Memorandum submitted by the Commission
for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)
This short paper sets out CABE's response to
the Committee's Sustainable Schools Inquiry. Before addressing
the specific questions asked by the Committee, we set out CABE's
role and experience in relation to school design.
1. CABE was set up by the first Secretary
of State for Culture, Media and Sport in 1999 with the mission
to promote high quality architecture and design within the built
environment in England. CABE's vision is of a country that by
2010 will lead Europe in understanding and harnessing the ability
of great buildings and spaces to transform neighbourhoods, to
generate social value and to sustain economic growth.
2. CABE is now jointly funded by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department for Communities
and Local Government (DCLG). The sponsorship arrangements are
with the DCMS.
3. CABE's enabling programme provides hands-on
expert advice to public sector bodies that are procuring new buildings
or masterplans, giving strategic advice on how to help get better
value from their projects through better design. The advice covers
issues such as project vision, client resources, briefing and
competitive selection of design and developer teams.
4. CABE is currently involved in supporting
all 38 local authorities involved in the Building Schools for
the Future programme up to wave 3. We are in discussions with
DfES to define the best way to assist in future waves.
5. This involvement builds on our work with
previous school building programmes, before BSF. Our network of
advisers ("enablers") has provided client-side support
to 27 PFI "clusters" between 2000 and 2003. These clusters
will eventually build 110 secondary schools, the majority of which
are yet to open.
WHAT WE
KNOW
1. As a result of this direct involvement
in the procurement and delivery of new school buildings, CABE
has derived significant insight into what works and what doesn't.
This was used to help inform the DfES in its development of the
BSF programme, and to inform our own work in supporting local
authority clients.
2. In addition, CABE has recently completed
a comprehensive audit of recently completed (pre-BSF) secondary
schools. This review, to be published in summer 2006, provides
an:
— Objective and independent evaluation
by design experts of the design quality of a representative sample
of recently completed new-build secondary school buildings in
England using a range of procurement routes across a broad spread
of regions.
— Examination of what factors affect
design quality most.
— Assessment of the effect of CABE's
support on the quality of secondary schools built, or in the process
of being built.
3. The audit reviewed 52 completed schools,
including PFI schools and those procured through other routes,
including City Academies. These were assessed against a standard
set of design criteria. The schools reviewed were completed pre-BSF,
but we also gathered evidence of emerging designs for wave one
schools. The audit confirms the messages from our direct involvement:
— Most new schools are not yet realising
the opportunity presented by the ambitious building programme
for educational transformation, particularly in using inspirational
design to support delivery of the curriculum.
— All of the schools rated good or
better by our audit were completed in 2005, the last year studied,
which suggests that things are getting better—although early
indications of design quality in wave one schools are not consistently
encouraging.
— Therefore, while BSF represents a
potential step forward for school design, we believe that rapid
and continuous improvement is still required to ensure that we
provide schools fit for the 21st century, rather than the 20th.
— Schools reviewed in the audit that
had been supported by CABE performed better, and CABE's support
was greatly valued by the client side. CABE's continued and expanded
contribution will be essential to realising the potential of the
BSF programme.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS—ANSWERS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Sustainability
1. Will BSF ensure that schools are sustainable—environmentally,
economically and socially?
It is too early to tell. But sustainability
is not an explicit aim of the programme and there are few mechanisms
within it to promote or incentivise sustainable design and construction
(see comments on question three below regarding environmental
sustainability). In terms of social and economic sustainability,
it is CABE's view that good design is sustainable design. In particular,
this means "future proofing" buildings by designing
in flexible and adaptable spaces. With the demands of education
and learning changing rapidly, this is nowhere more important
than in schools. Designing schools that can meet the needs of
new learning models means designing places that have the capacity
to change.
2. 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"?
Whether or not a school can be considered to
be sustainable will largely depend on strategic decisions made
early on in the process. These will include where the school is
placed, the orientation of the buildings, and the landscape design
of school grounds. Local authorities are not well-versed in writing
a brief to make the most of the opportunities
Encouragingly, a small number of schools visited
as part of CABE's audit exhibited a range of flexible solutions
that made steps towards meeting the Building Schools for the Future
agenda for transformational, "future-proofed", 21st
century environments.
However, most new schools are designed to tight
spatial briefs limited by financial constraints. A loose fit design
would clearly allow for more future flexibility, but this is often
not possible within existing procurement rules. Classrooms designed
to minimum floor areas present the single biggest barrier to being
able to vary everyday teaching methods to suit changing needs.
Devices to generate power such as combined heat
and power plants, wind turbines etc. could also supply energy
to other local developments. A sustainable school provides obvious
ways to augment and illustrate the curriculum, as evidenced by
the St Francis of Assisi Academy in Liverpool.
3. How effective are the tools currently
used in BSF to secure sustainable school design, including the
Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM)?
Compliance with BREEAM "very good"
is the only tool within BSF for securing environmentally sustainable
school design. While the standard has strengths, many people have
identified weaknesses. Within the sustainable design community,
it is thought that "very good", the required rating
for new BSF schools, is quite easy to achieve: for example, it
is possible to achieve a "very good" rating by installing
a hi-tech solution such as a wind turbine, and fail to deliver
on more basic but essential elements. This makes a school expensive,
and provides plenty of opportunities for technical failure, while
not necessarily delivering good energy performance in use. DfES
should investigate the robustness of the BREEAM for schools rating
and raise the target to "excellent" for all new-build
schools. A similar tool should be developed for use on all refurbished
and remodelled schools.
