£200m unaccountable in school's ICT procurement

Becta cannot account for over £200m of taxpayer's money spent on software for schools according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The scheme known as e-Learning Credits (eLCs) was set up to make funds available to schools to buy software from an approved list of titles and suppliers.

By April 2006 schools had received £300 million pounds of funds to buy 'educational software' intended to enhance the curriculum. Operating systems and Office suites were specifically excluded from this scope.

Becta reported on eLCs in the CAB Report to The Secretary of State, Report Number 3 December 2005 and it was the source data for this report which forms the basis of our commentary.

The data is incomplete as a quote from the FOI return from Becta makes clear:

"Detailed analysis of eLC returns suggests that they continue to understate the actual level of expenditure in the market. In particular, we have found that eLC returns appear to underestimate the real level of sales of those who have provided returns by as much as 70% and that there is a significant number of suppliers, some relatively large, who do not submit eLC returns".

The Data

Over 14,500 software titles are listed by Becta:

• 27% is classified as "Drill and Practice" and are largely aimed at younger students (KS1);
• 11% of the titles relate to assessment software;
• 7% is for "exploration" software;
• 26% is for information resources;
• the remaining 29% is not classified according to use or age group.

The eLC returns are for the period January to September 2005.

Commentary

Given the above limitations we have the following observations to make on the data supplied:

1. The lack of eLC returns means that, in effect, over two thirds of the expenditure with accredited suppliers is not accounted for.
2. Nearly one third of listed, approved titles are not classified by Becta making judgments as to their suitability hard to make.
3. 70% of sales returned through accredited suppliers is to giant software vendors and to a single ICT hardware supplier to schools. The range of these companies' education portfolio combined with a single eLC return make it impossible to audit which software titles are sold to schools.
4. In most cases the transparency of supplier status is difficult to ascertain. For example 'Education Bradford' is a wholly owned subsidiary of SERCO, and '3E's Enterprises (Trading) Ltd' whose sales make up one fifth of the total are a wholly owned subsidiary of the City Technology Trust - a DfES accredited supplier for the BSF bids.
5. Over 45% of eLC sales are to the dominant ICT hardware supplier who is also the QCA’s contractor for the National Curriculum on-line assessment project. This company exclusively supplies software for only one operating system.
6. A significant percentage of software is for administration purposes (contrary to the original remit). Examples include library management software; skills assessment and (ironically) many thousands of pounds were spent on software to administer proprietary licences.
7. Where active choices by schools can be audited, the great majority of software purchased divides into: design and technology related software (KS4 /Tertiary); music and media related software (KS3-4); and literacy and numeracy software (KS1 nad SEN).

Conclusions

The ineffectiveness of the checks and balances put in place to monitor government spending on software in schools has resulted in a huge waste of public money and a distortion of the ICT market in schools.

There is the suspicion in the low eLC returns that some companies are not adhering to the Becta guidelines. This assertion supported by anecdotal evidence from schools some of which have bought hardware through eLC funds.

Major incumbent suppliers have been the chief beneficiaries of the funds and the market has been unfairly distorted. Smaller companies and free software suppliers have been adversely affected and innovation has been stifled.

The strategy of software-title accreditation in tandem with supplier accreditation is inherently flawed. No data is available to evaluate the impact of eLC software in most areas of the curriculum.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary we regard the eLC project as the silent example of another failed, expensive Government ICT project adding to an already depressingly long list.