Memorandum submitted by HTI (Heads Teachers
and Industry) Ltd
"Every school should also be an environmentally
sustained school, with a good plan for school transport that encourages
walking and cycling, an active and effective recycling policy
(moving from paper to electronic processes wherever possible)
and a school garden or other opportunities for children to explore
the natural world. Schools must teach our children by example
as well as by instruction".
DfES strategy document 2005.
"Securing the Future" requires public
services and systems to be delivered without negatively affecting
future generations or people in less affluent parts of the globe."
Government response to EAC report on Education for
Sustainable Development.
"Sustainable development will not just be
a subject in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and mortar
and the way the school uses and even generates its own power.
Our students won't just be told about sustainable development,
they will see and work within it: a living, learning place in
which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means".
Tony Blair, Prime Minister, September 2004.
1. INTRODUCTION
HTI is an independent, not for profit, social
enterprise that works in partnership with business, education
and Government to enhance education leadership and the employability
of young people.
HTI (Heads Teachers and Industry) has been at
the forefront of developing resources for schools and school leadership
teams in the area of Education for Sustainable Development since
1996.
HTI has produced since that date two web sites
www.e4S.org.uk (Education for Sustainability) a curriculum resource
and www.thinkleadership.org.uk an on-line auditing and benchmarking
tool for schools to utilise in understanding their environmental
performance.
HTI has also designed and delivered training
programmes for school leaders and governors (200+) on Leadership
and Sustainability in the West Midlands region and is working
with Cambridge University Programme for Industry and Durham County
Council on the development of a leadership development programme
for school and LA officers called "Leading into the Future".
HTI is also engaged with other NGOs' in seeking
to develop opportunities for Education for Sustainable Development
to be incorporated into all leadership programmes delivered through
the National College for School Leadership (NCSL).
This paper has been prepared by Stan M Terry
MA, Environment Consultant for HTI.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BSF is an ambitious government programme which
seeks to achieve a whole scale transformation of the building
fabric of the nation's schools. At the same time it proposes a
transformation in the learning processes undertaken in schools
and a re-orientation towards sustainability.
Change will be a constant factor in education
for the foreseeable future. This needs to be taken into consideration
when designing the buildings, the curricula and the learning experiences
of students for the next 25 years.
The importance of this once in a lifetime opportunity
to effect a significant cultural change in our education structures
is highlighted.
Questions are raised as to the capability of
the construction industry in delivering sustainable buildings
within the programme, given their long history of waste and profligacy.
The minimum recycled requirements of the programme are identified
as a significant missed opportunity.
The involvement of LAs in the BSF programme
is welcomed but the ability of the LAs to deliver within a framework
of competing policy arrangements such as the ECM and extended
schools agendas is highlighted.
Effecting significant cultural change will be
required of this programme but the concept of sustainability is
little understood in the teaching profession and within communities.
Therefore there is a need to deliver development opportunities
to ensure understanding.
Future learning needs of students and communities
are identified as an area of significant concern, given that the
learning environments required in the future are little understood
by most architects and teachers. This once again highlights the
importance of providing early opportunities for learning amongst
target groups.
The process of building schools for the future
provides an opportunity to put into practice government best practice
procurement processes, however this idea of sustainability and
the principles of best value as exemplified by Gershon may create
a conflict which will need to be resolved.
BSF schools must embody the principles of sustainable
development. They must demonstrate to their communities their
commitment to the process. However,the success or failure of the
programme will not rest with the design of the buildings but the
processes which are undertaken to realise the project and the
quality of the training and development given to leadership teams,
teachers, governors and the communities in which schools will
be located.
CONTEXT
In less than three decades environmental/sustainability
education has developed from a marginal activity to being an increasing
focus for our collective view of the purpose of education and
learning.
Mounting evidence of environmental destruction
and significant climate change impact necessitates a change of
focus in the learning experiences, to be undertaken by our children,
in schools, to ensure that they are capable of the critical and
systematic thinking required to ensure the security of our planet
for future generations.
Schools have a particular role to play in securing
the future for our young people. They, as places of learning,
can help students understand our personal and societal impacts
on the planet. As models of good practice they can demonstrate
to young people and the community what sustainable living is about.
Schools should be preparing young people to take positive active
roles in finding solutions to both local and global problems and
preparing them for a sustainable future world.
To that end, schools need to adopt an approach
to the design and delivery of their curricula, which encompasses
sustainable development at its heart. Schools must also adopt
an environmentally sustainable approach to the utilisation of
the buildings and grounds within which they operate, as well as
developing policies focussed on sustainable purchasing of goods
and services delivered to them as organisations.
