SPECIAL REPORT The ONLY weekly voice for secondary education To subscribe, call 01722 716997


Send your news in to: news@sec-ed.com or call 020 7501 6771 SecEdAsbestos in schools: K


SecEd Tel: 020 7738 5454 Fax: 020 7978 8319 www.sec-ed.com info@sec-ed.com sales@sec-ed.com


Managing director Matt Govett


Publisher and editor Pete Henshaw, 020 7501 6771 editor@sec-ed.co.uk Deputy editor David Taylor, 020 7501 6772 david.taylor@markallengroup.com Reporter


Daniel White, 020 7501 6750 daniel.white@markallengroup.com Illustrator Christos Mais


SecEd is advised by an editorial advisory panel. Members include: Paul Ainsworth: vice-principal, Belvoir High School, Leicestershire. Mark Blois: partner, Browne Jacobson (education law solicitors). Peggy Farrington: headteacher, Hanham High School, South Gloucestershire. Jane Frith: Rector, The Royal High School, Edinburgh. Mike Griffiths: headteacher, Northampton School for Boys. Hilary Moriarty: national director, Boarding Schools’ Association. Neill Morton: headteacher, Portora Royal School, Enniskillen. Jo Smith: vice-principal, Long Field School, Melton Mowbray. Tina Stockman: teacher, Harlaw Academy, Aberdeen. Dr Bernard Trafford: headteacher, The Royal Grammar School, Newcastle upon Tyne. Simon Viccars: headteacher, Leon School and Sports College, Milton Keynes.


Sales department Associate publisher and advertising manager Abdul Hayee, 020 7501 6767 abdul.hayee@markallengroup.com Classified sales Rachel McElhinney, 020 7501 6728 rachel.mcelhinney@ markallengroup.com


Circulation department Tel: 01722 716997 Fax: 01722 716926 email: subscriptions@ markallengroup.com Subscription manager Chris Hoskins Circulation director Sally Boettcher


UK annual rates: Personal £52 Institutional (libraries, companies etc) £115 European annual rates: Personal £92 Institutional £165


Rest of world annual rates: Personal £113 Institutional £209


Printed by Pensord Press, Wales


Published by


With 75 per cent of schools containing asbestos and with workplace asbestos regulations and fibre levels still being applied to schools, campaigner Michael Lees says that staff and pupils remain at risk of exposure. He is fighting for special guidance and regulations to govern asbestos management in schools and for a policy of openness so that teachers and parents are not kept in the dark. Here he presents his case and asks the government nine key questions


Everyday classroom activities can release dangerous levels of asbestos fibres. In 1997, a report commis- sioned by the Medical Research Council (MRC) examined the extent, type and location of asbes- tos in schools and concluded that: “It is not unreasonable to assume that the entire school population has been exposed to asbestos in school buildings.” More than 75 per cent of our


schools contain asbestos, and many of those contain the very dangerous amosite (brown asbestos) in loca- tions that are vulnerable to damage by students. The MRC report assessed


lifetime asbestos exposures and estimated the numbers of asbes- tos fibres inhaled by a child dur- ing their time at school with the asbestos being in good condition. It concluded that the everyday background asbestos fibre level in schools is five to 500 times greater than outdoor levels. The report stated: “Children attending schools built prior to 1975 are likely to inhale around 3,000,000 respir- able asbestos fibres ... exposure to asbestos in school may therefore


Asbestos in schools: The facts


• More than 75 per cent of UK schools contain asbestos. •


All contain chrysotile (white asbestos) but many contain amosite (brown asbestos) and some contain crocidolite (blue asbestos).


• Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos. Britain has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world – more people die from the cancer than are killed on our roads.


St Jude’s Church, Dulwich Road Herne Hill, London SE24 0PB www.markallengroup.com


• Amosite is up to 100 times more likely to cause mesothelioma than chrysotile, while crocidolite is up to 500 times more likely to cause the cancer.


• There is no threshold exposure below which there is no risk. •


All exposures are cumulative and increase the likelihood of mesothelioma developing.


• The latency for mesothelioma is from about 10 years to over 60 years from first exposure. On average, lower exposures have longer latencies.


MA Education Ltd is an independent publishing company also responsible for education titles Delivering Diplomas, Headteacher Update, Fundraising for Schools, Early Years Educator and 5to7 Educator.


© All rights reserved. No part of SecEd may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of MA Education The publisher accepts no responsibility for any views or opinions expressed in SecEd.


ISSN 1479-7704


• A total of 228 school teachers have died of mesothelioma since 1980 aged 16 to 74. But 140 school teachers have died in the last 10 years.


• •


•


In 1980, figures showed that three school teachers died each year from mesothelioma. In 2008, figures showed that 16 school teachers died each year from mesothelioma.


• Because of the long latency children are more vulnerable to the dangers of asbestos. •


It is estimated that a child of five is about five times more likely to develop mesothelioma by the age of 80 than his teacher of 30.


