Professor Stephen Heppell – Reply to Richie Wells - 28/11/06
Richie
Thanks for your note - life is busy, as you might imagine and you catch me between a flight from
Manchester and one to the Caribbean. As it happens, in both cases the design of schools is the focus
although as you will have seen from my website this is part of what I do.
I certainly recognise the comment "Quite simply, we put children's education at risk if we fail to move
forward", or something like it. But of course that needs to be in some context. I'll try, between seatbelt
lights, lifejacket drills and dodgy dinners to set that context. Let me just add that it is, obviously, more
complex than this and if it helped to chat on the phone. I'll be home again next Wednesday in a week or so
and Lys (above) would know what times might be available and on what number.
Just in passing, I'm not so sure about being a "Guru" - it sounds alarmingly like something from the
Beatles' White Album era... I am rather boringly kaftan free. Conscious that your website says "We have
made every document available in the process for you to read and study and will regularly update the site
with the latest progress and news headlines, as they become available." I'm assuming that this reply will
be in the public domain. I'm happy with that.
So: firstly there is no perfect school, no replicable blueprint. Contexts and cultures vary, so do staff,
children, parents, histories, hopes, dreams and ambitions. I'm chair of trustees of a school with four
children (and passionately defend small schools) - it works fine; I'm working in a primary school (in
Singapore) of 3,500. It also works fine. I'm chair of trustees for a virtual school for 1,000 children
excluded from school (the extraordinarily successful Notschool.net) and it works fine too, with no
buildings at all.
So, what do we know? We know that a number of new learning trends are transforming learning
worldwide. We are moving (thankfully) from "one size fits all" to personalisation, from uniformity
towards creativity (ingenuity even), from rigid time allocation to a more flexible approach, from discrete
disciplines (Physics.. ) to more project based work.. and so on. If this sounds like the primary curriculum
is taking over the world, well... there is a some truth in this (although look maybe at how the Tasmanians
are interpreting it to see how good it might be...).
Now, a generous and kind government has provided a LOT of funding to rebuild most secondary schools
and to refurb or rebuild many primary schools. This is some £1,000 per head per year of capital spending
and obviously a once and for all opportunity to "get it right". We are very lucky and the problem you face
is one that 2/3 of the world would wish they had too. Revamping can work and be very effective. As a
trustee of new TV channel Teachers' TV I helped with the first of what became a very effective series of
classroom and school "makeovers" - have a look at them: http://www.teachers.tv/search/node/all+change
But an entirely new school offers some extraordinary opportunities too. All around the world schools and
communities are exploring what 21st centry schools might look like and some of what they are producing
is quite, quite remarkable. Some new schools however are ghastly and I'm on record as suggesting that
about half of what is currently being built will be demolished withing a decade, they are so bad. But a
properly purpose built new school can be a wonderful thing - transforming children's opportunity like
nothing else can.
I've attached a couple of images to give you some idea of the possibilities, one from Thailand, one from
Richmond (of course they look interesting, but there is a heap of research behind how they look and why
they work so well):
This then is your dilemma: refurbing the old school prevents some new learning opportunities - the
corridors, limited sizes of the rooms, etc etc. stop you doing some things that you will want to do.
Building a new school is such a wonderful opportunity, but building a bad new school will be worse than
what you have. I just visited one in Philadelphia that would have made you cry - it was just like the
previous school, but cheaper built and with nice windows. Teaching in it would have been EXACTLY
like teaching in the old school - so what was the point?
In the most exciting new primary schools children's performances are stellar - they learn earlier, enjoy it
more, have remarkable new experiences (for example in performance based science teaching). Getting the
new school right is about process, design and pedagogy. Looking at the images of your school - which is
obviously a delightful building with a committed staff, another thought strikes me: a school ISN'T the
building, it is the community of people in it and that sense of community is absolutely key to the success
of a school. Some new schools omit or lose that sense of belonging and perform worse than the previous
building. I imagine that your glorious looking, imposing, school premises contribute greatly to that sense
of belonging, hence the horror at the prospect of losing it. BUT I really can reassure you that a new school
could be better yet, IF you and the students, parents, community and others are involved in specifying
what meets your needs for future learning.
Unfortunately learning, technology, pedagogy and much else moves on rapidly - 18 months ago YouTube
didn't exist, now it has 200 million viewers a day and enormous numbers of children now use it as a place
to celebrate their achievements. That is hard to anticipate, so understanding where future learning is going
can be a bit of a quicksand if you really did want to move to honour the tradition, values, identity and
history of your school with a serious look at how good a new building might be, then I can help. Similarly
if you really wanted to hugely re-develop your old school - but be warned, that will be a very expensive
option and from the children's point of view, a compromise, albeit initially a successful one - it is only as
time passes that you will regret the decision...
To take on practical example: old schools were often built with industrial scale toilets. These toilets are
not pleasant places for children - bullying, smell.. Goodness knows what else, put them off and for many
children (surveys have put it as high as 75%) the aim is to get through the day without going into the
toilets. As a result they drink little and are dehydrated in the afternoon - and then can't concentrate and feel
tired. You will have seen many children in your school like this. We know that putting many small toilets,
like the ones you have at home, at the back of each teaching space (I won't say classroom because things
are more open plan these days, for many good reasons) and making them unisex (again, like the ones you
have at home) really works - they stay clean, they have no bullying, they are not intimidating and children
drink more.. then perform better and go home happier. Knocking down your existing toilets and adding
lots of little ones is VERY expensive (you can imagine, just the drains alone...). You COULD do it, but it
is cheaper to start again... and there are a thousand things like that.
Here's a class's toilet in the Caribbean - where I am on my way to now:
Anyway.. enough typing (!).
I hope this helps - not, for sure, all that you want to hear but sound advice. The thing is, as for certain you
know already, you only get one chance at being a kid and they deserve that chance to be the very best that
we can give them...
If I can help further, call.
Stephen
PS No doubt there are a million typos above - please forgive them - I don't have time to proof read, but I
imagine you'd sooner have draft now than final later!
Professor Stephen Heppell's personal email
from: The Anchorage George Avenue
Brightlingsea, Essex. CO7 0NE
stephen@heppell.net
http://www.heppell.net