BUILDINGS AND
TRANSFORMATION
Building Schools for the Future will invest
over £45 billion in transforming all secondary schools over
the next 15 years. It has been announced that BSF will be expanded
to ensure significant numbers of primary schools will also be
re-furbished. This is a welcome investment in the future of the
education system.
It is an investment moreover that is urgently
needed. For many children their present learning environments
are generally poor and militate against successful learning experiences.
There is a growing body of evidence from the
USA and from the UK which makes clear that learning environments
are significantly important in ensuring increasing levels of student
performance (HMG group 1999 and 2001 and CABE 2002).
BSF represents a once in a lifetime opportunity
to create schools that are fit for the 21st century and beyond.
The Government is clear that BSF is about capital
investment to transform learning and working environments in schools
with the objective of delivering higher standards of educational
performance. It is an educational programme rather than just a
building programme.
The Government's Sustainable Development Strategy
offers a broad but simple definition of sustainable development
as that "which meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
In the context of the Building Schools for the
Future programme it is essential that the programme itself, the
buildings it produces and the processes which are undertaken to
achieve the completion of the programme are transformative.
To achieve this, the programme must offer much
more than simply the provision of environmentally neutral buildings.
It should offer the opportunity for radical
changes in the manner in which students are educated, provide
buildings which have minimal impact upon the environment, ensure
learning opportunities which engage with the whole community of
the school and which exemplify to its community the practices
and process which are designed to enable the community to achieve
sustainability.
SUSTAINABILITY
Will BSF ensure that schools are sustainable-environmentally,
economically and socially?
A building programme as envisaged by BSF is
likely to have a significant impact on the ability of the UK construction
industry to deliver the programme. Historically the UK construction
industry has not been noted for its environmentally sustainable
track record.
Some 60% of the raw materials processed worldwide
are used in building and construction. The waste record of the
UK construction industry has been poor. Some 17% of all waste
arising in the UK (434 million tonnes) are created by Construction
(70 million tonnes). Of this total 30% is deposited in landfill.
Research evidence has also shown that some 20% of all materials
delivered to construction sites are never used and consigned to
landfill as a result of wasteful/poor practice on site.
Indeed the DTI draft strategy for construction
survey (2006) makes clear that "The Government believes that
the time is now right to take initiatives further, with a look
towards 2020 and encouraging the introduction of more complex
sustainability plans, for example in the fields of: `whole life
costing' of buildings; implementation of `site waste management
plans' and gaining a wider adoption of key performance indicators
throughout industry."
It makes clear that the construction industry
must embrace more sustainable forms of building and make better
use of resources in their delivery. Yet this is a target towards
2020. BSF should be providing the opportunity to the industry
to achieve such targets.
The target figures for the use of recycled aggregate
materials in the BSF programmes to date are a clearly wasted opportunity.
There are requirements for utilisation of recycled materials in
the project, but the volumes are minimal (10%).
The programme should provide opportunities for
the development of a zero waste philosophy on BSF contracts, with
on site utilisation of materials and enforced separation of waste
materials by all contractors to promote further use. But this
opportunity has been wasted. One must ask the question WHY? Is
it too difficult for the industry to achieve?
WRAP (Waste Resources Action Programme) in a
study published in May 2005 has made clear that there is a case
for an increasing utilisation of recycled material content in
BSF projects.
The Davis Langdon study (2004), identified by
WRAP, on exemplar designs for schools identified that 10% recycled
requirement would not increase the costs of BSF projects and could
be achieved without difficulty, indeed figures of 17% could be
achievable without increased costs.
WRAP makes the point that the recycled content
target for BSF school projects could be set higher. But after
consultation with PfS has set the figure at 10% because of perceived
increased costs, if set higher! Whilst the P4S LEPS schedule identifies
waste leaving the site at less than 3.5% of total production output
and as a per cent of construction value what evidence is there
to date that such targets have been met or are likely to be met?
It has been pointed out that there may be significant
longer-term savings to the industry through efficiency gains in
considering and finding viable solutions too many of the topics
raised, such as waste minimisation. Indeed the document "Building
a better quality of life—a strategy for more sustainable
construction" (2000) made clear that savings of 30%+ could
be made in the construction sector by adopting more sustainable
practices.
It would seem an opportunity to significantly
improve the recycling and waste production attitudes of the UK
construction industry has been sadly lost by adopting such a cautious
approach under the BSF framework!
