delivering on sustainability aspirations when building schools for the future: sharing findings from...

7/29/2019 Delivering on sustainability aspirations when Building Schools for the Future: sharing findings from eco-footprint pr…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/delivering-on-sustainability-aspirations-when-building-schools-for-the-future 1/14

EWB-UK Research Conference 2009

Hosted by The Royal Academy of EngineeringFebruary 20

Author: Christopher J Cleaver & Prof. Peter M Guthrie

Institution: University of CambridgePreviously published: Submitted to ICE/Thomas Telford Engineering Sustainability

Delivering on sustainability aspirations when Building Schools for the

Future: sharing findings from eco-footprint programmes

C. J. Cleaver & Prof. P. M. Guthrie

Centre for Sustainable Development, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street,

Cambridge CB2 1PZ

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The UK government’s £45bn Building Schools for the Future programme offers unique

opportunities for transformational change in the sustainability performance of schools over the

next decade. Delivering on these aspirations will in part be contingent on sufficient capacity at a

school level to take action over sustainability issues. Findings from an eco-footprint project

undertaken from within the Cambridge University Centre for Sustainable Development have

highlighted both the complexity of capacity building initiatives and showcase an analytical

approach to help building occupiers understand resource flows and prioritise areas for

improvement, such as transport to and from school, and energy use in heating school buildings. In

addition the footprinting process identified key barriers to making such improvements, including

those resulting from leasing buildings under the Private Finance Initiative.

Introduction

The UK government’s £45bn Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme is one of the largestschool capital projects worldwide. Announced in 2003, it has aimed for transformational

educational change across the UK secondary schools. As this paper discusses, there has been a

unique opportunity for sustainability issues to take centre-stage.

Through the Sustainable Schools framework, government has made a coherent attempt to bring

together such issues under one framework; setting out a vision of what, by 2020, a sustainable

school would look like. In spite of these efforts, and even specific aspirations such as making each

new school zero carbon by 2015, some, including a 2007 House of Commons Select Committee

have found the BSF programme wanting, in terms of explicit commitments to sustainability.

This paper, aimed at engineers, architects and decision-makers, picks up this argument, and makes

the case that any such commitments to sustainability should emphasise building local capacity to

own the sustainability process. Furthermore, we draw on evidence from a case study to highlight

some of sustainability issues that such a process might bring to light: an indication of how people

use and occupy buildings and how future design might take account of behaviours and barriers that

have been identified.







Literature Review

Our literature review explores in more depth the two main government policy themes this paper

comments on: the Building Schools for the Future programme, and the National Framework for

Sustainable Schools.

Building Schools for the Future

Capital Investment Context

Levels of capital investment in UK schools have changed significantly in the last ten years; in the

year 1997-8, investment stood just below £1bn per annum; by 2007-8 that had increased to £6.1bn1.

Prior to 2003, this investment was mostly used for building repairs and replacing temporary

classrooms, and the capital delivered in two ways: either straight to schools or through local

authorities. In 2003, a third major strand of capital investment was announced, the £45bn, 15 year

strategic programme Building Schools for the Future (BSF).

By 2007-8 BSF accounted for 43% of school investment, the remainder devolved funding to schools

(also 43%), and targeted funding through local authorities (13%)1. It is the size of the programme

that motivates this paper:

“It is worth emphasising the scale and scope of BSF; there is no project like it anywhere in the world.

Not since the huge Victorian and post-war building waves has there been investment in our school

capital stock on this scale”1

Objectives

When Building Schools for the Future was announced through a 2003 public consultation, thegovernment stated that it was making money available for locally generated plans for educational

transformation. The allocation of funding would be subject to four main criteria:

1. contribution to raising educational standards;

2. the extent of local deprivation and the level of educational need implied;

3. the urgency of need for repair, renewal or complete rebuild;

4. how well organised an individual area is to invest capital funding 2

Delivery Waves

Despite the emphasis on funding for locally generated plans, the government also used language

that suggested this was every bit a top-down programme too: “a programme of rebuilding and

renewal to ensure that secondary education in every part of England has facilities of 21st-Century

standard” 2.

Money was made available in 15 spending waves, each wave restricted to a set of Local Education

Authorities (LEAs) determined by central government and the non-departmental body Partnerships

for Schools (PfS) was set up to oversee the delivery of the BSF process.







