Memorandum submitted by WWF-UK
SUMMARY OF
POINTS
1. The Building Schools for the Future (BSF)
programme is the largest construction programme for schools for
50 years, involving a projected £14 billion spend over 10
years. This, though, could be a wasted opportunity as standards
have been set according to short-term cost considerations rather
than according to the schools' long-term maintenance costs and
environmental impact.
2. Mandatory BREEAM standards have not been
set at the highest possible level and this will imapct on running
costs.
3. Whole-life costings for the proposed
new BSF schools and buildings are essential to determine what
sustainable design features should be included at the outset.
4. There is a lack of joined up thinking
across DfES on how BSF interacts with other policies and the sustainability
agenda.
5. The first schools that are currently
involved in the BSF are from the most deprived areas and hence
will benefit the least over the long-term if standards are raised
and better advice provided later in the BSF programme.
6. The consultation process for BSF schools
needs to be much longer and broader in its scope.
INTRODUCTION
WWF-UK welcomes the Education and Skills Committee
inquiry into Sustainable Schools. WWF-UK views schools as a key
driver of learning for sustainability—both for the pupils
and the communities which schools serve.
WWF-UK has been working with schools and teachers
for more than a decade. Our approach has been to understand their
needs, and to support and learn from their efforts to build sustainable
schools through teaching and learning, school estate development
and management, and through their links with communities—both
local and around the world.
On 9 June 2006, we convened our fourth sustainable
schools teachers' conference, attracting more than 240 participants
from around the UK. About a third of them completed sustainable
schools questionnaires. The survey results are reported in several
parts of this response and full details can be found in the annex
accompanying this submission (not printed).
WWF-UK actively supports the sustainable schools
agendas at the Sustainable Development Commission and the Department
for Education and Skills. We offer this response as a further
demonstration of our commitment to support the development of
an education system that meets the current and future needs of
learners, while respecting environmental limits.
SUSTAINABILITY
Will BSF ensure that schools are sustainable—environmentally,
economically and socially?
It is important to note that the original aim
of the Government's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme
was to improve the environmental performance of schools, not to
deliver sustainable schools.
Regrettably, even the environmental performance
standards are not as high as they should be, with a required BREEAM
(Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method)
rating of "very good" instead of "excellent".
There is some evidence to suggest that the decision to require
a "very good" rating was based on what could be achieved
with the budget allocated, rather than the actual cost difference
between achieving a "very good" and "excellent"
rating. In fact, this cost analysis has not yet been done by BRE,
the developers of BREEAM for Schools. Therefore, the standards
have been determined not by the environmental improvements they
would deliver but by their perceived cost. As such, the BSF programme
is limited in its ambition. Given that the Government is projected
to spend £14 billion over the next decade, making this the
most significant rebuilding scheme for schools for 50 years, a
great opportunity to deliver sustainability may be missed.
The narrow purpose of the BSF has also led to
a lack of joined-up thinking across the DfES, as other initiatives
to improve the sustainability of schools have not been properly
integrated within BSF. The DfES has developed a wide range of
education initiatives that independently address the environmental,
economic and social dimensions of sustainability but cohesion
of these ideas is lacking with regards to school buildings. The
DfES, for example, has produced separate design guidance for extended
schools, sustainable schools, and school grounds rather than one
overall document.
Importantly, the BSF is being implemented before
the DfES has finalised its Sustainable Schools National Framework,
under which schools are to become models of sustainable development
for their communities. The simple fact that this initiative is
currently under public consultation (the closing date is 31 August
2006) precludes it from informing the BSF programme at present
and, hence, from impacting on the sustainable designs of schools
currently engaged in the process.
Furthermore, WWF is concerned that a whole-life
costing approach has not been adopted for the BSF. While sustainable
building design features, such as passive solar design, higher
energy efficiency and micro-generation, may add to the upfront
design and construction costs of a building, in the long-term
they provide energy savings over the lifetime of the building.
Therefore, by not integrating the lifetime maintenance costs of
running the new buildings into the design decisions (whole-life
costing), false economies are likely to be made.
Will schools built under BSF satisfy the Government's
definition of sustainable development as being that which meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs?
