Memorandum submitted by The British Council
for School Environments (BCSE)
1. The British Council for School Environments
is a membership organisation and charity made up of schools, local
authorities, construction companies, architects and all those
involved in and concerned about designing excellent learning environments.
This new organisation is a forum for the exchange
of good practice, research, dialogue and advocacy, supporting
organisations from across the private and public sectors to understand
each others needs. The members range from global leaders in construction,
engineering and design to primary and secondary schools.
1.1 The organisation has most recently:
— Hosted study tours to schools in
Denmark, Sweden, Stoke, Kent, Leeds and Hampshire.
— Delivered Training courses.
— Hosted expert groups on acoustics/ventilation
and sustainability.
— Published materials on teaching and
learning and extended schools, sustainability and learning technologies.
— Given written and oral evidence to
the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee on "Building
Schools for the Future and sustainable schools".
— Launched BCSE Industry awards.
— Hosted National School Environments
Week 2007 and 2008.
2. SUMMARY
2.1 The BCSE and its members continue to
celebrate investment in our schools' infrastructure.
2.2 We continue to welcome time spent on
looking at the procurement process and key issues as a meaningful
way of ensuring that this money is spent wisely. We are also heartened
that Partnerships for Schools is working with organisations like
the BCSE to hear experience from the frontline.
2.3 Although the targets for Building Schools
for the Future (BSF) procured schools have been re-drawn; we are
able to see BSF-funded schools in many parts of the country. It
is important to note that BSF one school pathfinder projects are
able to be designed and built avoiding much of the formal BSF
procurement process itself.
2.4 Many private and public sector partners
have now been part of the BSF procurement process and are able
to share experiences.
2.5 Comments continue to focus on the procurement
process of BSF—the "how", whilst the challenges
of the "what"—transformed schools, are a priority
for others. There is widespread agreement that suggestions made
to change the procurement process are a step in the right direction.
Yet, much work still remains to create a process that truly plays
to the strengths of all those involved and does not become merely
an end in itself.
2.6 We demand innovation and transformation
of our schools as a society without releasing the resources to
ensure proper change management within our schools and communities.
2.7 The involvement of teachers and young
people often remains a worthy aspiration that is not under-written
or made explicit in the procurement process. The meaningful involvement
of users remains patchy and could benefit from clear guidelines.
The Design Quality Indicators are not in themselves a participation
strategy.
2.8 A better informed client and the real
ownership of educational transformation by teachers and learners
will ensure value for money and the time for proper connections
to be made with a wider sustainability agenda, children's services
agenda or a community regeneration strategy.
2.9 It is of profound and worrying significance
that there is no Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) tied to this
investment. We need to be able to give proper user feedback and
energy data to those designing, building, engineering and supplying
our schools.
2.10 Post Occupancy Evaluation also acts
to enshrine the positive aspects of this spending within public
policy and Government more widely.
2.11 The BCSE acknowledges the crucial nature
of this investment, the vital importance of how it is spent and
the ability of all those involved to learn on a national level.
2.12 The BCSE would like to see further
national "test-bed" pathfinder sites in BSF to include
such issues as the carbon neutral school, alternative procurement
methods and the Future School—exploring new ways of teaching
and learning.
2.13 Great schools do not happen by accident.
3.0 The procurement process—We welcome
the changes that have already taken place in the BSF process but
there still remain concern over the costs, timescales and the
lack of involvement of teachers and learners. Often discussion
about transformation in education is driven by the procurement
process itself rather than what it is you're trying to procure.
