Tomorrow’s schools more than just learning spaces
13th May, 2008Few would claim that there’s any lack of ambition behind the Building Schools for the Future project — and while some would claim policy delivery hasn’t always matched the aspirations, our school system is going to see a massive infrastructure investment. And it’s unlikely to happen again for quite some time.
At NCSL, as well as supporting leaders through this and similar initiatives, we’re also looking beyond current delivery programmes (and current money) at the themes that are emerging. One of the key themes is the ongoing focus on Every Child Matters and Children, rather than system, centred services. In our view this means that tomorrow’s schools will be more than learning spaces — they will definitely be centres of Children’s Services but may also be centres of Community Services, local democracy and decision making.
After health, social services and all-through schools are embedded, will come more adult and continuous learning; perhaps spaces for small businesses to use to train their staff as part of a commitment to lifelong learning and an increased Learning Leaving age; then further on the school may end up the next-generation ‘village hall’ - a communal space for local democracy, building social capital and a focus for peoples lives, not just the much-derided (and unfairly labelled) ‘exam factories’ for our young people.
So what would that mean for the infrastructure? Learning may be moving out of school buildings and beyond the concept of dedicated space; and other users could be coming in to take up the capacity more than they do now.
What does this mean to the school leader? Do you need a teacher to lead and facilitate use of community space?
How does the ’system’ cope with more and more demands on the same resources? Clearly we will need smarter buildings, but how does that translate into metres-squared and effective management contracts?
Futurelab is always looking for ideas. Find out how you can 
Bob Harrison
Dan Sutch
Richard Sandford
Leon Cych
Martin Owen
Tim Reader
May 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Thanks Simon, Just to reinforce your point;
” While this study has looked closely at the impact of ICT on how pupils learn and how this might be enhanced….it has not addressed the impact of what they learn or where learning takes place and whether the schools of the future will be the physical entities we have today” The Impact of ICT in schools-a landscape review-Becta 2007
Which I use as a footer on my email. However, from my experience, the time frame and complexity of the ppp’s behind bsf make consideration of the long term issue very difficult.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Interesting post Simon. I certainly like the much more open and porous view on what learning spaces may be, how they operate and who might be included. One thing I would like to raise is the notion of social capital you refer to. Whilst inprinciple, I agre that learning spaces could be a great place to develop this, I think we must be cautious about how we mobilise such a concept to avoid the mistakes of the past. Basically, most of the social capital literature in the policy field is based on the works of both Coleman and Putnam, largely. Without wanting to get into critical theoretical analysis of their application of the concept, sometimes they do not adequately account for difference, particularly when translated into policy. In other words, we end up with a list of attributes or aspects that are seen to equate to ’social capital’ and then plans are put in place to help people develop this. However, this is often based on an ‘ideal type’ interpretation and if we truly want to include people, we must enable people themselves to identify the skills and abilities and networks they desire to improve their lives. Policy obviously has an agenda and so will try and deliver the things that will help the most people. Whils this is with good intention it sometimes means that we institutionally exclude those people who do not have mainstream views and interests. Bourdieu’s working concept of social capital is not only more theoretically powerful but when translated into practical action can highlight the need to account for and value difference. In its more theoretically informed translation, personalisation should account for such diffence too.
Learning spaces, their conception and needs therefore, must account for the needs, interests and desires of all stakeholders and they need to be active in making or influencing the big decisions too. Sadly, this is not very often the case with the BSF programme, hence we will continue to get vested interests delivering learning spaces in the image of their current needs and not more radical and empowering visionis of learning spaces of the future.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I agree with you Tim - its very easy for anything created by pragmatic modern policy makers in any context (buildings/social capital/communities) to concentrate on what they feel can be credibly delivererd. This will almost certainly be more solidly rooted in practical reality and (dare we say) measurable targets; rather than the more open-ended and empowering ideas you’re hinting at.
But it’s a balance - as I hinted at in my post. Is “Spending that is perhaps less effective than it perhaps could be” better than “Not spending today as we will have a better idea tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that”?
It’s never quite that simple (obviously!) but I think there is sometimes a real risk that all of us that want the best possible results get seduced into hanging on and missing opportunity.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Hi Folks,
I have to say that the view of parents remains quite static regarding what constitutes a school.
If we look at the schools parents choose, they have shown remarkable resilience in keeping the one headteacher, classteacher, church ethos and closed classrooms their schools of choice.
Before we head off into dreams of an ICT wonderland, should we not consider how such new buildings support new model of learning that raises the aspirations and ’standards’ of our most deprived and needy children?
If not, I suspect it will be those that can afford and do believe that manage to obtain such dreams and a divided, segregated education system will be the result.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi Peter,
I’m very keen not to get obsessed by some kind of the ‘technotopia’ where the IWB replaces good teaching. The background to my original piece is in some of the current political direction coupled with some of the realities that are challenging the effectiveness of the one-school/one-headteacher/independence & autonomy models.
I would make the case that a raft of current education issues require collaboration, partnership working and so on. Maybe there’s a message here that the ‘justification’ for alternatives needs to expressed more clearly to parents (and possibly staff)?
But an interesting point!