In America, it has been estimated that for every teacher who died of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure at school, nine children would subsequently die (in the UK, this would equate to 2,000 children).


constitute a significant part of total exposure.” But many people have inhaled


considerably more fibres than esti- mated in the report as frequent asbestos incidents in schools have released dangerous levels of asbes- tos fibres. Asbestos management mainly


concentrates on preventing main- tenance work disturbing the asbes- tos, however tests have shown that common everyday classroom activities can also release dan- gerous levels of asbestos fibres. It was discovered in 1987 that just slamming a door five times released levels more than 600 times greater than background levels, despite the fact that the asbestos insulating board (AIB) panels around the door appeared to be in good condition. No warning was issued to the


thousands of other schools with potentially the same problem. Twenty years later the prob-


lem was re-identified. When the doors were slammed and walls and columns were hit in system-built schools, the asbestos fibres ejected into the classrooms were at levels


800 times greater than background levels. Other tests have shown that


removing books from a classroom stationery cupboard with an AIB backboard released levels 100 times greater than background levels, and that displaying the children’s work with drawing pins or staples in AIB walls or ceilings can release similar levels. In some schools, these releases


of asbestos fibres have occurred every day over the course of many years so that the cumulative expo- sures of staff and pupils are sig- nificant. Britain imported more amosite


than any other country and a large amount of it went into manufac- turing AIB that has been used in walls, ceilings, window surrounds, heating baffles and column clad- ding in classrooms, corridors, halls, kitchens, cupboards and toilets in thousands of schools. It is vulner- able to damage, and although the surface might appear to be in good condition, when the panel is hit asbestos fibres are given off from the reverse face into the wall or ceil- ing void and then ejected through


any crack or gap, for wherever air can pass asbestos fibres can as well. The remedy in thousands of


schools is to squirt silicone seal- ant into every crack or gap in an attempt to prevent the release of asbestos fibres. This does not solve the problem, it just hides it.


The BSF programme


In 1999, the government acknowl- edged that many schools were at the end of their design life and many were in a poor condition. The £55 billion Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme was therefore launched in 2004 to refurbish or rebuild every second- ary school in England, and the project for primary schools (PCP) was launched in 2005. The policy for secondary


schools was that: “Major refurbish- ments undertaken under BSF would normally include the removal of all asbestos.” In 2010, the chief execu- tive of Partnership for Schools, the organisation that was in charge of BSF, said that 80 per cent of schools were “beyond their shelf life”. A 2010 analysis by the Local


Government Association and Association of Directors of Children’s Services concluded that £15 billion capital investment was the absolute minimum councils need between then and 2015 to “ensure every child can be taught in a classroom which is safe and struc- turally sound”. It said that nearly £5 billion was considered essen- tial for the current financial year (2011/12). Making asbestos safe is a major part of this expenditure. A similar situation exists in


Scotland and Wales. A survey of the school estate in Scotland iden- tified that 611 (23 per cent) of schools were in either a poor or bad condition. Meanwhile, 90 per cent of schools in Wales contain asbestos and yet a 2010 study by the Welsh Assembly identified the likelihood of a £1 billion repair bill for their schools as “hundreds of school buildings have major defects or are at risk of imminent failure”. Back in England, the Schools


Capital Review published in April 2011 was critical that there is no


2


centrally collated data on the condi- tion of the school stock and con- cluded that: “Significant parts of the school estate were and are in an unacceptable state.” The government has accepted


many of the recommendations and will be “immediately starting work on collecting data on the condi- tion of buildings”. The Asbestos in Schools campaign group (AiS), which is chaired by Annette Brooke MP, is pressing the government to ensure that an assessment of the extent, type and condition of asbes- tos is central to this audit. Just 186 schools had been


replaced or refurbished when the coalition government scrapped BSF. On the plus side, the gov- ernment has confirmed that those schools in the worst condition will be given priority for replacement or refurbishment. The problem is that there are insufficient funds to properly maintain the schools, let alone undertake major refurbish- ments and the removal of asbestos. In July, the coalition government


announced £81.5 million for urgent repair work and improvements in 217 academies. At the same time, it launched the Priority Schools Building Programme, which is a £2 billion privately financed pro- gramme “intended to address those schools in the worst condition” which “could cover between 100 and 300 schools in total”. This is a fraction of what is needed and does not address the appalling state of many of the nation’s 33,600 schools. The staff and pupils in these schools will remain at risk as the government has confirmed its policy that asbestos will remain in schools to be managed for the remaining life of the buildings.


Regulations and guidance


Twenty five years ago, the US gov- ernment undertook an audit of the friable (easily crumbled) asbestos in their schools and assessed the risks to the occupants. Because of the particular vulnerability of children they treated schools as a “special place” and promulgated asbestos regulations specifically for them. The regulations and accompanying


SecEd • September 15 2011


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16