'free schools'....

[Midland Retty]

Hi Stevo

I agree without any exception with all you have said.

The issue however is about building protection. The lives of school children are not being put at risk as was suggested  (or atleast that's how I interpreted it). So it's important to make the destinction clear.

Yes we do need improved standards for our schools, from a property protection viewpoint. We loose schools far too easily due to arson, or poor contractor supervision. Thats where investment and improvement is needed, to protect valued community resources, jobs, coursework, literature etc etc etc.

Money needs to be invested to improve security, to improve the supervision and management of contractors etc etc.

Money is tight, so Im suggesting any available funds would be better spent on property protection rather than for life safety provisions, because I can say from experience Ive never heard of a child being put in serious or imminent danger from fire within a school. Thus to suggest pupils are being out at risk whilst in school Im afraid just isn't the case. The life safety stuff is generally up to scratch, its the building protection element that needs to be addressed.

[Steven N]

Ty MR however i was going down the line that if standards are relaxed (free schools) & any old building is allowed to be used, will the funding or will be available to get it up to safe standards?

[kurnal]

As I see it very many state schools are effectively "any old Buildings".

Look at the state of them - there are still many old 240 volt manual alarm systems, many early CLASP schools with no compartmentation, worn out old fire doors that mostly dont close, much abused and modified semi fire resistant glazing, extensive unprotected dead ends, staircases that are effectively open plan etc etc.

But people are not dying or getting hurt in the many fires that do occur on a regular basis. So the life risk is not high despite poor building stock. Why is this? 

Its because people are awake, because there is good organisation, reasonable discipline, good staff student numbers, few unoccupied areas where fire could develop unseen.  These factors are common to most schools, proving that its what people do that makes all the difference, the building factors are not so important.

Now if you accept this as true (you may not) why should it matter if "any old building" is turned into a school?

[Chris Houston]

Typing on a phone. Appologies for bullet pointed aproach to argument.

Low deaths due to tendancy for fires to be set during weekends and school holidays. A trend that is changing. Fires are slowly becoming more common at daytime.

There have been near misses that I know of due to them occuring at clients (state) schools in England. 1 was a pupil's clothes igniting during a science experiment. Another was a fire in a small cupboard (heating plant?) extingushed by sprinklers before alarm was raised as smoke filled corridors. Sorry for inability to name schools or local authority. Client confidentiality, but I'll google and see if it's public knowledge.

"Relaxing standards" can only mean life safety. The law doesn't cover propery protection.

[kurnal]

The West Midlands Arson Task force publish figures showing that the trend is changing and they say that in 2007 50% of fires in schools occurred during school hours.

However Fire Risk Managemen July issue has some school fire statistics for 2008- of 8 major fires 6 occurred at night. Now did they develop to serious fires because it was night time?

Some more data, careful analysis and consideration are needed here to understand the mixed messages.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Oh ok a pupils jacket caught fire during a science experiment. So would an L1 fire alarm system have stopped that pupils jacket catching fire? would a sprinkler system have stopped that from happening in the first place? would that not happen in a brand new building? would fire doors have stopped that from happening?

Then we hear about the "near miss "with the old boiler extinguished by sprinklers. Those sprinklers that notoriously and magically stop smoke, I dont think . So how much smoke was there. And was anyone put at significant risk? And who on earth mentioned a relaxation in standards? Was there not a smoke detector in the cupboard, and a fire door, which would have probably been cheaper done a more worthwhile job than sprinklers from a life safety viewpoint?

Chris Houston you told me you like science and facts to back claims rather than speculation, on a recent thread about sprinklers funnily enough, so quote how many fire deaths there have been in schools over the last 20 years, how many " near misses" which would warrant a prosecution. You tell me how real this problem really is

Also tell me, based on Midland Retty and Kurnals posts that if life safety precautions and management tend to be good in schools hence no injuries or deaths if a fire occurs, but are occurring more and more during the day as you claim, that from a life safety point of view if the pupils do get out safely the life safety objective has been forfilled shouldnt we look at building protection next.

[Chris Houston]

Oh ok a pupils jacket caught fire during a science experiment. So would an L1 fire alarm system have stopped that pupils jacket catching fire? would a sprinkler system have stopped that from happening in the first place? would that not happen in a brand new building? would fire doors have stopped that from happening?