BREEAM
Examples of environmentally sound school buildings
are not common. To that end the BREEAM assessment tool launched
in 2005 is to be used to assess new build and refurbishment school
projects based on environmental performance levels. The assessments
are made in terms of:
The DfES has made it a requirement of funding
for all new schools and refurbishment projects to aim for a very
good rating. It is recognised in the construction industry that
there are limitations to the BREEAM assessment methodology as
it stands at present. By not insisting upon designs achieving
"excellent" ratings in all respects an opportunity to
promote the sustainability agenda through the school building
programme has been lost. The opportunity to drive construction
towards excellence standards in all aspects of BSF should have
been considered a priority.
ENHANCING LEARNING
In considering the Government's Sustainable
Development Strategy we need to ask if the environments to be
created through BSF will enhance the learning, health and quality
of life for the schools and communities in which they are developed.
Defining the likely needs of learners and their
communities for the future is difficult to predict. The ways in
which we learn, what we need to learn and the likely and unlikely
demands of a knowledge driven economy will ensure that if nothing
else there is likely to be constant change over the next 25 years.
The process of designing and delivering "education"
for the next 25 years and beyond in such a climate of change becomes
seriously problematic. This has significant implications for the
design of learning environments that are being created under the
BSF programme.
The funding being allocated for the programme
requires that LAs' work with schools and other stakeholders to
create an educational vision for the future for these schools.
The vision forms the heart of the LA strategic business case for
BSF which has to be approved by DfES and PfS to ensure the money
for the project is forthcoming.
However, that vision is somewhat constrained
by national policy priorities eg Academies, personalised learning
etc. This constrained vision is further diluted by the habit of
most architects and practices of staying within the boundaries
created by issues such as DfES area guidelines, building bulletins,
etc.
Where is the opportunity for a true vision of
learning for the next century to determine the buildings, which
will be required to deliver the sustainability agenda?
The opportunities for innovation in the physical
environment of schools being constrained are further limited by
the inability of school leaders in general to be able to effectively
envision their own learning environments for the future.
School leaders, governors, teachers, students
and communities need assistance in building a vision for their
school of the future. Without that kind of support we will simply
get more of what we have now and the transformative opportunities
presented by BSF will be lost both in building design and pedagogic
practice.
CULTURAL CHANGE
We need to effect a culture change in our schools
if we are to deliver truly 21st century schools otherwise we will
simply have an incremental improvement on 20th century models.
LAs should be required to ensure that cultural
change processes are embedded in school communities, which will
be impacted by BSF. It is important that school leadership teams
are provided with the knowledge and understanding to enable them
to make sustainable choices in their involvement with the design
process.
It is HTI's experience that most school leadership
teams have little understanding/close knowledge about the sustainability
agenda as it affects their school or their communities and will
require specific opportunities to undergo CPD, which will enhance
their understanding and enable them to envision a truly sustainable
school design for the 21st century.
Whilst PfS is making efforts to support such
a process the decision to engage with facilitating organisations
rests with the LAs. Many LAs will work to engage with school staff,
pupils and communities, however, the nature of financial constraints
will effectively mean that much consultation which takes place,
assuming it does take place, will be at a cursory level.
Significantly more work needs to be undertaken
to ensure that such processes are embedded in the programme to
ensure effective cultural change. The opportunity to develop awareness
and effect cultural change needs to be delivered through focussed
CPD opportunities for Heads, Governors, Teachers and the school
community otherwise BSF will only effect improvements [which may
be limited] on a 20th century model rather than a 21st century
model. Indeed the opportunities presented by BSF will not be able
to be realised, unless the training programmes for all teachers
and school leaders provided through NCSL and the TDA incorporates
the issue of sustainability.
FUTURE LEARNING
NEEDS
Sustainable schools are not only well managed
environments. They are also where learning is at the centre of
everything. Pupils achieve high standards through the contextualisation
of the learning they undertake. The impetus for achievement comes
from issues that matter to young people. The school estate and
the local area are used as a learning resource so that pupils
are engaged in real issues amongst real people and the get the
opportunities to understand the local in the national and international
context.
Sustainable development is a cross cutting theme
in the national curriculum in England with specific references
to four statutory subjects, but the opportunity exists to utilise
its links across all subjects in the curriculum.
Government expects to change behaviour in the
community in respect of sustainability through learning, but also
through the capital investment in school buildings. School buildings
will be expected to be managed sustainably, with the whole school
becoming a medium for the community to acquire positive sustainable
habits.
Thus schools should have in place greener travel
arrangements for pupils, which include walking and cycling to
school, which can contribute significantly to the health of the
population.
They will require efficient management of schools
buildings which should result in lower energy and water bills.
