Building up STEAM

Posted on 21 April, 2015 by Fiona

Professor Rachel Armstrong is Professor of Experimental Architecture in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, and her Idea for an Incoming Government is to put the A back into STEM education. In British education, but also in our society, the arts play a part that fundamentally enriches, and Professor Armstrong urges an incoming government not to allow our cultural landscape to turn into a tedious shade of grey. Read about the Institute for Social Renewal’s other contributions to policy on our website.

What’s the problem?

In a technologically advanced age, STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) subjects are regarded as a fundamental way to boost the technological competence of our workforce. As a result, they have taken a central position in British education. While the original educational concerns that forged STEM promoted a more widespread uptake of these subjects, other commentators suggest that the term embodies synergies between these disciplines, which highlight the importance of cross-disciplinary collaborations in the innovation process.

After a period of activism where the innovative potential of collaborative practices invited the introduction of ‘A’ for arts into the acronym shortly after its conception, we find that our core competencies are abbreviated back down to ‘left’ brain activities. While absolute distinctions between ‘left’ (logical) and ‘right’ (creative) in itself is a controversial claim, the generalization symbolizes broad differences between the sciences and arts. The consequences, unintentional or otherwise, of omitting the ‘A’ may push us back to the Enlightenment views of a knowledge dichotomy that Snow challenged over half a century ago in his 1959, Two Cultures Rede lecture.

Presumably, the climate that has allowed the arts to wither from centre-stage education relates to a streamlining of investment that appears more directly related to immediate returns in employment, global competitiveness and economic growth. Newcastle City Council is living testimony to such measures, having had its creative arts funding slashed by 50% in 2013, provoking widespread outcry.

The solution

It is imperative that ‘A’ is immediately reinstated. Even Ada Lovelace herself, who is attributed to designing the first computer program and has become a figurehead for the recruitment of young women into STEM subjects, advocated a ‘poetical science’. It is also not sufficient to assume that the creativity associated with the arts and humanities will inevitably be infused into scientific subjects without specifically creating funded opportunities for this to occur and to keep on happening.

Moreover, justifying arts in purely utilitarian terms such as facilitating technological innovation and leadership in an efficient workforce completely fails to acknowledge their enduring enrichment of society and culture. Additionally, the future of the arts should be in no way enslaved to its enlistment to STEAM.

The evidence

Civilizations are more than a function of their economic growth. Their vigour is acquired through the hearts of their communities – and passions are not won by facts. So, while science claims a necessary position of neutrality, objectivity and distance from their studies, the arts are deeply immersed in their subjects. The objective goal of achieving technological advancement without investing in shared values will only take us so far in uniting people.

In this age of great challenges, it is imperative that we can think beyond the limits of rational solutions and deal with the uncertainties of our situation by venturing into unknown territories. The consequences of starving our students and civic communities of these skills are far more insidious and enduring than facing any financial crisis.

STEAM is not just a procedural set of issues aimed at managing the meaningful integration of arts with science but also draws attention to investments made in the arts at a national and European governmental level. The scientification of our society is embodied in a recent international conference entitled ‘The future of Europe is Science’ that proposed to address subjects such as ‘How will we keep healthy? How are we going to live, learn, work and interact in the future? How will we produce and consume and how will we manage resources?’. While many aspects of our lives can (within limits) be evaluated objectively, such as average income, or employment statistics, these questions cannot be exclusively served through an objective, empirical scientific analysis. Indeed, a Europe without humanities and arts feels a chillingly soulless place. Right now, we are faced with spreading neoliberal malignancy that is turning our cultural landscape into a tedious shade of grey. It is reducing our daily lives to the pursuit of one bottom line – money – where we are aware of the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

If we are to survive what is likely to be an extremely challenging century, where we face many contradictions that do not clearly present us with logical solutions, such as reducing the gap between the have and have not’s, tackling dramatic weather changes, combating drastic resource challenges and managing ideological conflicts, then we’ll need to be extremely imaginative across all disciplines. It is only through actively nurturing creativity from an early age that we will be able to do more with less, produce new kinds of value, work productively in partnership with nature and find new ways of working within constraints.

Importantly, while we actively acknowledge our limits, we must also relentlessly pursue new ways to transcend them. This simply cannot be done purely objectively. It requires personal investment, which means believing in common goals and embracing the seemingly impossible. If we are to protect and restore our heritage, our community and our faith in humankind then we need a different toolset that creates a counterbalance within STEM, one that that refuses to be answerable to sciences, yet also has the capacity to potentiate them, so that we can remain critical of developments – while also fulfilling our passions.

