Abstract
School design in any epoch reflects the collective values and attitudes of the time, and the political currents which shape perspectives. In this paper, we consider the risks associated with an English school’s rebuilding under the Priority School Building Programme, a standardised approach to school design, tending to result in ‘traditional’ instead of ‘innovative’ designs. At a micro scale, risk is affective, influencing educators’ ontological security. We also consider the macro-level risk of shaping citizens through education policy reflecting particular values. This case study, in a UK secondary school, explores theoretical frameworks that can be used to investigate risks involved in rebuilding projects. It is well established that misalignment between structural resources, approaches to pedagogy and social relations presents a significant risk for school redesign. Although the case study project was a relatively smooth transition at the local level, with alignment between set, epistemic and social design, we argue that there can be a philosophical risk associated with conservatism in schooling design and a focus on performativity and conformity. Giving consideration to policy-led schooling decisions, we argue for the importance of alignment between design elements in the context of wider consideration around the purposes of education.
Highlights
Change and innovation in education require practitioners to reimagine the status quo and envisage news ways of working that are potentially ‘problematic, disruptive and challenging’ (Morrison and Kedian, 2017: 1) and are necessarily risky
In this article we address a central question: what are the respective risks of standardised, traditional school designs and tailored, innovative learning environments intended to fit a school’s educational aspirations? As the risks of innovation in school design become more evident (French et al, 2020), it is important to consider in detail the evident alternative of reverting to standard, traditional school space
Morrison and Kedian (2017: 2), writing in an Aotearoa/New Zealand context where there is more similarity to the UK Building Schools for the Future (BSF) policy, make the observation that non-traditional learning environments ‘represent a substantial philosophical shift away from a system that prioritises the preparation of individuals for the marketplace towards a more inclusive notion of preparation for life’
Summary
Change and innovation in education require practitioners to reimagine the status quo and envisage news ways of working that are potentially ‘problematic, disruptive and challenging’ (Morrison and Kedian, 2017: 1) and are necessarily risky. School building initiatives that are implemented to mitigate some risks can accentuate others, perhaps undermining, or even jeopardizing, conceptions of education that align with 21st-century learning discourse (Leat et al, 2012). This future-focused conception of education highlights the value of preparing students for success in the globalised, 21st-century knowledge economy. The design and development of innovative and open new school buildings and refurbishments of existing facilities have been linked with associated pedagogical practices that aspire to prepare students for citizenship and employment in the 21st-century global economy (Benade, 2019). Building design in Europe follows these national imperatives, with these open and flexible designs much more prevalent and currently preferred in some countries, such as the Nordic countries (see e.g. Grannäs and Stavem, 2020; Sigurðardóttir and Hjartarson, 2011), than in others, where enclosed classroom prevail even in new buildings (see e.g. Duthilleul et al, 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