However, there are conflicts, which are likely to occur, when
one considers the Extended Schools and Every Child Matters agendas
in conjunction with the BSF programme.
Local recruitment of staff and local purchasing
by the school can effectively contribute towards the sustainability
of the community. Better health can be promoted through better,
locally sourced, catering arrangements. Working with parents and
members of the local community on issues of sustainability provides
the opportunity to improve the reputation of the school, attract
additional pupils and influence local affairs.
Crucially BSF appears to have little to offer
schools in terms of learning environments for the future without
a radical reconceptualisation by teachers and architects/LA's
of their role in the education process. Richard Felden has made
clear that "The science of designing learning environments
is currently remarkably underdeveloped".
Certainly whilst the DfES publishes guidelines
determining the amount of space funded per pupil and the uses
to which it can be put, most architects do not depart from the
guidelines. Hence how transformational might the learning environments
created under BSF be? The present approach limits the potential
for schools in terms of the vision, the how, where and when they
deliver learning and to whom!
This is compounded by teacher's attitudes/knowledge
towards classroom design. An unpublished Design Council/Mori research
survey (2005) makes clear that most teachers do not appear to
recognise the need for change in their classrooms, principally
because most teaching in schools is wedded to a traditional pedagogic
transmission model of learning focussed around a content heavy
national curriculum.
The curriculum in our schools must change and
with it the forms of learning, in order to grasp the opportunities
presented by possible new learning environments. However, if schools
do not understand the need to change their operational approach
towards the curriculum, timetable and communication processes
then we are unlikely to make the most of any transformational
opportunity presented by BSF.
There is a need therefore to address through
CPD teachers understanding of the design process and its applicability
to pedagogy. If this happens then there will be opportunities
for innovative and sustainable change in schools and learning.
If not change is likely to be fragmented and piecemeal.
The Environmental Audit Committee in its 2005
report made clear that it considered that the Government was failing
to get its message across to the general public with regard to
sustainability and that "in far too many schools, ESD is
either not known about or is judged to be low priority".
BSF cannot bring about a significant change to deliver on sustainability
on its own. It needs a co-ordinated approach, which involves LAs,
the DfES, NCSL, schools, school Governors, leadership teams and
members of the local community to deliver effectively on this
agenda.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
The involvement of LAs enables the integration
of BSF into the wider strategic plans for regeneration and reform
in local services. However, this brings its own tensions. The
LA with a strategic overview may run into conflict with the views
of local schools and their communities. If LAs have a strategic
brief they may for example wish to reduce the number of schools
within their area through BSF processes, or re-locate a school.
This may bring them into conflict with communities and existing
schools.
It might, given the opportunities presented
by "Trust" school proposals, create difficulties in
delivery on BSF given that LAs will be investing their own resources
and are unlikely to welcome a transfer of assets to Trusts and
as such may not be keen to invest above the amounts required by
the schools capital programme. This may have implications for
the overall funding available for developmental/preparatory work
with communities for whom BSF proposals are being produced. LAs
are also constrained by the DfES limiting BSF funding for extended
school facilities.
Whilst LAs have a duty to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development the evidence presented
by the review of Statutory Sustainable Development Duties Report
of 2006 is that they struggle to achieve additional responsibilities.
If this is the case then achieving sustainable development through
BSF builds may prove difficult to achieve. It is also true that
the capacity of some LAs to manage significant change may be limited
given their internal re-organisations as a result of the Every
Child Matters agenda.
DELIVERY AND
FUNDING
Procurement
Sustainability has to be at the core of the
purchasing process. Within the context of climate change, carbon
emissions and threats to biodiversity environmental considerations
must also be treated as seriously as financial decisions.
The Environmental Audit Committee made clear
in its 3rd Report of Session 2005-06 that "there is some
urgency for general targets for sustainable procurement to be
agreed with local authorities. Central and local government representatives
should enter into a dialogue to set such targets and to improve
the promotion and dissemination of good practice".
That said, a conflict between the idea of sustainable
procurement and the principles, which underpin the implementation
of Gershon may occur. Best value driven agendas may conflict with
sustainability agendas. The case for sustainable procurement can
be made from the principles of sustainable development alone.
It should not be cost dependent but it is dependent upon effective
data being available. There is still according to the EAC (3rd.report
2005-06) a "clearly undesirable tension between what is seen
as cost effective and what is seen as sustainable procurement,
a tension which needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency"
Until such time as this tension is removed BSF
projects are likely to suffer unduly.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Each of the BSF projects is part of a wider
programme, which has at its core the transformation of our educational
environment. LAs and schools need to be partners in planning for
such transformational change. The involvement of communities in
developing an educational vision for their schools is crucial
to the process of effective change. If the programme is to be
successful local authority advisers must work with the local communities
to establish their vision for their school of the future. Such
a process will require time and facilitation expertise to succeed.