Then we hear about the "near miss "with the old boiler extinguished by sprinklers. Those sprinklers that notoriously and magically stop smoke, I dont think . So how much smoke was there. And was anyone put at significant risk? And who on earth mentioned a relaxation in standards? Was there not a smoke detector in the cupboard, and a fire door, which would have probably been cheaper done a more worthwhile job than sprinklers from a life safety viewpoint?

Chris Houston you told me you like science and facts to back claims rather than speculation, on a recent thread about sprinklers funnily enough, so quote how many fire deaths there have been in schools over the last 20 years, how many " near misses" which would warrant a prosecution. You tell me how real this problem really is

Also tell me, based on Midland Retty and Kurnals posts that if life safety precautions and management tend to be good in schools hence no injuries or deaths if a fire occurs, but are occurring more and more during the day as you claim, that from a life safety point of view if the pupils do get out safely the life safety objective has been forfilled shouldnt we look at building protection next.

There's quite a lot of questions in there.  Here's my answers:

Cleveland: Oh ok a pupils jacket caught fire during a science experiment. So would an L1 fire alarm system have stopped that pupils jacket catching fire?

No

would a sprinkler system have stopped that from happening in the first place?

No

would that not happen in a brand new building?

The age of the building is irrelevant.

would fire doors have stopped that from happening?

No

Then we hear about the "near miss "with the old boiler extinguished by sprinklers. Those sprinklers that notoriously and magically stop smoke, I dont think .

Actually, they extinguished the fire.  So that would stop the smoke.

So how much smoke was there.

I don't know.

And was anyone put at significant risk?

Yes.

And who on earth mentioned a relaxation in standards?

Karissa started this thread.  The article she linked to said "Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed he has ordered a relaxation of planning laws and building regulations"

Was there not a smoke detector in the cupboard, and a fire door, which would have probably been cheaper done a more worthwhile job than sprinklers from a life safety viewpoint?

I don't know.

Chris Houston you told me you like science and facts to back claims rather than speculation, on a recent thread about sprinklers funnily enough, so quote how many fire deaths there have been in schools over the last 20 years, how many " near misses" which would warrant a prosecution. You tell me how real this problem really is

I doubt anyone has international figures.  Let's assume you meant the UK.  I don't have UK figures, but I'm happy to accept the figured are either very low or zero for the past 20 years.  

Near misses, however, are many.  20 schools a week suffer an arson attack. (http://www.arsonpreventionbureau.org.uk/viewDocument.aspx?Document_ID=183 ) I'd consider this to be a very relevant figure.  Using the figures from below, that's 10 a week in school hours.  More than 1 a day.  I can't think of a better stat to back up my argument that schools should have superior fire safety than other buildings.  I hope it doesn't mean we have to wait for the deaths before some people take this matter seriously.

Also tell me, based on Midland Retty and Kurnals posts that if life safety precautions and management tend to be good in schools hence no injuries or deaths if a fire occurs, but are occurring more and more during the day as you claim, that from a life safety point of view if the pupils do get out safely the life safety objective has been forfilled shouldnt we look at building protection next.

My experience (I've reviewed property and life safety at hundreds of UK schools) leads me to conclude that fire safety is not well managed at schools.  Your suggestion of no injuries is incorrect.  I agree that building protection should be a focus.

Now that I've tried to answer your questions as best I can - what's your opinion?

[Clevelandfire 3]

Simples. My opinion is upgrade property protection. I disagree strongly that fire safety in schools is poorly managed and the stats bear this out, no injuries no deaths has to tell you something, and thats why i was amazed by this flaming jacket, oh and the sprinklers put the fire out? so who was at risk? What was the risk if you dont know how much smoke logging there was?

Ok to answer the original question no I dont think relaxed planning / building regs for schools wont be an issue for the safety of pupils, it might be for protection of the school buildings mind.

[Chris Houston]

The West Midlands Arson Task force publish figures showing that the trend is changing and they say that in 2007 50% of fires in schools occurred during school hours.

However Fire Risk Managemen July issue has some school fire statistics for 2008- of 8 major fires 6 occurred at night. Now did they develop to serious fires because it was night time?

Some more data, careful analysis and consideration are needed here to understand the mixed messages.

Just because larger fires tend to happen when schools are unoccupied, doesn't contradict WMAT.  I would consider their analysis to be correct that there is changing trend away from fires being set outside school hours towards them being set inside school hours.

What your analysis (of a very small sample of 8 large fires) could conclude is that fires that start outside school hours tend to grow into larger fires.  Of course, all fires start small.  I would hypothesize that less people about increases the opportunity for unchecked fire growth.