Progress

A total close to £6bn has now been allocated over first three waves (2005/6 – 2007/8), and as of

September 2008, schools had opened in 8 of the 17 Local Authorities in Wave 1, and just 1 of the 10

in Wave 23. However, this was well behind the level of progress expected at the start of the project;

with the (then) DfES targeting 100 schools to be opened by the end of 2007, and 200 by end of 20084. In a 2006 interview with the Times Educational Supplement, Chief Executive of PfS, Tim

Byles, was quoted:

“Everyone across government accepts that the early targets were not based on any experience and

were not realistic. We will reset the baseline this year so we have realistic o bjectives […]. The

authorities that were chosen first were those with the greatest needs and some of those have found

it difficult to deliver […]. But we are significantly reducing the problems and I am confident that we

can deliver”1

CritiqueThe Building Schools for the Future programme has been subject to close scrutiny, not least

through press coverage of issues like delays in delivery. More fundamentally, the motivation for BSF

can be challenged; does it really serve educational transformation?

Perceptions that BSF primarily serves the government’s economic interests, by stimulating

economic activity in the construction industry, are worthy of consideration, particularly where

schools call into question the need to re-build / refurbish buildings they feel are currently more than

adequate!

Either way, a 2005 Design Council review on the impact of school buildings found little evidence,

beyond the need for adequate levels of standard for parameters like noise, temperature, light,

ventilation, to support the idea that capital investment alone could inspire educational change5.

Participation

The review did highlight evidence of sustained educational improvements when key stakeholders

(teachers and pupils) are fully involved in making decisions about their own learning environment.

One mechanism for achieving this in BSF has been the Sorrell Foundation, a design charity that

focuses on young people, bridging the gap between the design community and schools 6.

The foundation runs an engagement process with pupils from schools involved in BSF, enabling

them to articulate their design ambitions and priorities on behalf of the pupil body. Anecdotal

testimony from this, received at a Cambridgeshire Environmental Education Service 7 arranged

conference, was positive; students clearly gaining confidence in influencing the design process.

True participation in transformation from school management down, will remain a crucial challenge

for BSF’s success in educational terms.

Sustainability

The focus of this paper is the opportunity Building Schools for the Future presents for a step-change

in national sustainability. As a House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee report

into BSF contended, the programme made very few explicit commitments to sustainability issues,







despite the growing support for this from policy makers, activists, and, critically, head teachers

themselves1,8.

The most visible of these sustainability issues has been carbon dioxide emissions to which the

government is committed to at least a 60% cut by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. The schools

estate is reported to account for 2% of the UK’s Carbon Dioxide emissions, some 15% of all public

sector emissions1. This, and the contention the role of schools in influencing practice in the wider

community; would suggest making low carbon a central and visible design parameter.

To be approved, BSF designs must reach Very Good or Excellent on the 2006 Building Research

Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) for schools. However, the efficacy of

BREEAM schools can be criticised, Martin Mayfield, associate director of consulting engineering

firm ARUP contending:

“It is a reasonable tool to guide teams in improving the sustainability credentials of a

building. However, it has two characteristics which render it currently inappropriate as a methodology to achieve the degree of carbon emissions required to achieve the 60% reduction target • Only around ⅓ of the assessment relates to carbon emissions. • BREEAM „excellent‟ can be achieved with a relatively minor improvement in carbon reduction” 1

Investment in Sustainability

The up front costs of ‘sustainable’ building technologies to meet carbon targets are non-trivial; the

Sustainable Development Commission estimated the cost of features to meet a 60% reduction in

carbon emissions below 1990 baseline:

“Somewhere in the region of 15%, 20% is what it would cost, but […] if a programme as large as BSF

went consistently for that style of construction and level of requirement, then you would have the

traditional learning curve in business that reduces costs, so I think there should be a good

opportunity, as the BSF programme went on, for that cost difference to come down” 1

Additional capital funding for low carbon schools has since been announced by schools secretary Ed

Balls, amounting to £110m over 3 years for 200 low carbon schools. However, more would be

needed to have an impact across every new BSF school. This could take the form of more up-front

investment, or, more realistically, plans for the number of schools could be scaled back and, the

programme extended through re-allocated capital from reduced operating budgets.

Sustainable Schools

If Building Schools for the Future puts transformation at its heart, we’ve seen the call for thi s to

include a transition towards sustainability. Let us review what this could mean, by looking at the

government’s framework for sustainable schools.

Scope

The government has channelled its sustainability aspirations for schools into a National Framework

that lays out expectations for sustainability by 2020. The framework, Sustainable Schools, was

published in 2006, following the 2003 Sustainable Development Action Plan9,10. It attempts to







achieve full coverage of issues encapsulated by sustainable development through the eight basic

themes (or doorways), and three cross-cutting areas of impact listed in Table 1.