The extent to which schools built under the
BSF programme will go far enough to contribute to the Government's
carbon emissions reduction targets and aspirations is questionable,
primarily as the BREEAM standards were not decided upon on the
basis on their environmental impact. Indeed, the analysis required
to determine how the new BREEAM standards will affect the environmental
performance of each school has not yet been undertaken, so vital
information is lacking on what the environmental impact of the
new buildings will be.
In addition, there is some question as to the
life expectancy of these buildings. Some sources suggest that
these buildings are planned to be obsolete in as little as 25
years. WWF's has conducted research into both demolition waste
and new building materials (that includes the total energy and
emissions involved) which reveals their true ecological footprint.
WWF, therefore, is concerned that if the new BSF buildings are
not built and designed to last well into the 21st century, then
their replacement in 25 years time will unnecessarily require
further environmental resources.
How effective are the tools currently used in
BSF to secure sustainable school design, including the Building
Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)?
The "tools" that WWF-UK is aware of,
and which relate to sustainable school design, are limited to
BREEAM for Schools and the yet-to-be-published Sustainable Schools
design guidance. In the case of BREEAM for Schools, WWF maintains
that if sustainable schools are the aspiration, then a rating
of "excellent" is a basic requirement.
Our survey of teachers found that 70% or more
ranked the following BREEAM criteria as "important"
or "most important":
— consultation with the school community;
— natural and energy efficient lighting;
— safe pedestrian routes;
— use of low environmental impact materials;
— energy efficient windows;
— school grounds that support biodiversity.
While an "excellent" rating does not
constitute a perfectly sustainable building (ie a carbon neutral
building) it does mean schools are closer to meeting currently
accepted sustainability criteria.
The Sustainable Schools design guidance will
likely amount to "too little, too late". This publication
is still not available and design and construction of the first
waves of BSF schools are already underway. Ultimately, it is only
guidance (unlike the mandatory BREEAM standards) and, consequently,
individual schools will need sufficient capacity to properly understand
the necessity and implications of this guidance to make it a success.
Otherwise, the guidance will not achieve its goal.
A further implication of this delayed product,
and the current "very good" BREEAM rating requirement,
is that the very first waves of BSF schools, those operating in
the most deprived areas of the country, are likely to suffer from
the programme's "teething problems". These schools,
which will have high demands on operating budgets, are being designed
and built without the potential benefits of the cost savings that
could be realised through higher environmental standards, ie stricter
energy efficiency standards.
To be most effective, these first waves of schools
need to aspire to the higher BREEAM rating, and appropriate funding
needs to be provided to kick-start the BSF programme. The experience
in other parts of the world is that this investment, at the front
end of a long-term building programme, reduces costs of buildings
built at the end of the programme, and provides industry incentives
that "normalise" these new designs and construction
methods. Ultimately, the first schools to use BSF may not benefit
in the long run as much as others later on and this should be
addressed.
Finally, without the research into how the mandatory
standards and guidance will improve the environmental performance
of individual schools (which has as yet to be conducted on the
"very good" BREEAM rating), there is no baseline data
with which a future assessment can be made on the effectiveness
of these tools.
FUTURE LEARNING
NEEDS
How effective is BSF at defining and responding
to learners' current and future needs? What role can and do school
users play in this process?
BSF currently places emphasis on inspirational
design, creating Information & Communication Technology (ICT)
rich learning environments, and inclusion as learning needs. While
these certainly contribute to the learning experience, they do
not arise from an understanding of learners' current or future
learning needs regarding sustainability.
In addition, it is unlikely that the same types
of learning that currently are contributing to unsustainability
will foster the understanding and behavioural changes that are
fundamental to sustainability. In this regard, WWF-UK recommends
that the Government undertakes an inquiry into the current and
future needs of learners with regards to sustainability. The views
of teachers and staff would be an important component to this
inquiry.
Our survey of 70 teachers on sustainability
issues found that 92% of respondents considered including sustainability
within the BSF new buildings and refurbishments to be "very
important". A further 7% considered this to "quite important".
96% stated that a sustainable building was important for the teaching
and learning of sustainability. The survey also found that the
top three benefits of a sustainable school for teaching would
be (a) the school building provides an example of sustainability;
(b) the building offers opportunities for pupils to monitor its
performance; and (c) the building offers opportunities for students
to design and test sustainable solutions.
The BSF buildings, therefore, need to be designed
to be as flexible as possible in order to enhance their future
relevance to learning and ultimately to extend their lifespan.
