Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Show parents the quality of schools they should demand

Paul Finch

School design cannot avoid being a political issue, says Paul Finch

You don’t hear much from Michael Gove these days on the subject of school design. Perhaps his former views have been modified by the experience of his own children going to school: readers may remember his claim that it would be perfectly acceptable to turn redundant supermarkets into places of learning, but neither he nor his family have been to a school of any such nature.

Why he thought it was appropriate for other families is mysterious, especially given the preponderance of privately educated ministers around the Cabinet table. Perhaps the idea that it might look hypocritical finally entered his head.

Aj new schools cabe

Aj new schools cabe

Source: Hellman

Cartoon by Hellman from July 2010, when Michael Gove was Secretary of State for Education

Nor has Mr Gove repeated his claim that architects have been ‘creaming off’ money from PFI projects, possibly because it has become apparent that the incompetent organisations that really have benefited are now seeing chickens coming home to roost. In fact the sky is darkened by them. Carillion couldn’t fulfil its PFI contractual obligations, while the joke that used to be known as Group 4 Security, now the whizzier G4S, has proved itself utterly incompetent at running jails.

Leaving aside the sorry story of how the Treasury botched PFI contracts, the question remains as to the relationship between the provision of buildings as a form of infrastructure (housing, schools, hospitals), the design of those buildings, and the anticipated outcome of what has been created. Can it be true that, for example, educational outcomes have absolutely nothing to do with the built (and landscape) environments of schools?

The Govian proposition – that well-designed schools would mean nothing if the teachers were no good – is difficult to argue with. Moreover, the reverse argument, that good teachers will be able to achieve good results even in poor buildings, can be justified on the basis of history and, to an extent, logic. However, this sort of binary analysis ignores the realities of everyday school life – retention rates among teachers in appalling environments, for example. If you are good, why would you prefer to teach in a dump as opposed to a well-designed new (or extended) environment?

In other words, the argument of architectural determinists, who make exaggerated claims for the direct effect of environments on behaviour, are not to be dismissed by an equally false proposition that environment has nothing at all to do with outcomes. Indeed there is plenty of evidence from the USA, where standard assessment tests make comparisons between schools across the country easier than here, that where you are comparing like with like in terms of socio-economic background of pupils and qualifications of teachers, better architecture makes an identifiable difference to academic success.

People who resist the idea of ‘evidence-based design’ never want to discuss the merits of designing based on non-evidence, or indeed to discuss the outcomes of poor design. They simply dispute the idea that architecture and design can make a difference. But when you look at where they live, and in what, and where they send their children to school, you find a different story. Who wants to live, or learn, in a dump?

Yet at worst, that is what they condemn others to do. The current government has no apparent interest in architecture, nor its benefits, so it is up to the profession itself to take the argument to the public. It is time for the best British school architecture to be exhibited and celebrated at the RIBA and in venues across the land, allowing local authorities to show off (or be shamed by) what they have commissioned for their communities.

It is time to show all parents what they should demand for their children – and for those who teach them.





Readers' comments (2)

  • Paul makes some excellent points. Everyone benefits from good design and we have a collective responsibility to ensure that the constructed environment for our children and their teachers is of the highest possible standard. I don't think this is determinism or any profound pedagogical position - just common sense and common decency. Well designed and constructed schools make for better teaching conditions and happier teachers and children.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolutely. I can't help noticing that people who demand objective 'proof' in relation to this subject always seem to have been to rather agreeable schools themselves . . .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.