Joint memorandum submitted by the Teacher
Support Network and British Council for School Environments (BCSE)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— Teacher Support Network and the British
Council for School Environments believe that there is an urgent
need to improve school facilities. Our joint survey last year
revealed a number of widespread problems in existing school buildings.
— There is a strong link between school
facilities and pupil performance. For example, school facilities,
teacher wellbeing and pupil performance all interrelate.
— In a roundtable meeting with key
stakeholders held last month, a number of key client and supply
side problems were identified that must be addressed if Building
Schools for the Future is to be a success.
— We believe that further reduction
of the sample schemes and more time for the design stage will
help to ensure that architects are not overburdened.
— We also believe that the remaining
stages of the Building Schools for the Future programme will be
a greater success if teachers are given support to free up time
for active involvement in the process, in part by the establishment
of a network of local advisers who can act as a bridge between
schools, architects, building companies, local authorities and
national government.
ABOUT TEACHER
SUPPORT NETWORK
1. Teacher Support Network provide practical,
emotional and financial support to teachers throughout the UK.
Our team of qualified coaches, advisers and counsellors run a
free confidential support service on the phone and online, which
is available to any training, serving or retired teacher at any
time, 365 days of the year. Previously known as the Teachers'
Benevolent Fund, we also provide financial support to teachers
in need. The last decade in our 131 year history has seen our
reach expand five-fold; now serving teachers almost 100,000 times
a year.
2. In addition to these responsive services,
we also carry out a plethora of proactive work to improve the
health and wellbeing of teachers. Analysis of our service usage
gives us a clear indication of the problems that teachers currently
face. We will then run appropriate surveys and campaigns to investigate
a problem further, raise awareness and alleviate problems troubling
teachers. We have also established a sister social enterprise
company—Worklife Support—which runs the National Wellbeing
Programme; designed to improve the wellbeing of the whole school
community.
ABOUT BCSE
3. The British Council for School Environments
is a membership organisation made up of schools, local authorities,
construction companies, architects and all those involved in and
concerned about designing excellent learning environments.
4. 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 other's needs. The members range from global
leaders in construction and design to primary and secondary schools.
THE NEED
FOR BETTER
SCHOOL BUILDINGS
5. There is an urgent need to improve school
facilities in the interests of pupils, school staff and the wider
school community. In a joint survey on school environments that
we conducted last year, just 12% of the teachers who responded
said that their school building provided an effective learning
environment. Out of the 530 respondents, 87% believed that school
environments influence pupil behaviour and 60% also said that
their school didn't have an adjustable environment to support
curriculum delivery. Common causes of complaint were poor temperature
control, inadequate facilities for PPA, and outdated layout and
equipment. Our full report on the survey is enclosed for your
information.
6. The survey results clearly show a strong
link—directly and indirectly via teachers—between
school facilities and pupil performance. Firstly, poor facilities
such as inadequate temperature control make it harder for pupils
to concentrate and learn; damaging pupil performance directly.
Secondly, poor facilities are also restricting teachers. Restricted
teaching means that pupils get a poorer education; leading to
poorer pupil performance.
7. We are also sure that these effects are
impacting on teacher wellbeing. For example, we believe that poor
acoustics make it difficult for teachers to communicate with their
pupils; hindering their efforts to teach and harming their confidence
in their own ability. This would be another worrying impact of
bad school buildings. Research conducted last year by Birkbeck
College and Worklife Support provided clear evidence of the link
between teacher wellbeing and pupil performance. A report on this
research is also enclosed for your information.[12]
8. All of these findings suggest that the
majority of school facilities need to be improved urgently. In
this respect, we welcome the Government's efforts to speed up
the Building Schools for the Future programme. However, we also
have a number of concerns about the programme, both from the client
and supply sides.
9. These concerns were discussed at a roundtable
meeting on Building Schools for the Future, which Teacher Support
Network and BCSE hosted in June 2008. Key stakeholders, including
teaching unions, architects, and the DCSF, were all in attendance.
The attendees identified a number of problems with the Building
Schools for the Future programme that need to be addressed if
the planned acceleration and streamlining is to be a success.
PROBLEMS ON
THE SUPPLY
SIDE; ARCHITECTS
AND SOURCES
OF FINANCIAL
OR COMMUNITY
SUPPORT
10. Architects involved in Building Schools
for the Future said that the demands during the procurement process
were too great. One said that they felt "bruised by the process";
saying that at one point, they even had to design seven schools
in just 14 weeks.
11. As a result, they said that this time
pressure was having a negative impact on the quality of school
designs. They wanted to take time to explain all the possibilities
of new buildings to teachers, but felt rushed into producing quicker,
less ambitious designs.