Furthermore, integrated sustainable features in the new BSF schools
would benefit the teaching of sustainability in the classroom
which is strongly supported by teachers.
How effectively is BSF working with schools to
develop educational and organisational change that compliments
the new buildings?
The BSF programme should be responding to and
not leading educational and organisational change. When it comes
to sustainability there are questions about what kinds of educational
and organisational change are most appropriate. At present, the
dominant educational and organisational models within DfES are
not focused on sustainability.
The current focus on standards, inclusion and
extended school services, for example, does not recognise complimentary
connections with the Sustainable Schools National Framework. This
will inevitably lead to missed opportunities, namely school buildings
which could have joined up these agendas for the benefit of learners,
the community and the environment.
How successfully does BSF integrate with other
policy and funding areas (such as Every Child Matters and Extended
Schools) to deliver joined up solutions to educational and community
needs?
Without proper whole-life costings (which includes
maintenance costs) to inform the design of the new schools and
refurbished buildings, the BSF is in danger of missing a great
opportunity to meet the increased future policy demands on school
buildings.
There is probably no greater incentive to achieve
the highest possible levels of resource use efficiency than the
emerging Extended Schools agenda. Schools that offer wrap-around
child care, after school, weekend and holiday period services
will extend their open hours by as much as 70%. As much of this
will be at night and during times of day with lower air temperatures,
the use of heating, water and artificial lighting will increase
dramatically. Similarly, the schools CO2 emissions, supply use
and waste production will also increase. A school designed to
meet the highest sustainable schools standards will be better
prepared to extend their school services while minimising running
costs.
As mentioned, the BREEAM standards are not set
at the highest possible level and the Sustainable Schools design
guidance will only be voluntary. At the very least, schools need
to made aware of the extra demands on their resources that other
policies will entail and how the BSF could alleviate some of this
financial burden through the highest environmental and efficiency
standards.
DELIVERY AND
FUNDING
Are BSF funding levels sufficient to deliver sustainable
transformation?
The transformation of schools from unsustainable
to sustainable is more than just a matter of capital funding.
Whole-life costs must be at the centre of any funding initiative.
It is well documented that what appears as a cost savings at the
design and construction stage may have added operating costs.
Invest to save strategies have been used in other areas of government
funding and a similar approach is needed here.
Furthermore, it is likely that the funding levels
are not sufficient for schools to include the highest BREEAM features
that will best support their pupils' learning needs. Instead,
school designs are engineered to achieve the required BREEAM rating
at the lowest cost. In the end, this will prove to be a false
economy as schools are forced to "bolt on" sustainability
design features at a greater expense in the post-construction
phase.
In addition, once the building has been constructed
it will be impossible to implement many cost minimising options
such as passive design (ie the positioning of windows to maximise
incoming sunlight), hence an opportunity will have passed.
Are all stakeholders engaged in the planning and
delivery process?
WWF is aware that BSF has a requirement for
stakeholder involvement, but we believe that this is insufficient
in both scope and length. Currently, the design consultation phase
lasts six weeks. Importantly, 66% of respondents to our survey
called for the consultation period to be extended to cover the
life of the project.
There are levels of stakeholder involvement
that range from manipulation—where the aim of the design
consultation is to achieve stakeholder support by public relations—to
participant control. We believe that the latter end of this spectrum
represents the level of stakeholder engagement required for the
delivery and successful subsequent management of a sustainable
school. Our survey of teachers found that 42.3% believed that
teachers should be involved in the process and 39.4% said pupils
should have an input. In addition, 35.2% said the local community
should be involved.
Fundamental to stakeholders participating in
the planning and delivery process is building their capacity to
participate effectively. There are two points to make here regarding
sustainable schools. First, design professionals generally assume
that schools stakeholders do not have the capacity to engage in
sustainable school design processes. Second, in many schools communities
there are keen individuals, who have the capacity and motivation
to engage in sustainable school design processes.
BSF must work harder to build stakeholders'
capacity to participate, where necessary, and must also recognise
and engage those individuals who already have the capacity to
participate. This participation must be over the length of the
project, not limited to tokenistic input during the pre-design
phase. BSF should also be held to account and required to demonstrate
that they have taken action based on stakeholder involvement.
June 2006
| 
