All items in a condition survey cannot carry equal weight. Poor decoration cannot stand against a leaking roof as an impediment to the delivery of education. This is dealt with by the application of weightings to the original survey scores, in order to arrive at an overall score reflecting the physical capability of the school to support the learning experience.
In the weighting system, two umbrella categories together account for 39% of the total score. They are:
- External walls, windows and doors
- Mechanical Services (mainly consists of heating and hot water)
One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to raise an eyebrow at the coincidence that these are the very two places where altered, arbitrary and unevidenced scores have been ‘produced’ by the council in their downgrading of Muirfield.
Remember that Angus Council’s database contains nothing for Muirfield other than the overall scores for Mechanical Services and Electrical Services. When the Information Commissioner inquired why only these 2 sections had been recorded and why they were not accompanied by sections 1 – 10, she was told only that these items had been ‘done by someone else’ and given no explanation as to why sections 1 through 10 were missing.
In the first key category noted above, External Walls, Windows and Doors, the council response admits for the first time that the physical survey results for the component items – 8 Bs (satisfactory) and a single C in the physical survey report – have been collectively rendered by an average C (poor) – although there is no record of any score whatsoever for this category on the database.
The massive swerve from a very strong B to a C is defended on the grounds of the need to harmonise the authority’s school condition scores (satisfactory = poor, in this case of harmonisation); and of the primacy of the generally impressionistic – ‘Property Division and Education Department officers know the existing Muirfield building extremely well.’ – over a first hand physical survey by a qualified working surveyor.
In the second, Mechanical Services and Electrical Services, were given respective condition scores of D and B , with no record of any kind and no evidence to show how they were arrived at. In his rebuttal to Mr Moore of the council response to the government, Ewan Smith of the Muirfield Action Group, acquired an email chain released under FOISA, showing that there was considerable concern amongst senior internal staff involved at the absence of due process that was operating in the council in this specific matter.
Up to 17th March 2009 staff were asking each other ‘Who’s doing the services?. Yet Mr Logue tells the Education Secretary that on the very next day, 18th March, these scores, apparently arrived at without the inconvenience of the inspection staff were inquiring about, were ‘validated’ by the Property Adviser who ‘visited the school’ on that day.
In the third case, Muirfield’s heating was given a D (beyond repair) when, as Mr Smith and SRSN have shown, over the four year period from 2007-2011, there are no reported closures of Muirfield because of a broken heating system. Moreover, as Ewan Smith says in his letter to the Education Secretary, over this same four year period: ‘£12,110 was spent (Ed: on the heating system at Warddykes) in comparison to £2,683 on Muirfield. That’s a difference of £9,427 on a heating system that was graded better than the one at Muirfield. Physical proof of these figures can be sent to you if required.’
These facts hardly present a convincing demonstration of the consistency of scoring across schools of which Mr Logue boasts in his response to Mr Moore. But it is certainly harmonisation of a kind.
Mr Logue boasts that his staff know Muirfield so well they can evaluate its physical; condition without inspection – in a situation where such action carries the responsibility of closing a school.
We ask, if they knew Muirfield so well, why were they not in possession of the operational performance and the repair cost records which Mr Smith cites in his letter to the Education Secretary? And we ask, if they were comfortable about assessing; Muirfield without the inconvenience of an inspection, did they not even see fit to check these records – to which one assumes they had easy access from their remote office?
A ‘D’ (beyond repair) for Muirfield’s heating? On this evidence? On this comparative evidence – grading Warddykes Heating better?
Let’s hear the substantiation of this – and let’s get the popcorn in first.
The impact of the mysterious ‘production’ of these scores for these key weighted elements drove down Muirfield’s overall condition score.
Funny that.