Table 1: National Framework for Sustainable Schools, Department for Children, Schools and

Families (DCSF) 10

3 cross-cutting Areas 8 Doorways for Sustainability (DCSF)

Curriculum (teaching provision and learning)

Campus (values and way of working)

Community (wider influence and

partnerships)

Food & drink

Energy & water

Travel & traffic

Purchasing & waste

Buildings & grounds

Inclusion & participation

Local well-being

Global dimension

Furthermore, behind each doorway there are specific recommendations for action by 2020. For

example on Travel and Traffic:

“We would like all schools to be models of sustainable travel, where vehicles are used only when

absolutely necessary and where there are exemplary facilities for healthier, less polluting or less

dangerous modes of transport.”10

Delivery

Delivery on the National Framework has been largely left to individual schools, backed up by

networking events, OFSTED evaluation, and limited amounts of funding to Regional Government

Offices11. The Department for Children Schools and Families has published a number of documents

on its online portal Teacher Net to guide schools through the process of whole school change. Of

these, the S3 Evaluation Toolkit for school management is perhaps the most significant12.

There are signs that progress has been made on a local level. The National College for School

Leadership (NCSL) has been a significant player in fostering this, commissioning a wide-scale piece

of research into leadership qualities needed to move the sustainability agenda forward. Managed by

environmental NGO, WWF UK, the research highlighted that a significant number of leaders were

developing sustainability within their school “…with passion and conviction, underpinned by

personal values”8.







Critique

By its own admission, DCSF has “significant influence, but surprisingly few levers” in achieving the

sustainable schools vision11. There is certainly some way to go before the vision is universally

achieved, bought-into or even known. For example, insiders have found the Teacher Development

Agency, unlike the NCSL, slow to take up the vision and lead change in new teacher training.

The Sustainable Schools framework has also been challenged on how far it covers the main

sustainability issues. Protection of bio-diversity, a national strategic priority (e.g UK Biodiversity

Action Plan13), is given scant coverage. Its latest plans show DSCF is attempting to address this

critique, but it remains to be seen whether the framework is by itself challenging enough – can each

doorway be achieved, and yet the school not be truly sustainable?

Capacity Building

Capacity building for sustainable design and operation of schools, appears to have been an

overlooked element of the Building Schools for the Future programme. The Design Council reviewhighlighted a robust body of evidence showing the need for deep stake-holder engagement to

achieve transformational educational change. Meanwhile, the national Sustainable Schools

framework, has been shown as just this type of change process, relying on leadership of school

management, and input of teachers and pupils.

If, as seems desirable, sustainability is to be incorporated into Building Schools for the Future, then

effort must be put not only into more ambitious targets, and funding for building fabric

improvements, but also into increasing local capacity to engage in a wider change process.

Therefore, we argue that long-term sustainability will be best served by sufficient local capacity

to engage with whatever sustainability issues present themselves over the next 10-15 years,and not through changes in the building fabric alone.

Evaluating local capacity

Let us put more detail to help recognise and evaluate what ‘sufficient local capacity to engage’

could look like. Many of the ideas in this field originate in the Environmental Education movement,

for which the 1977 Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education was milestone

event. The call for enabling capacity building processes has been made explicit by numerous

practitioners from David Orr (1991 principles of eco-literacy)14 to Vare & Scott (2007 conception of

ESD 1.0 & 2.0)15.

Early models of capacity building (and indeed many current health campaigns) assumed a linear

causal relationship between firstly increased understanding, then negative or positive attitudes and

finally skills / behavioural change. However, research has found that in reality there is a rather more

complex set of factors affecting behaviour16.

Table 2 shows the environmental citizenship behaviour model, developed by Hungerford and Volk

in 199017. A striking feature is how much is involved in progressing to becoming a genuinely active

citizen; suggestive of a slow and deep process, catalysed but not completed by one-off

engagements. The authors claim the model is a better predictor of actual behaviour than the simple

linear relationship from understanding to attitudes and action. Useful, perhaps, to BSF schools inevaluating their own capacity for sustainability and a tool we use in the analysis that follows.