We should indeed build on firm foundations that ensure that our workforce, leaders and next generations have the intellectual and practical skills to be competitive on a global scale, but we must also sow the seeds of our culture with the imaginative flexibility to deal with the unknown, uphold a humane quality of life and to invent into new spaces that have never before existed. So, let us not forget the broader needs of our society when thinking about our institutional goals, national productivity and shared futures – and urgently invest in the creative capacity of people by putting the ‘A’ back into STEM.

Making school buildings fit for purpose

Posted on 17 April, 2015 by Fiona

In ‘Ideas for an Incoming Government’ no. 14, Dr Pam Woolner from the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences argues that with pupil numbers rising, our schools are under pressure, and our school buildings need to catch up. Her idea is to make working with school students, staff and the wider community a priority in tackling the problem.

What’s the problem?

Our school estate is not fit for purpose. Although this government and the previous Labour administrations have overseen new school building, it was long overdue and has not got anywhere near renewing or refurbishing all the schools in need. It has also led to very uneven provision: schools built over the last 150 years that have been designed for disparate understandings of education.

Meanwhile, student numbers are generally rising, putting pressure on this already-strained infrastructure. For the first time in decades, the UK is experiencing a sustained increase in birth rate which will translate into steady increases in school numbers. As Sarah Healey (then Director, Education Funding Group, DfE) commented in 2013, “this is not a very short temporary bulge […] so it will continue to be a challenge.” (Westminster Education Forum, 16.1.13).

This is concerning because there is an established, if not entirely understood, link between the quality of the school space and student outcomes. In particular, research shows that there are clear negative consequences of inadequate school buildings. Focused research has found direct effects on learning of specific physical problems including noise, high and low temperatures, poor air quality and limited learning space. Other studies reveal correlations between measures of school building and classroom quality with student outcomes including attitude, attendance and attainment. We can see how a poor school environment might contribute to a spiral of decline: this could involve declining student attitudes, increases in poor behaviour, reduced well-being and attendance, lowered staff morale and difficulties in staff retention.

Yet research into the physical environment of education also demonstrates that there is not a single perfect or ideal setting for learning. Although spacious, well-ventilated classrooms with good acoustics and temperature controls will tend to be beneficial, the suitability of other aspects of the school building will depend on what the school community wants to do: collaborative learning in groups, hands-on science, musical performance and sport all make particular, sometimes conflicting, demands on space.

The solution

There is some evidence that in effective schools, staff tend to engage with the physical environment and attempt to make it fit their needs. Other research suggests an important role for students in such evaluation and adaptation activities. In these processes, everyone comes to understand the helps and hindrances of their particular building much better and are able to make better use of it.

The evidence base reveals the negative effect of poor school premises, but it does not provide priorities for fixing them, and shows that there is no ideal to aim for. We need to understand the intentions and needs of the school community to design them an appropriate setting.

This all implies a necessity of actively involving school students, staff and the wider community in any redesign or rebuilding, helping them to think collaboratively about exactly what their requirements are. There is expertise among architecture and design professionals to make such participation happen, but it needs to be a central requirement of rebuilding and refurbishment processes to ensure that it does. Unfortunately, it is this element of participation that is being determinedly left out of the current government’s funding arrangements for school rebuilding.

An incoming government needs to ensure that the understandings which school users have of education in their settings are brought together and developed to drive decisions in re-builds, re-designs and refurbishments. Ultimately, this is the most productive way to address the shortcomings of the school estate, which if ignored will detrimentally affect the education of the citizens of tomorrow.

The evidence

Bakó-Birób, Zs., Clements-Croomea, D.J, Kochhara, N., Awbia, H.B. and Williams, M.J. (2012) ‘Ventilation rates in schools and pupils’ performance’, Building and Environment, 48: 215-23.

Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J. Kobbacy, K (2013) A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59: 678-689.

Durán-Narucki , V. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 278-286.

Flutter, J. (2006). ‘This place could help you learn’: student participation in creating better learning environments. Educational Review 58(2): 183-193.

