The groundbreaking schools design initiative
Home > Sharing Good Practice > Conferences and Seminars
The Future Schools Think Tank is a collaboration between School Works and BBC 21cc, and brings together key thinkers in education, architecture and the built environment to consider how best to use capital resources to deliver effective learning environments for the future. Each of the termly forums focus on a key theme, providing an opportunity to debate the issues in detail. The outcomes and action points will be made widely available to policy makers and key stakeholders.
The series is hosted by 21CC, a BBC learning centre dedicated to exploring cutting edge developments in ICT and future visions of teaching and learning. Alongside a structured learning programme currently focussed on working with schools and young people, it forms an arena for experimental thinking, current debate and exchange to take place in think-tanks with invited participants.
The sessions are chaired by Sharon Wright, Managing Director of School Works.
Please email us if you would like more information about the Future School Think Tank series.
7th June 2004
The Future Schools Think Tank met with Professor Tim Brighouse, the Commissioner for London Schools in December 2003. We invited Richard Feilden, founding partner of Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects, to respond to some of these issues and add his own perspective. Richard that further debate was needed on what makes a good school in terms of it being :
He felt there was a need for a more effective interface between design and pedagogy. He asked 'How might we do better?' He felt that there was a need for:
Richard felt that the adaptability of school buildings was a central issue for getting schools right in the future. In summing up he made a number of key points including :
To create 21st Century schools and learning environments there needed to be:
We also need to :
In the debate which followed , it was agreed that informed clients could drive design, but that there needed to be greater clarity about who the client was.
It was also felt that there was a need for objective evidence and facts about the effects of school design on different age groups.
It was recognised that if there were a number of stakeholders in a client group it could be a challenge for them to act cohesively. It was felt that there was a need for another agent to act as liaison with the client group. The point was made that these client ‘friends’ could take the form of a network of pioneers to validate risk takers and empower change makers. It was suggested that clients should receive ring fenced funding at the start of a project to be used for research, paying client friends and innovation.
Overall, there was a perceived need for:
We were delighted that Professor Tim Brighouse was able to join us to share his priorities for transforming London schools.
The following ideas were raised at the seminar, or address the concerns participants expressed. They included:
It was felt that the exemplar designs would set a standard for school design and the government was clearly right not to present them as a set of blueprints. It was hoped that they would increase capacity in the design sector, allowing new, young practices to quickly pick up a body of knowledge about good school design in order to contribute to the programme. This was something which had been discussed at the previous Think Tank meeting and was an area of concern.
There was a plea to get rid of jargon and improve communications. The Design Quality Indicators were seen as one possible vehicle for raising awareness of good design and could be made age and schools specific, and written in accessible language.
There was also an acknowledgement of the need for good briefing at the start of the design process, clearly articulating the client’s needs and providing a strong basis on which to develop new designs, or tailor the exemplar designs.
It was suggested that a school should be seen as part of the wider social environment. Participatory processes and user involvement were good ways to ensure a broad perspective, and often acted as an 'arrogance killer' for the experts! It was agreed that participation should be ongoing through the life of the school, not just at the early design phase. It was also felt that there was real potential for information systems and new technology to play a part in ensuring ongoing participation.
It was felt that there needed to be an increase in the capacity of head teachers and educationalists to be good clients. This might include sharing knowledge from teachers who had experience of school building design projects. It was felt that LEAs needed to take the lead in pushing the boundaries and being proactive, in this area.
Strategic activities aimed at creating a London wide approach to building LEA and school capacity to engage with issues around good school building design. This includes the role of the new Commissioner for London Schools and Lead Members for Education in developing a strong vision for the capital. This would include consideration of new models and approaches such as 'federations' of LEAs, and creating spaces for schools and LEAs to develop innovative solutions and put them into practice through more use of pathfinder projects.
Supporting schools as they seek to map their communities and engage them in decision making processes, and encouraging schools to embrace their potential as community leaders.
Breaking out of the 'tried and tested' by using architectural competitions that bring forward the brightest and best creative ideas. Recognising that inexperienced architects may need support, and establishing systems which allow them to implement their ideas with technical back-up.
Finding systematic ways of capturing, disseminating, embedding and evaluating knowledge about what makes a good learning environment. This would include exploiting new technology to create learning communities.