Table 2: Environmental Citizenship Behaviour: from Hungerford and Volk, 199017

Entry Level Ownership Level Empowerment

Selected variables:

Environmental sensitivity

Knowledge of ecology

Selected variables:

In-depth knowledge about

issues

Personal investment inissues

Selected variables:

Knowledge of and skill in

using environmental action

strategies

Locus of control

Intention to act

Case Study FindingsThe discussion has thus far centred on Building Schools for the Future, and the National Framework

for Sustainable Schools. At this point we share some of the spin-off findings from a school project

that aimed to build local capacity for achieving more sustainable consumption. Although we are not

advocating eco-footprinting programmes as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ methodology; the findings do offer

insight into the way school buildings are used, and the need for and process of building local

capacity building to achieve sustained change.

Topic: Eco-Footprinting

The research was conducted from the Centre for Sustainable Development, at the Department of Engineering in Cambridge. The concept was to assist schools in calculating and interpreting the

‘eco-f ootprint’ of their school’s resource consumption.

‘Footprinting’ as a methodology for learning and empowerment with schools is by no means

unique, and similar approaches have been taken by other groups; most significantly WWF

Scotland18.

History

Ecological Footprint Analysis originates in a desire to understand the role productive land plays in

sustaining economic systems. It focuses on supply and appropriation of productive land, and usesglobal hectares (gHa) as its unit, defined as the world average productivity of one hectare of land in

converting solar radiation to biomass energy. Natural supply of productive land is labelled bio-

capacity, whilst human-kind’s appropriation is labelled ecological footprint.

Global Results

Much of the work to build a research base and establish standards has been taken forward by the

group Global Footprint Network (GFN)19. Not without its critics20, 21, the resultant eco-footprint

indicator has gained some limelight; the latest 2008 GFN study finding UK’s average ecological

footprint (5.3 gHa/person) to be well over double world average bio-capacity (2.1 gHa/person)22. The

message portrayed is that humans are effectively living beyond the regenerative capacity of theearth; unsustainable if in the long-term.







Studies found that in the UK, like most ‘northern’ countries, ecological footprint is dominated (57%)

by demand for fossil fuels, accounted for in the footprinting method as the land area that would be

needed to sequester carbon dioxide released in combustion. Other significant contributors included

the crop, forestry and pasture land required to supply resources to our industrial economy and

households

22

.

Case Description

The eco-footprint project built on prior work carried out with eleven secondary schools abroad; in

September 2007, a UK comprehensive school were invited to work on a similar programme.

Setting

The school, of 1130 pupils (2007-8), and upwards of 70 teachers and staff was a rural comprehensive

in the midlands. Found in a large village of over 6000 population, it is fed by 8 primary schools from

local villages. Its GCSE exam results typically put it within the upper tier of schools in its Local

Education Authority. The school was recently rebuilt under a Private Finance Initiative contract(early 2000s).

Team

The work was taken forward by the school’s ‘Gifted and Talented’ programme coordinator, as an

extra-curricular initiative. She was supported by a set of resources, and two detailed briefings from

the Cambridge team. She brought together a team of twelve Year 9 students to work on the project

with ongoing support from Cambridge.

Over a period of 8 weeks, the students went through a process of tackling their problem mandate,

identifying and estimating important resource flows, processing and interpreting their data andfinally, preparing and delivering a presentation to an external ‘expert’ audience.

Methods

The Cambridge team collected data throughout under the terms of an agreement that protected

the anonymity of those involved. Video recordings of classroom processes, and semi-structured

interviews were the main methods of data collection:

Document

Review

(Archived)

Survey

(Archived)

Interview

(Audio-

Recording)

Participant-

Observation

(Video Recording)

School School Documents During Project

Research Team Project Timeline

EF Calculator

PowerPoint

Presentation

Student

Workbooks

Project

Introduction

Project Meetings

Final Presentation

Individuals Pre-Project

Post-Project

Once, during

project







Local Capacity for Sustainability

We earlier stressed the importance of building local capacity to take ownership of sustainability

issues in new school design. The observations from the following the students’ eco -footprint projectwill help with examining the process of taking ownership of sustainability:

A) Entry

Indicators for the most basic level of environmental citizenship behaviour include environmental

sensitivity, and knowledge of ecology. In our case, there were reasons to suggest that some of both

were pre-existing. Not only are these topics covered in students’ basic curriculum, but also there

was clearly some support from school for special engagements:

“Deputy Head: We think it‟s important for our students to get involved with as many national issues/global issues as we can … … a teacher did a project where we did a whole school footprint thing two years ago,based on the Al Gore movie, when it first came out”

B) Ownership

Personal investment in issues is a key indicator for developing environmental citizenship behaviour.