Maxwell, L.E. (2003) Home and School Density Effects on Elementary School Children: The Role of Spatial Density Environment and Behavior 35: 566 – 577

Uline,C. L. Tschannen-Moran, M., and DeVere Wolsey, T. (2009).The walls still speak: The stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3):400–426.

Woolner, P. (2015) (Ed.) School Design Together, Abingdon: Routledge

Woolner, P.and Hall, E. (2010). Noise in Schools: A Holistic Approach to the Issue, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7(8): 3255-3269.

Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins,S., McCaughey, C., Wall, K. (2007a) A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for Building Schools for the Future. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1): 47-70.

Tackling Obesity – Through Planning and the Built Environment

Posted on 14 April, 2015 by Fiona

With obesity rates at crisis point across the UK, Dr Tim Townshend, Director of Planning and Urban Design within the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, discusses the part that our built environment has to play. Part of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal‘s Ideas for an Incoming Government series, Dr Townshend argues that central government and local authorities need to take action now to promote healthy living in our communities.

What is the problem?

Rates of obesity have reached crisis point, with accompanying health problems (type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease etc.). In 2007 the Foresight Report ‘Tackling Obesities: Future Choices’ suggested there was enough expert evidence to implicate built environment in the obesity crisis. The places where we live, work, go to school and spend our leisure time can either provide, or constrain, opportunities for physical activity and access to both healthy and unhealthy food. However, the planning system in England is ill equipped to act on this evidence.

This needs action now. Even if the influence of the built environment is small at the individual level, given its impact is over whole communities and that it generally survives several generations unchanged, it is highly significant in aggregate. The change in policy initially needs to address the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF calls for the planning system to promote ‘healthy communities’, but it is vague in its focus and how this might be achieved.

Obesity is not the only health crisis to face the country – however, it is one in which intervention in the built environment could make a significant difference and interventions to tackle obesity have the potential to deliver broader health and well-being benefits. For example, there is evidence that providing adequate good quality open spaces will encourage physical activity – we also know that physical activity and greenery/green space are also linked to improved mental health and well-being. Moreover obesity is also a problem that has a distinct socioeconomic profile – poorer communities are more adversely affected by obesity and related health/well-being issues than their better off neighbours – and therefore addressing this issue can help tackle health inequalities through the planning system.

The Solution

Action by Central Government/ Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

The NPPF:

The NPPF (or its replacement) needs to be strengthened – it should state that planning policies must deliver (not merely promote) environments that support healthy lifestyle choices.
The NPPF should be clear that policies that deliver healthier environments should be enshrined in core polices of the Local Development Framework (LDF) – i.e. not just Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) so they carry enough weight to be acted upon.
The viability clause – paragraph 173 – must be rewritten. The elements which support healthy lifestyles, good quality public realm, greenspace, bespoke cycle provision are expensive – however ‘viability’ should not be used as an acceptable reason to remove elements of design in the planning process which are proven to be linked to healthy behaviours and outcomes.

More broadly non-planning actions DCLG should consider include:

Including directives that aim to improve health and wellbeing in other built environment guidelines – such as UK Building Regulations
Introducing a ‘healthy lifestyle’ kitemark or rating system (like that used for energy efficiency) for new buildings, particularly housing.

Action by Local Authorities

Local authorities should have planning policies that:

Deliver healthier lifestyles and greater well-being through the built environment incorporated in their Local Development Framework – to ensure enough weight is attached to these policies. Supplementary Planning Documents may be used to support and/or enhance core policies.
Enable ‘active travel’ (walking/cycling) to be ‘designed in’ as part of everyday life for communities wherever possible
Ensure adequate greenspace – in its full variety of forms (pocket parks; parks; sports pitches; garden allotments; wildlife areas etc) – is provided, particularly when new housing is developed
Restrict the proliferation of fast food outlets – in particular prohibit new outlets in the proximity of schools and children’s centres

More broadly:

Ensure the new public health responsibilities in local authorities (Public Health Boards etc.) are fully linked into to planning practice – for example through robust review processes.

The evidence

There is a vast body of evidence, it’s not all in a form that can be used by planning – however the Government Office for Science Foresight Report provides a useful summary:

FORESIGHT 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices – Project report. London: Government Office for Science.

Also see:

LAKE, A. & TOWNSHEND, T. 2006. Obesogenic environments: exploring the built and food environments. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126, 262-267.

TOWNSHEND, T. G. & LAKE, A. A. 2009. Exploring obesogenic urban form, Theory, policy and practice, Health and Place, 15, 909-916.

