An inter-disciplinary team based in four universities has completed a two-year study and produced a set of guidelines on participatory design with children and young people in schools.
The research, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, involved staff at Coventry University School of Art and Design, University of Northampton Centre for Childhood and Youth, University of Leicester and Keele University, in its study of the ways young people have participated in the design and refurbishment of schools in the UK Midlands.
Ten schools were engaged in the research from Coventry and Northamptonshire, including mainstream secondary and primary schools, and special needs schools. Several of the schools had been rebuilt or were due for rebuild whilst others had small scale classroom extensions. Five of the schools were scheduled for rebuild under the UK Government’s ‘Building Schools for the Future’ scheme (BSF). Others were funded under the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) and devolved capital. BSF aims to rebuild or refurbish all of the UK’s secondary schools by 2020, whilst PCP will rebuild or refurbish approximately half of all primary schools. This massive investment signifies the importance of the physical school environment to current education policy. It also reflects a body of recent research which indicates that: buildings affect teaching and learning outcomes the best designed schools encourage children to learn attitudes, behaviour and performance of staff and students is better in schools which have had investment The Government appears to recognise the importance of input from young people, as evidenced in the following quote from a Dfes 2006 report, ‘Primary Ideas: Projects to Enhance Primary School Environments’: “Failing to understand users in the way we design and deliver services means we are less likely to deliver aggregate improvements in outcomes across the system because we are less likely to be meeting the needs of individual service users.”
Qualitative mixed methods were used in this project including observations in schools, at design events and planning meetings, shadowing children, interviews in schools with children and teachers and with other stakeholders, for example, Local Education Authority officials and architects.
Despite the importance of user-centred design when planning new and refurbished schools being recognised in policy statements, findings revealed that pupil participation was unstructured, contingent upon individual school ethos and arbitrary in nature. Little evidence of designing ‘with’ children was found, rather there was more design ‘for’ children. Some teachers expressed dismay at the idea that children should be consulted at all, believing that ‘they would want Alton Towers’ instead of appropriately designed teaching and learning spaces. Few innovative participatory methods were observed. Some schools used questionnaires, comment boxes or the school council to access student opinions, but few examples of active participation were observed. Two of the schools had ‘Design your School’ events, where selected young people at schools due for rebuild under BSF worked to produce drawings and models of what they wanted in their new school environments. However, few design parameters or restrictions were given to the students, meaning that many of the designs were found to be too costly for inclusion or simply unworkable. Neither was it clear how the children’s work would feed into the design process. Rather than promoting a sense of inclusion for the young people, it was found in some cases to reinforce feelings of cynicism about their involvement. Where children had been consulted it often focused on social areas or toilets rather than teaching and learning areas. Planning meetings were found to be poorly organised, with no minutes taken or inadequate documentation of decisions made. A teacher who attended planning meetings for a new special needs school said: “Our [teachers’] voices aren’t heard, so how are children’s voices going to be heard?”
The project revealed several barriers to student participation. Architects stated that the BSF programme is too speedy to allow participation to be built into all stages of the design process. As one architect explained: “The BSF programme is very quick. So there isn’t a lot of time for actual pupil interaction.” The number of stakeholders involved, and the possibility of conflicting needs was also seen as a barrier. The vast amount of building regulations relating to schools meant that the business of school design was seen as a ‘minefield’ by teachers and school management and was therefore perceived as being best “left up to the experts”. The lack of clarity about the design process led one head teacher to state: “We are not fully aware of when we are making decisions. In fact, I don’t think we have actually made a decision at any stage, so we don’t know when we should engage in the process and what that’s actually meaning.” Finally, the lack of guidelines and best practice concerning participation left schools and architects at a loss as to the best ways to involve children and young people in the planning and design of schools.
Drawbacks to participation were also highlighted throughout the project. Concerns were raised by architects, teachers and children. The fear of disappointing children through the raising of unrealistic expectations frequently arose in interviews. Children were aware of the dangers of ‘expecting too much’, and frequently displayed an air of cynicism when asked to express their opinions on the new school build. One student who was involved in the day expressed a degree of cynicism as to the contribution their ideas will make to the final design: “I didn’t see the point when they said to choose ideas and contribute to what you would like in the school”, “I thought that because we’re just students at the end of the day I don’t think that they’ll actually take our ideas very seriously.”
Despite the barriers to student participation, interviews revealed that teachers and students felt there were numerous benefits, including the promotion of a sense of ownership, as it was thought that by involving children in the process it would induce an increased sense of pride in the school building. Teachers and architects said participation was important to provide an insight into children’s perspectives. A deputy head teacher explained: “I think as you get older, you don’t see, you’re not as familiar with what young people find attractive and what their needs are.”
Other benefits were related to giving children who might otherwise feel marginalised in the school system a voice and a sense of achievement. This was considered particularly important for children who might be low achievers academically.
The research team aim to alleviate the lack of guidance about the school design process by the production of a set of guidelines. Involving pupils in school design: a realist’s guide has been written for teachers, headteachers, governing bodies, Local Authorities, architects and stakeholders involved in the design, refurbishment or construction of school buildings and estates in the UK. It is hoped that this guide will usefully inform projects funded by the UK Government’s ‘Building Schools for the Future’ and ‘Primary Capital and Academy’ programmes. This guide will be available from the autumn.
Co-author: Andree Woodcock
Print 
PDF