Although there were differing levels of ownership displayed, the sense of personal investment was

sometimes palpable:

“ Beth: It's like we are all getting taught that the world is heating up and stuff like that,but you don't get any figures that is saying like how we're doing it. If you find out yourself, you get shocked by how much we are actually using”

Deep knowledge of issues is a crucial second element to the ownership dimension. A shortcoming

of the footprinting project was that students did not gain a deep understanding of Ecological

Footprint Analysis, perhaps lacking easy access to suitable background material. They did, however,

build an understanding of the ins and outs of school consumption practices:

“Grace: No, but technicians are going to use more electric…[and] they might wear more clothes.

Mary: That's like saying the PE teachers have to change.

Grace: They do ”

And they had gained an appreciation of the most significant contributors of school consumption:

“Lucy: transport contributed a lot to the footprint. Shelter was the biggest contributor

Beth: we found some major contributors such as paper, shelter, travel

Dawn: Shelter was the highest contributor”







C) Empowerment

The final dimension identified by Hungerford and Volk is empowerment; covering knowledge of

and skill in using environmental action strategies, locus of control, and intention to act. Criticism

has been directed towards the gap between self-reported environmental attitudes and actualbehaviour; effective capacity building programmes should attempt to address this.

In our case, we identified a mixed level of empowerment behaviours. The beginnings of all three

components can be found in one student’s declaration at the end of their presentation:

Harry: We are going to be continuing our project, and we're going to deliver our results to the school governors. We're going to get them to improve our school ecological footprint. And we must educate staff and students, and parents, on all these issues, and they can reduce our ecological footprint

Whilst some group members where clearly engaged by the project, changing some of their personal

habits, others, for quite legitimate reasons, did not:

Panel Member: I want you just to think of how this project has changed your consumption personally, have you actually done anything differently?

Harry: I'm constantly turning off lights

Teac her: And I'm changing my car! I've actually started looking… my car does 25 miles to the gallon, which is rubbish

Mary: I've done absolutely nothing

Remarks

The above gives a sense of the complexity of changing behaviour, and the stages towards taking

informed action on sustainability issues. The footprinting methodology itself seems to have value in

promoting a pseudo-analytical approach to sustainability, allowing pupils to invest time in

collecting information, and focus discussions about how to make improvements. It is these benefits

we seek to explore in the final section of the paper.

How a School is Used

Here we look at the eco-footprint group’s headline findings; what were the local sustainability

issues this study brought up, how far do they map with pressing design concerns?

It may be worth establishing the legitimacy of these questions in the face of a potential lack of

rigour in the group’s footprinting process. The answers do reflect the level of thinking and

experiences of real school occupants given basic (and repeatable) stimuli for thought. To aid

interpretation we make comments to indicate of the accuracy of data collection. The headings:

transport, shelter, goods etc. are consistent with footprint standards and were used in breaking

down data collection / presentation.







Mobility

The students’ data collection covered pupil and teacher’s transport to and from school, and drew on

a transport survey recently undertaken by the Local Education Authority. They found the eco-

footprint of transport; fossil fuel use to power vehicles, to be one of the largest contributors. This is

consistent with Digest of UK Energy Statistics that, at 36.5 %, puts transport as the greatest singleend usage of energy23.

Students were set the task of considering solutions to reducing schools’ eco-footprint in all areas.

Here, most of the students’ energy went into highlighting offenders:

“ Harry: There's around six four-by-fours in our staff car park. [Harry looks at T who starts laughing, everyone laughs] and one of them lives just across the road, and d rives a four by four to school”

However, coherent ‘high impact’ solutions such as upgrade of the bus fleet, incentives to walk,

cycle or travel by bus were not conceived, the problem possibly too complex to invest time in action

strategies.

Shelter

The usage of gas, electricity and water in creating a sheltered environment, were all included in the

student’s survey. Data from on-site energy bills can be assumed to have had a good degree of

accuracy. There was, however, some difficulty in obtaining the necessary information, as it was

owned by the site Manager, an employee of the PFI contractor. Roughly equal to mobility, the eco-

footprint of shelter came out to be the largest of contributor overall. Again, this is consistent with

overall trends in energy usage.

A discussion about reducing shelter usage initially focused on wasteful practices such as interactivewhiteboards and lights being left on. Prompted by an ‘expert’ panel member the conversation

honed in on the school’s heating system. The students complained:

Beth: We have problems, because half of the school is boiling, and half of the school is absolutely freezing. It just depends, and then down the corridor its absolutely boiling.