Townshend T.G. (2014) Walkable Neighbourhoods: principles, measures and health impacts, in Burton E., & Cooper, R Well-being and the Environment, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell

TOWNSHEND, T.G., GALLO, R. & LAKE, A.A. (May 2015) Obesogenic Built Environment: Concepts and Complexities in BARTON, H., GRANT, M., THOMPSON, S., & BURGESS, S. (Eds) The Routledge Handbook of Planning for Health and Well-being, Abingdon, Routledge.

School-Community Advisory Groups: ‘Turning Schools Inside Out’

Posted on 10 April, 2015 by Fiona

To turn schools inside out, develop a localised community curriculum, argues Professor David Leat from the Research Centre for Learning and Teaching (CfLaT), School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences. To read other Ideas for an Incoming Government, view the entire series hosted by the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal blog.

What’s the problem?

We have a national curriculum which lays out what should be taught to school pupils. When the National Curriculum was first introduced the mistake was made of cramming in too much content and successive reviews have chipped away at this content. However it is increasingly recognised that schools need greater freedom to offer a curriculum that is locally developed to reflect local resources, issues and needs for a proportion of the school week. We need a policy which allows and supports schools, in partnership with local stakeholders, to develop a localised community curriculum.

The solution

Schools should be able to apply to the DES for licence to devote between 20 and 40% of their school year to curriculum which is developed locally in partnership with community stakeholders which would include businesses, community organisations/charities, specialist societies, public services and universities. The submitted plan would include the aims of such curriculum work related both to the goals of National Curriculum and to individual school aims and characteristics of the region/locality. Once accepted the plan would be included in the school inspection remit. Relevance comes from the meaningful work that is produced by the students which will address many of the challenges facing schools in relation to motivation, behaviour, transitions and wider educational outcomes (such as self-concept and resilience).

In practice schools would establish a community curriculum advisory group (CAG) which would advise and assist in developing inter-disciplinary, challenging and authentic projects for the students. The advisory group would consist of 5-12 members (larger in large secondary schools) drawn from the constituencies outlined earlier, but including one or two governors. Many might be parents and there should be a minimum of one from the business community and one from the culture/arts sector. The school would have the final say about the composition of the CAG. The aim of the CAG would be:

To review curriculum plans for year groups or subject departments;
To advise on and support curriculum development that uses the potential of the locality and community – thus acting as a conduit for school-community relationships;
Have regard to soft skills and EU competences;
Guide and support the school in recognising and validating the wider learning outcomes of school students, from both school activities and out-of-school activities – which would include possible development of digital portfolios.

The school could also submit an application for a community curriculum award at one of three levels (for the sake of argument: bronze, silver and gold). Such an application would have to include evidence of the wider learning outcomes for the students, and of the ‘products’ generated by the students validated by users or others in the community.

Benefits

The policy would make a substantial difference to schools, allowing them to release the creativity of staff and school leaders and free them from the excesses of ‘teaching to the test’.
Pupils would feel the difference through the authentic work and challenges that they are offered – thus engaging with work that matters.
Universities would feel the difference in having students who are better prepared for research and both collaborative and independent study.
Employers would benefit from having employees who have a wider spectrum of skills (with no diminution of basic skills).
The creation of CAGs would also bring fresh air to the feverish issue of accountability. Currently the government and its agent, Ofsted, determine the criteria for judging the performance of schools. This is an over-centralised model which is unresponsive to local need and creativity.

There would be teething troubles over how representative CAGs are and it is important that schools have control of their composition, so that they do not feel that they are being ‘done to’.

The evidence

A Demos report (Sodha & Gugliemi, 2009), detailed the disaffection and alienation evident amongst young people of school age, and the harm that they encounter. Recently, an Independent Advisory Group, coordinated by Pearson, recommended that England must adopt a framework of key competences such as that developed by the European Union (e.g. learning to learn, working as part of a team and intercultural competence) AND a recognition of vocational learning for ALL students (Anderson 2014).