[Chris Houston]

Simples. My opinion is upgrade property protection. I disagree strongly that fire safety in schools is poorly managed and the stats bear this out, no injuries no deaths has to tell you something, and thats why i was amazed by this flaming jacket, oh and the sprinklers put the fire out? so who was at risk? What was the risk if you dont know how much smoke logging there was?

Ok to answer the original question no I dont think relaxed planning / building regs for schools wont be an issue for the safety of pupils, it might be for protection of the school buildings mind.

What makes you think there have been no injuries?  The boy who's clothes were on fire was quite badly injured.  That's just one case I know of from personal experience.

I think it is quite obvious that, the people who were at risk while the fire burned in the cupboard were the pupils, teachers and visitors in the school.

The risk was injury or death from the effects of fire!

So, if you think that reducing the levels of fire safety in schools won't be an issue for the safety of pupils then I disagree.  It seems completely obvious to me that if someone reduces the level of fire safety anywhere then of course it is an issue.  I fail to comprehend how it could be considered not to even be an issue.  To push my point further, to me it is an unacceptable situation to reduce the level of fire safety in UK schools below that of what we would accept in other buildings.  And I make no apologies for repeating my opinion that schools deserve higher standards of fire safety, not lower.

Most school head teachers don't have a clue about fire safety.  Most fire risk assessments in schools are rubbish.  With 20 going on fire a week, I fail to see how you think the stats illustrate good fire safety in schools.

[Chris Houston]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3697994.stm

The article discusses the fire I was talking about, the admission of safety failures by the school and the injuries that Cleaveland doesn't think have happened.

Boy burned in candle experiment
A 12-year-old private school pupil was badly burned during an experiment in a chemistry lesson, a court has heard.

The boy spent 12 days in a specialist burns unit after the accident at Norwich School, Norwich, two years ago.

He was hurt when his shirt caught fire after he reached over during an experiment using candles.

The £8,000-a-year school admits three health and safety breaches but is on trial at Norwich Crown Court after denying a fourth.

Shirt in flames

"There was a singularly unpleasant accident at Norwich School," said Pascal Bates, for the Health and Safety Executive.

"(The boy) was working away at this experiment when somehow, leaning over, his shirt caught light on the candle.

"Unfortunately the shirt went up in flames. He suffered quite severe burns which required hospitalisation and skin grafts."

He said the thrust of the prosecution case was there had been no proper assessment of the risks to pupils.

The experiment involved pupils putting glass beakers over burning candles and timing how long the flame remained.

   
When (the other boy) shouted I looked down and saw small flames on the front of my shirt just above my belt
Burns victim
In a statement read by Mr Bates, the boy said chemistry teacher Anthony Yarham had outlined basic rules of laboratory safety and warned pupils about the risks posed in chemistry lessons.

The youngster said he had not been shown how to use a Bunsen burner but had learned from classmates.

The boy said as he reached over the bench to pick up the beaker another pupil shouted that his shirt was on fire.

"When (the other boy) shouted I looked down and saw small flames on the front of my shirt just above my belt. I shouted to Mr Yarham," the statement said.

The court was told the teacher initially tried to beat out the flames then used a fire extinguisher before pouring cold water on the youngster's injuries while waiting for paramedics.

Dangers of laboratories

Mr Yarham, a chemistry teacher for 32 years, had taught at Norwich School for 14 years at the time of the accident and had been teaching the experiment for eight years.

He said he had spoken to pupils about the dangers of laboratories and gave them safety guidance and had walked around the class a number of times to check on the boys.

The school has admitted failing to suitably assess fire risks to staff, failing to suitably assess fire risks to pupils and failing to ensure its employees had sufficient health and safety training.

It denies failing to make a suitable assessment of the risks posed during the carrying out of the experiment.

The hearing was adjourned until Thursday.

[Midland Retty]

Chris

Whilst the case of the pupil being burnt is due to poor safety management, the level of active or passive fire precautions would have had no bearing on this incident. As you can see the school was prosecuted under H&S legislation not fire safety legislation. And lets not forget, this is just one case. You mentioned injuries in your response to Cleveland

There is very little evidence to suggest that pupils are getting injured in school because of fire. Your attack on others Chris shows you are very passionate about this subject, but you will admit the stats dont back up that people are dying or getting hurt.