3.1 Members of the BCSE continue to raise
a number of questions:
| (i) | Does the present process help or hinder the transformation we want?
|
(ii) | Is the present process a creative straitjacket that can only ever produce new "old" schools and is it more "nanny procurement" which lowers confidence and plays to a risk averse mindset?
|
(iii) | Is the present BSF procurement process really the best or only way to help Local Authorities find a partnership that will endure?
|
(iv) | Does the process allow enough meaningful time between designer and client?
|
(v) | Does it really help integrate those other agendas of extended schools or Every Child Matters?
|
(vi) | Key reviews of UK construction from Latham to Egan to "Modernising Construction" shared key approaches and benchmarks of good practice in procurement and partnering.
|
(vii) | Does the present BSF procurement process play to the real strengths of our design and construction industries?
|
(viii) | Does the success of the BSF-funded one school pathfinders indicate a new way forward in procuring BSF?
|
| |
"...goes well when the school leaders are allowed to
be active partners so that they can learn about design and simple
things like the importance of colour and fixtures and the balance
between function and form."
"How can we help schools to articulate their educational
vision and truly understand what potential design had to deliver
that vision when they have such limited time and resource to explore
and research."
"Architects have the skills and desires to deliver against
the transformational agenda being sought. However 12-17 weeks
in a competitive bidding process stifles this ambition."
"Not enough time to engage and truly understand (client)
requirements."
"This competition doesn't save money; it costs loads
and stifles proper engagement."
"Why is the bidding process so expensive and long?"
Participants at Building Better School Summit, London, June
2008
4.0 Design quality—We welcome the positive signs
of several initiatives to raise design quality. We are concerned
that there does not seem to be clear ownership of the delivery
of educational transformation.
4.1 We need to look again at the mandatory Design Quality
Indicator (DQI). Is it focused enough on teaching and learning
spaces? Is it easily understood in its present form?
4.2 We need to ensure the on-going integrity of effective
design in our schools. Consideration should be given to ensuring
that design quality and how it relates to creating teaching and
learning spaces is given adequate weighting in BSF bids.
4.3 This investment is about transforming educational
experiences through quality build and design. The Government should
publish a teaching and learning principles "kit of parts"—as
we have seen in the State of Victoria, Australia.
4.4 Good design must serve the needs of our teachers
and learners.
"Teachers need more help in delivering education transformation—a
new school won't do it on its own. Proper funding for change management
is needed."
"Design is not given enough weighting in the BSF marking
process."
"It is not as simple as flicking the switch for change!"
"How can authority and school visions be mapped on to
the dqi process?"
Participants at Building Better Schools Summit, London, June
2008
5.0 Building Bulletins—We need a new design guide
for our schools—freed of contradictions and including up
to the minute advice on community use for instance. Bolting on
agenda after agenda is not the way to build coherence.
5.1 Government advice needs to be clear and relevant
to modern needs. There is real confusion in the school community
about the Building Bulletins which on the one hand encourage creative
thinking and on the other are seen to set prescriptive ways of
thinking.
5.2 Do these guidance bulletins in their present form
hinder or help work on the ground?
6.0 Participation of Teachers and Learners—There
is a lack of explicit time in the process for proper meaningful
stakeholder engagement. We have a patchwork of approaches without
an imaginative minimum threshold. The National Audit Office highlights
the benefits for business of meeting user needs.
6.1 Building participation of pupils, staff and communities
into the heart of the build and design process will help ensure
fit for purpose schools and that transformation is shared.
6.2 Proper meaningful stakeholder engagement makes sense
for business and for education. We need a mechanism for the participation
of teachers and learners that feeds aspirations.
6.3 Young people need a sense of ownership over their
lives and communities.
6.4 We need to prevent schools having to talk to multiple
bid teams.
6.5 Minimum standards of participation could be a useful
guide to clients and suppliers.
7.0 POST OCCUPANCY
EVALUATION
7.1 There is no schools post occupancy evaluation to
clarify what we are doing right or wrong in this massive investment.
We have a weak "learning loop" within this investment
which precludes us from knowing what works and what doesn't.
7.2 We need to introduce post occupancy evaluation across
all schools investment.
"Who in Government is collecting the research on what
is working on completed projects."
"We need to learn more from early projects—what
mistakes must we ensure are not repeated?
"Do we know what really improves learning? Are we using
this to inform building design?"
"We need proper customer feedback."
"What about some Post Occupancy Evaluation available
for all."
Participants at Building Better Schools Summit, London, June
2008
July 2008
| 