The RSA have produced a report (Facer 2010) which summarises the literature relating to ‘Area Based Curriculum’ and reporting on two ABC projects in Manchester and Peterborough. The outcomes in Peterborough, where Curriculum Development Partnerships were pioneered included:

Teachers learned about the locality and felt more connected
School and partner representatives reported a change to the way organisations engage with schools
Partners reported that more schools are now open to working with outside agencies

In the US there is a substantial resurgence in interest in Community Education (although with a greater involvement of social workers that we are suggesting) and here the evidence is for far greater engagement. ‘High Tech High’ in California has a very high profile and reputation for project based work, often but not always, linked to the community (http://www.hightechhigh.org/about/results.php).

Finding ways of sustaining small town regeneration

Posted on 8 April, 2015 by Fiona

Dr Neil Powe is a senior lecturer in Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, and he writes the latest Idea for an Incoming Government about the regeneration of small towns, arguing for a new approach.

What is the problem?

Small towns are rural settlements whose fortunes have reflected many structural changes in the economy. Whilst some small towns have become vibrant centres, successful business locations and/or desirable residential and tourist locations, others, despite their potential, have struggled to adapt to the challenges faced.

Whilst assistance has previously been provided to help these rural settlements regenerate, it is arguable that there has been a failure to match the process to the challenge. As suggested by Powe et al., (2015, p179) “government-initiated programmes tend to reflect the political realities of transitory and generic support for rapid delivery, whereas the practical realities of regeneration require a sustained, collaborative, spatially-sensitive process of change.”

In the current climate of austerity, external agencies are less likely to get involved in encouraging change. With local authorities increasingly focused on their statutory roles rather than regeneration activities, they are also unlikely to provide much support for community capacity development or accessing external funding. Whilst there are good reasons to be concerned about the lack of regeneration funding, it is important to also reflect on the efficacy of the government-initiated programme model of regeneration and consider if there are alternative approaches which are more appropriate and applicable to the long term process of regeneration.

The solution

There is a need to be more realistic about what can be achieved through government support and new regeneration models are required. ‘Big fix’ external prescriptions will generally not work. Instead, successful processes are developed through repeated ‘small wins’ over long periods. Whilst lessons have been drawn from regeneration schemes in the US before, there has been a failure to focus on the charitable nature of their initiatives. Indeed, charitable organisations can be less transitory than government agencies, both in terms of their nature and their underlying principles.

In the UK context there is a growing realisation that innovative approaches are required to small town regeneration, with community enterprises providing one of perhaps many alternative approaches which better match the process to the challenge. Whereas social enterprises are responsible for running a specific business or service, charitable community enterprises are more focused on a particular place and can play a crucial role within regeneration. As long as the enterprises run by the organisation remain viable they can provide locally based expertise to help manage the regeneration process.

The evidence

These findings are based on two research projects.

The first research project (Powe et al., 2015) was a review of past experience of small town and other forms of regeneration which confirmed the tendency for government-initiated approaches to fail to match the regeneration process to the challenge. This project also extended understanding by considering the favourable case of an unusually long running government-initiated scheme. The role of the Regional Development Agency was found to be essential in providing initial momentum, facilitating engagement, bringing new ideas to the regeneration process and removing blockages which would have been difficult to deal with locally. Yet, consistent with other previous initiatives, frictions emerged as the agency strived to be over-directive. There was little local ownership in the partnership formed, or awareness of local history or culture in its scale of operation. The partnership also did not have any assets upon which to sustain its efforts (although efforts were made to achieve this). When external funding was withdrawn the local partnership folded.

The second research project is still ongoing but builds on the work of Healey (2015) (also at Newcastle University) which demonstrates the merits of a specific community enterprise in Wooler, Northumberland. More recently, this work has been extended by Neil Powe to other community enterprises engaged in small town regeneration. Whilst some enterprises do fail, lessons are being learnt and exemplars are emerging which demonstrate that this approach has potential to better match the process to the challenge. For example, for approximately twenty years there has been sustained effort and local expertise within Wooler and another Northumberland town, Amble, which has led to significant but incremental regeneration. Within these charitable trusts short term political objectives are put to one side and there is instead a focus on the mutual interests of regeneration. Clearly the relevance of the community enterprise model will depend on the specifics of the individual town but the research demonstrates the potential at least to develop new innovative models which are more appropriate to the regeneration challenges faced.

Healy, P. (2015) Civil society enterprise and local development, Planning Theory and Practice, 16(1), 11-27.

Powe, N.A., Pringle, R. and Hart, T. (2015) Matching the process to the challenge within small town regeneration, Town Planning Review, 86(2), 177-202.

Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal

We are the Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University

Monthly Archives: April 2015