12. Architects also felt that their designs
lacked input from teachers and the wider school community. In
their experience, better engagement in the design process would
lead to better buildings, but teachers generally had little time
to develop and share their design ideas. In consultation, teachers
often seemed to think about how to improve their existing building,
rather than develop a vision of their ideal school building. One
contributor said: "unless you get quality engagement, you'll
never get a quality end product."
13. Architects also added that the aims
of the Building Schools for the Future programme were potentially
unrealistic, given the information and funds available. They felt
that they were expected to design school buildings that could
successfully support learning for the next 25 years, but the information
needed to do this was not (and could not realistically be) available.
They pointed out that it was impossible to guarantee that a new
building would accommodate the many possible demographic and technological
changes in such a long period. Likewise, one contributor said
that it was not possible to design a climate control system to
fully accommodate possible climate change within current budgets.
14. Finally, a public body representative
from the creative industries added that many schools in the Building
Schools for the Future programme were failing to use other available
resources to make their new building as beneficial as possible
to their communities. The body had tried to establish stakeholder
groups for school communities, but teachers did not have time
to attend. As a result, schools missed out on opportunities for
extra funding and their building plans were not co-ordinated with
other work in the area; harming the school and the community as
a whole.
PROBLEMS ON
THE CLIENT
SIDE; TEACHERS,
PUPILS AND
THE OVERALL
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
15. The roundtable forum showed that teachers
have too little time and resources to input effectively into the
Building Schools for the Future procurement process. Representatives
from trade unions and other teaching organisations said that the
everyday pressures on teachers are great, and that teachers do
not receive the extra support necessary to cater for the demands
of creating and moving to a new building. Reflecting the earlier
point, architects commented that Headteachers were clearly very
busy and did not seem to be able to devote the necessary time
to the design process. Lack of engagement or enthusiasm by Headteachers
would inevitably influence the quality of, and opportunities for
contributions by other teachers and the rest of the school community.
All of this helped to explain why contributions from teachers
could be narrow and lacking in vision. Likewise, time pressure
helped to explain why teachers had not extended consultation to
the local community and capitalised on public body and other local
initiatives.
16. Architects also said that it was understandable
that teachers were not offering a design vision for the school,
because they had very little or no experience of similar projects.
The experiences of other teachers involved in the programme were
not being disseminated, meaning that the new buildings were not
reaping any best practice benefits.
17. Mirroring their own complaint about
the expectations of the Building Schools for the Future programme,
architects added that teachers were under unfair pressure to make
long-term decisions without long-term information. Even short-term
demographic and technological forecasts (eg plans to make new
kinds of ICT equipment available to schools) were not available
for consideration. We would imagine that it is even harder to
make such forecasts in a period of such change for schools, which
will include the raising of the participation age for education
and training to 18 and the introduction of 14-19 Diplomas.
18. s a result of the three above client-side
pressures, architects said that new school buildings were at risk
of lacking a sense of ownership and pride. They argued that, without
true involvement in the design process by teachers, pupils and
the neighbouring community, people would not feel attached to
a building that should be a source of pride in any area. They
also observed that teachers were invariably asking for "flexibility"
as a result of the above-mentioned time and information constraints,
meaning that the end product would lack personalisation, identity
and purpose.
19. Finally, attendees said that there was
a danger that, as a result of the above client-side factors, schools
in need of new buildings may choose not to apply to be a sample
scheme on the Building Schools for the Future programme. They
could feel that the programme would be too much of a burden to
the school in the short term, or they may simply not have time
to put their case forward for funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
20. The aforementioned problems with the
Building Schools for the Future programme must be addressed if
the planned acceleration and streamlining is to be a success.
We would like to see far greater interaction between architects
and teachers throughout the process, from project scoping to the
official school opening.
21. Steps must be taken to ensure that architects
are not overburdened. The procurement process must give greater
consideration to the aggregate workload and costs of bidders and
be wary of the negative impact that this can have on the end product.
Further reduction of the sample schemes and more time for the
design stage are two options to consider.
22. It is clear that teachers are lacking
the time and information necessary to make the most of the opportunity
provided by the Building Schools for the Future programme. It
is right that teachers are involved in the process, but they must
be given the resources needed to make the best contribution possible.
There should be a network of local advisers, similar to and working
with the Extended schools support service, who can act as a bridge
between schools, architects, building companies, local authorities
and national government. Teachers should also be given support
to free up time for active involvement in the process. These recommendations
could play a key role in ensuring that the remaining stages of
the Building Schools for the Future programme are a success.
July 2008
12 Not printed. Back
| 