Evidence to date is that the extent to which opportunities for
such work to be undertaken has been variable. It will require
commitment and funding if innovation focussed approaches to design
of buildings is to be followed through with local communities.
CONCLUSIONS
Schools have a significant role in helping secure
the future for our young people. As learning environments they
can assist young people in understanding the impact we have on
our planet and why we need to adopt principles of sustainable
living. The Government would like every school to be a sustainable
school.
Sustainability means finding solutions to improve
of the quality of life of everyone without causing significant
damage to our environment and storing up or transferring problems
to the future. To make progress towards a healthier, more inclusive
and sustainable society we need to embrace sustainable development.
BSF should assist the process of moving towards
a sustainable approach within education. However to do so BSF
schools must embody the principles of sustainable development
in that they should be
(a) models of healthy, local and sustainable
food, prepared on site where possible with a strong commitment
to the environment, social responsibility and animal welfare with
the majority of food procured locally; and
(b) exemplars of energy efficiency a well
as users of renewable energy sources whilst maximising their use
of rain and waste water resources.
(c) The embodiment of sustainable travel
principles with the majority of students walking or cycling to
school and car journeys minimised.
(d) Models of resource efficiency, reducing
the level of their consumption and implementing re-use and recycling
procedures. They should also embody their beliefs by undertaking
sustainable procurement policies and minimising the waste materials,
which leave the school.
(e) Buildings designed and managed in such
a way as to exemplify the principles of sustainable living with
opportunities for students to learn from the buildings and grounds.
(f) Exemplars of corporate citizenship approaches
with positive support for local well being and the environment
through their position as learning hubs within their local environment.
(g) Focussed on the practice of global citizenship.
To achieve sustainable schools will not simply
be a matter of building or refurbishing the nation's school stock,
although such a programme is sorely needed.
Whilst the BSF programme is an ambitious programme
which seeks to achieve widespread transformation in the learning
process through a significant change in the learning environment
there is a danger that it may fall significantly short of it ambitious
targets.
The nature of constant change within our society
creates an immediate problem for the programme in that no one
can be sure what education, as a process will look like in 25
or 50 years' time. Can we realistically design buildings for a
process that is likely to change significantly over the next 25
years? Can we afford to invest in building structures, which may
not be fit for purpose in 25 years' time because the nature of
learning and learning environments has changed significantly,
and have not been adequately designed to meet those changing needs?
BSF may have as its primary task the development
of a cultural change for education in the 21st century. If so,
is the programme best placed to deliver on its outcomes in its
present format?
Well-designed working environments support effective
and successful working practices, but physical innovation will
not alone bring about successful change in our schools. It is
only by adapting to a sustainability focus that impacts the curriculum,
the pedagogic approaches, the systems and the structures of education
that we might see schools becoming models of sustainability principles.
Schools must exemplify sustainable development
principles in the ways in which they operate and must have leadership
teams who understand the need to effect constant change, which
operates within the parameters of sustainability. The leadership
teams of today's schools will require significant CPD in order
for them to envision the framework for sustainable schooling required
by BSF. Their present levels of understanding about sustainability
are significantly low. To enable them to begin to realise the
vision will require urgent and ongoing attention.
The external constraints imposed by guidance
documents which frame the BSF programme may ultimately, reduce
significantly the impact of the programme. Whilst it is welcome
to see LAs involved in the process there are difficulties inherent
in attempting to develop the BSF process in conjunction with Every
Child Matters and the Extended Schools programme. Conflicts are
likely to surface.
The capacity of the construction industry, through
Public Private Partnerships to deliver BSF, whilst exemplifying
sustainability principles through processes such as sustainable
procurement may be at odds with the BSF KPI's and present construction
industry practice.
It is also apparent that investment from LAs
may be further limited given the possible impact of Trust status
school processes, which may develop in the near future. This raises
the possibility of reduced input in developmental stages of programmes
by school leadership teams, teachers, parents and the community.
The quality of design will be crucial to the
success of the BSF programme and this must be evaluated constantly
and whilst BREEAM schools standards of "Very Good" apply
to all projects it is surprising that "Excellent" is
not the required standard for all BSF projects.
Finally it is interesting to note that the exemplar
school designs which are promoted through the PfS web site rarely,
if ever, mention principles of sustainability as a driving force
for this agenda.
June 2006
| 