You make a very sweeping statement about the boiler fire, was the school prosecuted? How do you know what level of risk pupils and staff were subjected to? Was it a few whisps of smoke? Was the corridor inpassable because of smoke? Or did the fireprecautions hold up as they were supposed to? No its not obvious pupils and staff were put at risk, for all I know they got out safely and never encountered smoke or flame.

You also make sweeping statements about headteachers and their attitudes towards safety too. Some are good some are bad.

No one would disagree that improvements need to be made. But i think you are scare mongering a little bit, take a step back and see where investment would be best channeled to better protect pupils and the community resource the school provides.

You will find the fabric of the school is at greater risk from fire than the people who study / work inside. This is about property proetection and protecting the school buildings, life risk isn't an issue, and the stats clearly show that evacuation procedures must be working.

[Chris Houston]

I cannot accept that a pupils clothing being set on fire in a school is anything other than fire safety.  Just because it had nothing to do with how the building was built, doesn't therefore make it not fire safety.  The provision of training, procedures, first aid fire fighting are all relevant and this is all fire safety.  It was just the first example that came to mind, and an easy way to prove that the "no injuries in school fires" myth was busted.

I'd said many times that I do accept the level of deaths and serious injury to be low.  I'm not pretending otherwise.  

I wish I could provide more information on the other fire I spoke about, some time on google last night proved fruitless.  I don't think the school was prosecuted, but I stand by my statement that pupils who are in a school that is on fire are at risk.  I would suspect the school was not prosecuted (otherwise, we'd have heard more about it).

Yes, I did make sweeping statements about school head teachers and fire risk assessments.  And I stand by them.  And I offer that opinion having surveyed many hundreds of schools in the UK.

The schools where the pupil was injured above was investigated and prosecuted.  Guess what - they only investigated because someone was injured.  I suspect if most schools were subjected to the same level of investigation they too would also be prosecuted for the same things.

Please don't tell me it is health and safety and therefore not fire safety.  It makes no a jot of difference to the injured or dead pupils if the fire that got them was a Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order fire or a Health and Safety at Work fire.  Someone being injured in a fire is exactly what we are here to discuss.

I am not scaremongering.  I have no political agenda to push, I have nothing to sell, I don't even work in the risk management industry at the moment.

You say that no-one would disagree that improvements need to be made - which cuts to the heart of my argument - I think schools need to be safer, but others are arguing to reduce the levels of safety.  So I think some do disagree.

I am sorry that think I attacked someone.  I'm quite surprised to read this.  I think my posts have all been quite professional in nature.  

And to be absolutely clear, I am agreeing that that the stats on deaths and injuries are low.  But I don't see anyone who is arguing to reduce fire safety addressing my point about 20 fires a week in UK schools and how they can marry up schools apparently being the #1 type of building to have fires with them being the only type of building that seems to warrant reductions in fire safety.

[CivvyFSO]

I think that the argument of "show me where the deaths are" is quite a poor one. Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean that it won't happen tomorrow. Look at it from the point of view of an insurer: Data from past incidents give a clear indication of probabilities, but what you are really interested in before costing and issuing an annual policy is the chance of it happening in the next year and costing you some money. Just because that accident has not happened in the past 20 or 30 years would not exempt it from the possibility of it happening.

The chance, however slight it may seem, is always there and past performance is no reason for complacency. There is a well documented rise in school arson attacks during the day, maybe it is only a matter of time?

[Wiz]

I'm mostly interested in the fire alarm system aspect of fire safety.

Does anyone have any opinions on what they feel the level of fire alarm and detection should be in schools?

Despite the risk of arson, are insurers overly concerned about this risk?  When I ask schools which category of system do their insurers require to have installed, they always answer either 'Life only' or 'none in particular'. Never do they say a system to protect Property. I wonder why this is?

Furthermore, the insurer rarely mentions a full Life protection category designation such as L1 or L3 etc, they mostly just use the word Life.

And I find most new systems designed/installed by others seem to have been designed/installed to at least an L3 category and often with so much automatic detection, it could be properly described as L1 category with just a few additional detectors. Is this not over the top? Surely an L4 would be sufficient in most typically designed and constructed schools?

Any opinions?


p.s. I am aware of 3 schoolchildren that died in a fire at a school in Basildon some 15 years ago. However, the fire was in an outbuilding to the school and the children had broken into it through the roof after school hours. It was subsequently determined that they had probably started the fire and been unable to escape.