Given that BREEAM is the only driver of environmental
sustainability and that we are effectively replacing or renewing
an entire class of buildings for upwards of 50 years, we believe
that BREEAM "excellent" should be the required standard
for schools built through BSF. Alternatively, as DfES publish
energy usage and water consumption statistics for 2000 schools
and analyses best and worst performing deciles (this was last
published in 2003), a performance level that has a measure of
continuous improvement against this data could be used.
Future learning needs
1. 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?
The goal of BSF is to deliver educational transformation;
however, this is very ill-defined, particularly as it relates
to the provision of buildings. Consequently, we believe the translation
into built form of new models of learning is likely to be variable
and dependent upon the clarity of vision of individual head teachers
and LAs. That the involvement of educationalists is patchy, and
severely time-constrained, means there are significant risks that
BSF schools will not take full advantage of the opportunity to
facilitate genuine educational transformation during the building's
life cycle.
2. How effectively is BSF working with schools
to develop educational and organisational change that complements
the new buildings?
As noted above, the involvement of schools in
the BSF programme is variable, and it is furthermore mediated
through local authorities and within very tight time pressures.
We believe that in many ways the development of the emerging educational
model and the design of school buildings is out of sync, as local
authorities focus on renewing on the building stock before they
and head teachers are able to define new models of learning. If
there is no educational vision, design will not add value to it.
3. How actively does BSF foster transformation
in school learning and design?
Educational transformation is as the core of
the BSF programme. However, translating the ambition into practice
is constrained by the limited time available for defining the
vision and developing the design implications of it. While BSF
is rightly conceived of as an educational project first, in delivery
priority is given to the capital programme, and the need to renew
the stock. Greater emphasis, encouragement and support is needed
for LAs and head teachers—many of whom have very limited
experience of managing construction projects of any scale—to
take advantage of the opportunity presented. This could include
direct "one-stop shop" support, signposting resources
that are available, explaining the details of the procurement
process and linking up clients at similar stages of the building
process.
4. 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?
Our view is that the different policy strands
remain discrete, characterised by funding silos and an absence
of incentives for joining up the programmes. In particular, the
emphasis in the early stages is on construction, while the extended
schools agenda is essentially an organisational project; little
has been put in place to marry the two, for example through the
inclusion of BSF within wider local authority Community Plans,
or early engagement with local planning authorities.
Examples of where this has been achieved include
Bishops Park School, which contains a public library, and Jo Richardson
School, which has community resources including a library too.
They were able to spend some of the SRB money that funded the
community areas on making the school more spacious.
5. How are the strategic needs of local authorities
balanced with the needs of schools communities and learners within
BSF?
The structure of the BSF programme focuses on
local authorities constructing schools quickly, sometimes at the
expense of effective dialogue with head teachers about their aspirations
for new learning environments. In the short term, head teachers
will often be grateful for any new capital investment, absent
for so long. However, this is a missed opportunity for teachers
and learners to define and meet their educational aspirations
over the medium to long term. Creating greater space for this
type of dialogue would be advantageous, and the availability of
expert advice, such as that provided by CABE, will continue to
be essential. Evidence from our independent audit shows that CABE's
support is greatly valued and leads to better outcomes.
Delivery and Funding
1. How well is the BSF delivery and procurement
model working to deliver sustainable schools and best value, including
through Partnerships for Schools and Local Education Partnerships?
There is no one procurement model within BSF—although
the preferred route is through Local Education Partnerships. Many
local authorities are seeking alternative vehicles, and consequently
there is limited scope for evaluating performance and measuring
relative costs—even where the preferred route is followed,
cost information is difficult to identify.
The environmental/energy use aspect of a school
building tend to be performance specified. The Schools Audit showed
that where this briefing is not specific, the results are likely
to be poor.
2. How successfully are Private Sector Providers
working within the BSF framework to deliver sustainable schools
and best value?
The evidence pre-BSF is that success in engaging
with private sector partners is variable. We expect that the BSF
programme will lead to an improvement in school design compared
with the standard PFI school builds. Experience of school construction
within the industry has grown rapidly since the 1990s. The pool
of experience will grow further as opportunities expand in an
increased construction programme. However, the programme will
be dependent on the capacity of designers and contractors to carry
out the work. We are concerned that, unless effort is put into
sharing learning as the BSF programme is rolled out, some LAs
in the later phases will be selecting from a pool of relatively
poor bidders.
3. Are BSF funding levels sufficient to deliver
sustainable transformation?
One respondent in CABE's audit described the
PFI process as the battle of "money versus loveliness"
and affordability was a real constraint for many local authorities
undertaking PFI projects. For example, the amount of space allocated
for different areas within the school had to be balanced against
the cost of incorporating them. BSF allows for greater funding
to be made available. But given the limited information available
on relative costs, there is a risk that the relationship between
funding provided and outcomes expected is imprecise. More money
could always be used; but the point is to cost effectively what
can be achieved for the funding available and to prioritise within
those constraints.
4. Are all stakeholders involved in the planning
and delivery process?
As noted above, we have some concerns that the
school community, including pupils, do not have adequate space
to engage in the process and that this undermines the quality
of the buildings produced. In addition, there is some evidence
that facilities management is also not sufficiently engaged at
an early stage to ensure that school buildings meet medium term
management and maintenance requirements.
Importantly, for these stakeholders, there is
limited opportunity early in the process for raising aspirations
of what can be achieved. Effort must be focused on making schools
that would otherwise be poorly designed good, rather than making
the good excellent. That requires all stakeholders to share an
understanding of, and an aspiration for, the best that is possible
within the programme.
June 2006
| 
