The government plans to introduce blueprints for a new generation of schools that will be smaller in size than the ones constructed during Labour’s spending boom. The scaled-down buildings will feature smaller corridors, assembly halls, canteens and atriums, and will reduce costs for a five-year programme to replace the country’s most rundown primary and secondary schools. The initiative will cost £2.5bn and set the standard for 261 school buildings. This comes as a replacement for the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme introduced by the previous government, costing £55bn, which was eventually cancelled in 2010 due to increasing costs and delays.
The new programme, with expected costs per school at £7m less than the BSF programme, has been well-received among cost-cutting advocates but criticised by teachers and architects. Teachers and architects fear that the reduced corridor space could lead to discipline issues, bullying and congestion, and smaller assembly halls could affect the value for money of school buildings for use outside of school hours. The new plans demonstrate a pared-down construction methodology, eliminating costly, unnecessary features which were previously architect-driven.
Despite some objections, a Galliford Try design is looking to introduce a brand new way of building schools, with 80% of each school built identically with the same kit of parts, most notably smaller circulation areas.
The Royal Institute of British Architects issued a warning that the government’s recent policy on school building could compromise their initiative to encourage community events in school premises after hours, thus defeating their efforts to maximise the use of new buildings. To prepare for the Priority School Building Programme’s replacement, construction company Wates registered four templates for new or transformed schools, which can be implemented worldwide. At £1,450 per square metre, Wates’s blueprints cost less in comparison to the £2,200 to £2,900 charged under the Building Schools for the Future programme. The schools will share 80% of the same components, whilst the remaining 20% will be designed for individual schools. Wates admits that their designs would not qualify for the Stirling Prize, but would provide quality buildings geared for the needs of 21st-century curriculums.
The latest policy on school buildings dismisses the argument presented to justify payment of millions of pounds of fees to award-winning architects that good design could boost students’ attainment. David Lauener explained that a school must be a safe and welcoming haven where teaching can bring students’ inspirations to life, but it is the teachers, and not just the buildings, that can inspire great learning. Liam Nolan, head of Perry Beeches in Birmingham, acknowledged that a school building was not what made a successful school. Although the £20m Perry Beeches school building was barely seven years old, the school was one of the worst-performing schools in the UK when Nolan visited in 2007. Conversely, Bohunt school’s assistant headteacher, Philip Avery, suggested that the design of a school could not be separated from how students are taught. He expressed concern about the “kit approach” to the new policy that felt like schools would now swing from flashy designs to an Ikea or Tesco-style. Finally, architect Peter Clegg, who is completing five of the last BSF schools, posited that standardisation of buildings was difficult because of extensions or transformations. Therefore, he urged architects to analyse existing buildings and decide where to spend a limited amount of money.
