognised in trying to stop it - but if it's how central govt - then Labour, but this hardly matters - said local authorities should finance school building, then when it all goes wrong, Lewisham will have a good case for support from central government to help them out. Ultimately - well, also actually, since it's happening now because of previous poor financial decisions - it will turn into a blame game about why particular cuts are needed; a game which will not be won by being on top of details about any particular way of financing anything, but by the arts of political spin. The other game - understanding the financing, our politicians are happy to leave to their friendly financial experts and advisors, who funnily enough generally come out on the winning side.marianne wrote: •Form part of the national Building Schools for the Future programme
This could be good, but the experience is that it sometimes doesn't work out well. It comes down to whether the best value facilities management can be achieved by people reporting to a school head teacher or the local education authority, or someone appointed, ultimately by Costain or Babcock. I think this is an open question; I think there are some areas where local authority management is good, and I think it's in general a good thing that someone with a hands-on understanding of everything going on at a school - such as its head should have - should be involved in such decisions. OTOH, large organisations such as Costain or Babcock will have economies of scale which will favour their taking on the job. In practice it will come down to how well a detailed contract setting out mutual responsibilities works. I'd wouldn't say such contractual arrangements can't work, but experience to date has not always been happy.marianne wrote: •Provide the ongoing facilities management for the newly built schools
Bring up ICT in this context is rather like having a balloon over your head in a negotiation saying "I'm a sucker, please rip me off". Think of the entirely predicable - and predicted - NHS IT debacle. If you think back just ten years, no one would have realised that thanks to wi-fi, you didn't need to worry about wiring up buildings, or that thanks to the development of cloud computing, we wouldn't need particularly high spec PCs. So large amounts of money spent then in the hope of educating future IT enabled generations will have been wasted - unless you held Microsoft stock.marianne wrote: •Oversee the implementation of ICT within the newly built and renovated schools
•Deliver the ongoing ICT managed service within schools across the borough
Similar comments to those for 'ongoing facilities management'. One of the original justifications for PFI type deals was that the quality of construction impacted the maintenance costs, so it made sense to combine responsibilities, to give the constructors the incentive to do their job well. As mentioned, the maintenance contract requires a great deal of cares anyway, so it comes down to choosing to negotiate either that, or a set of specs for the building to be delivered which will be maintainable by the occupant - in this case the public sector. I suspect the latter would often be better.marianne wrote:
We are delivering this via our supply chain partners Costain and Babcock.
(copied from website)
Please be more specific. I am supporting this reconstruction. What attitude are you objecting to?Mangetout wrote:How can not investing in Sydenham and the education of it's youth not be a good thing? It's not as if the buildings proposed for demolition are historic or even remotely attractive. No wonder Sydenham is in the doldrums if such attitudes prevail here.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
rshdunlop wrote:I think it's great for the pupils and staff at the school that they are getting new buildings. Investment in education is a boon to all of us. On those grounds, this is great news.
But I think it may be a mistake to look for tangible economic benefits to the local area beyond that. The rebuilt boys school on Mayow Road certainly looks better, and provides great facilities for the boys. But I doubt there is any measurable economic benefit to the local economy.
I'm not decrying these rebuilding programmes, I think they are essential. But I don't think they will have as much impact on our local economy as, say, the rebuilding of the pools in Forest Hill will have there.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
I sympathise with Eagle's sentiments here, but I'm still with Mangetout in being pleased that Lewisham is going ahead with this investment. If you read carefully what I wrote, I reconcile these positions by saying Lewisham has a fair chance of not having to live up to the financial consequences, given which, it's not unreasonable to go for the immediate benefit of this investment. It's a rotten system, in the same way that it's a rotten system which encourages bankers to make risky investment because they can expect someone else to pay if it goes wrong. The immediate benefit here should be some decent school buildings, which has rather more public value than what a banker's bonus is typically spent on, so that's good, but we should at least be aware of the likely bad consequences of bad methods of financing it. These bad consequences might be local - in the way the failings of PFI contracts for the South London Healthcare Trust are hitting people here - but I'd like to think that the bad consequences could be for the organisations who currently think they're on a winner - thoseEagle wrote:Mangetout you ask how can it be anything other than a good thing.
I am not saying it is not but very importantly how is it being paid for. Are we again going to saddle future generations with huge debts
It is selfish for us to put all costs down to future generations. If Lewisham have got the money in their current reserves fine.
I referred to in response to Marianne earlier in this thread.friendly financial experts and advisors, who funnily enough generally come out on the winning side.
Reading again this morning in The Observer about the crippling costs of the private finance initiatives, which in succession our Conservative, Labour and now Coalition governments use, a compulsory rewriting of the terms of these justified by an honest inquiry into their accounting would be my first choice.
Exactly my point, Annie.Annie. wrote:rshdunlop wrote:I think it's great for the pupils and staff at the school that they are getting new buildings. Investment in education is a boon to all of us. On those grounds, this is great news.
But I think it may be a mistake to look for tangible economic benefits to the local area beyond that. The rebuilt boys school on Mayow Road certainly looks better, and provides great facilities for the boys. But I doubt there is any measurable economic benefit to the local economy.
I'm not decrying these rebuilding programmes, I think they are essential. But I don't think they will have as much impact on our local economy as, say, the rebuilding of the pools in Forest Hill will have there.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
It may not be of economical benefit to the local area,but hopefully if the pupils have access to good facilities/ teachers etc it will benefit society in the future as a whole.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]