'Free' in schools shouldn't be free of controls

A few weeks ago I discussed the allegations made in the press about al-Madinah free school - I questioned whether some of the allegations were justified. The allegations included conflicts of interest and lack of processes.

Then this week I discussed the increases in fraud and particularly in procurement. Tonight, we see a convergence of free schools and fraud. Fabricated invoices and money spent without supporting documentation. The latest allegations date back two years (apparently suppressed).

To me these problems all relate to Start-up and possibly naivety. There needs to be more attention given to getting procurement policies, processes and procedures in place together with the appropriate controls at Start-up. But perhaps it is unreasonable to assume that those who are setting up free schools will have the clarity of vision and even know-how to develop and put in place appropriate procurement policies, processes and procedures - that's why we seem to hear of problems after the event.

Now having said that, while Free Schools are the focus at the present, the same problems are surely just around the corner with Clinical Commissioning Groups.

Part of the solution lies in providing a really good start-up toolkit, training and support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look as if that support has/is being provided - if that's the case, it is a false economy and poor risk management.

Freedom may be a good thing but there needs to be protection against chaos. Sometimes even the free need to be protected from the pitfalls.

Can there be smoke without a fire in procurement?

al-Madinah, the UK's first Muslim free school, has been under scrutiny quite a bit this week and today the spotlight is being shone on its procurement. Now there are quite a few things about al-Madinah I would fundamentally disagree with but that shouldn't mean I swiftly place them on the 'naughty seat'. However, when I see headlines in the Sunday Times of "Gove inquiry queries ... school's tendering" I'm interested in finding out more.

Duplicate payments are not something which only al-Madinah have suffered from. Sometimes duplicate payments are made due to system failures. However, good controls and processes should be in place to manage this risk. Were the controls in place? Was this a deliberate fraudulent act which found a way of circumnavigating the controls? Sadly, we're not told so this may be smoke without a procurement fire.

Perceived conflicts of interest are also something we have discussed, particularly in the context of the new Clinical Commissioning Groups. When new structures are established sometimes the well-intentioned need to be protected from their ignorance of how things might look. It appears that al-Madinah did give some thought to potential conflicts of interest and those who had the links were excluded from the contract awards. As I have said before, undue influence over contract awards can be exercised in more discrete ways that merely contract awards, but in this particular news story there is no evidence of undue influence. This may be smoke without a procurement fire.

Finally, we learn that one of al-Madinah's committee chairs is also the director of a firm which supplies services to the school. Yet, we are led to believe that contract was awarded prior to his appointment as a governor. I personally can't see any reason why someone could see that is being suspect. Volunteering as a school governor is surely something to be encourages not a cause for suspicion. This too may be smoke without a fire in procurement.

So what is the story all about? Is there smoke without a fire in al-Madinah's procurement? Actually I think it is perfectly acceptable to query a school's tendering but that doesn't mean there is something wrong. However, why on earth has The Sunday Times chosen to give a headline which leads you to think there is something untoward with a school's procurement without any substantive evidence to back it up? Have I missed something?

There are clear lessons though in this 'story'. Firstly, the need to put in place proper processes and controls which reduce the risk of duplicate payments. Secondly, the need to be conscious of the potential claims of conflicts of interest and to not only be clean, but to be seen to be beyond any doubt.

An alternative option for school uniform procurement

First thing I heard on 'the box' today were the Lib Dems plans to break the self-inflicted monopoly power of single-source school uniform suppliers over schools. The power is derived from the schools over-specfiying on the uniform and enabling the supplier to charge excessive prices ('rents'). New guidance is proposed.  But is there a better way? I think there is.

The easy answer is to use public procurement collaborative buying and provide access to the contracts for all parents. You can still have schools differentiating on the choice of uniform, if they want but first industrialise through simplifying the uniforms, standardising, and then sharing the contracting. Those letting the contracts could view this as a social benefit. You could also look at more functional uniforms taking into consideration running costs (wear and tear, washing, etc.) and durability and refreshing.

Of course you could always use the purchase of school uniforms as part of the school curriculum. If schools want to opt out of using existing collaborative buying organisations, they could have support from local CPOs volunteering their time to support the procurement. Business Studies and Economics classes could work out which schools or public bodies it would be most advantageous to collaborate with in procurement (say, all those who want green blazers); Art and Technology classes design the uniforms. Let's face it, at the present time we have pupils leaving school who understand what marketing is about but have no grasp of procurement.

Even more radical, would it be at all possible, given the changes in child benefit, for school uniforms to be provided by the state. That would cut the nonsense of 'elitist uniform snobbery', place the uniform in the context of education budgets (after all one of their most passionate advocates in the Education Secretary) and the cost would be borne by those who insist they are necessary as opposed to locking parents into bad deals which they have no choice but to pay for.

To me the Lib Dems have missed the more innovative way of solving the problem.