Grace: We've told them so many times, on questionnaires they hand out. Because they hand out questionnaires to see what we think of the school. And we've said that quite a few times and nothing's happened.

Beth: Sometimes if we're in English, we'll have all the windows open, and its still really hot. So we'll have someone come down from Science, and they'll take the temperature. And there's like a restriction on how high it's meant to be or something.

Could something be done to reduce this seemingly wasteful consumption? The students identified

one mechanism of change, inspired by a question about the potential benefits of wider uptake of

eco-footprinting:

Beth: it would push the [PFI] companies and the schools to change, if the whole,like, country were doing it.







Grace: Because of the comparison, if you compare that to a school that's not run by...

Beth: And the companies would want to make their school [better]

Expert: [PFI Contractors] probably want to turn down the heating in the school,because they spend less money. But if they did that without this exercise, you'd be all up in arms because they would be accused of freezing children to death.Whereas if you did it under this scheme, it facilitates them to save money, and that might be used as a lever to do things that actually cost them money as well.

Food & Goods

Food consumption, typically one of the largest contributors to a community’s ecological footprint,

was estimated by a survey sent to a sample group of pupils. Meanwhile the yearly usage of goods

like paper, furniture and electrical equipment was estimated from surveys sent to departmental

heads. Students had some difficulty in this area with processing results into a form suitable forentry into the generic footprint calculator.

The idea of improving sustainability by sourcing local food was raised (although, interestingly, there

was no provision for testing this in the eco-footprint calculator). Again the issue of lack of control

was central, as both the teacher and pupils comment:

“Harry: What could school do about [its food footprint]? as T said, the sc hool isn't run by its own council, it's run by [a PFI contractor], therefore we don't have any say in the food which they use, so they obviously use what is cheaper, so we don't have any say in all of that.”

“T: We've had massive problems with the vending machines, because of Alfred McAlpine refusing to take them away. Because they were full of confectionary, and we want to encourage healthy eating. We had an absolute nightmare, they've done it now, but it took absolutely ages. Because they want to make mo ney, you see.”

Remarks

The footprinting project brought to light some relatively simple things a school could do to reduce

its environmental impact. It is clear that when buildings are designed without sustainability in mind

and their occupants are concerned by a multitude of other interests; peer relations, success or

failure in classes etc, the resulting resource flows can operate some way from sustainable levels.

When prompted to quantify and reflect on this, it was striking that the students put so much

emphasis on the need for behaviour change as opposed to technological change. Despite the

engagement, much could still be done to teach and enable a commitment to practical, affordable

and strategies for change.

The barriers to such change hinted at by tenure under a PFI contract can only increase the

significance of these findings to Building Schools for the Future programme.







Conclusions

The significance of our fieldwork, within the context of national programmes for change, may be

summarised:

Commitments to sustainability in Building Schools for the Future could be made more explicitto better reflect other policies put forward by government such as the Framework for

Sustainable Schools;

We contend that both long-term sustainability, and educational change, will be best served if

there is sufficient local capacity to take ownership of local issues

However, the process of building capacity for change is both complex and requires a long-term

approach that takes heed of lessons learnt elsewhere

There is a danger that the PFI process used in Building Schools for the Future will create barriers

that prevent building teachers and students from taking ownership of and continually

responding to changing sustainability issues

References

1. HOUSE OF COMMONS EDUCATION AND SKILLS COMMITTEE. Sustainable Schools: Are we building

schools for the future? The Stationery Office Limited, London, 2007

2. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Building schools for the future: consultation on a new

approach to capital investment. DfES Publications, Nottingham. 2003 (DFES/0134/2003 )

3. See http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/programme/progress.jsp

4. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Building schools for the future: a new approach to

capital investment. DfES Publications, Nottingham. 2004 (DFES/0218/2004 )

5. HIGGINS S., HALL E., WALL K., WOOLNER P. AND MCCAUGHEY C. The Impact of School Environments:

A literature review. Design Council 2005 See: www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/Design-

Council/3/Publications/The-Impact-of-School-Learning-Environments for further details.

Acessesed 07/12/2008

6. BENTLEY T., FAIRLEY C. AND WRIGHT S. Design For Learning. DEMOS/Sorrell Foundation 2001. See:

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/designforlearning for further details. Accessed

07/12/2008

7. See: http://www.cees.org.uk/ . Accessed 08/12/2008

8. JACKSON, L. Leading Sustainable Schools: What the research tells us. National College for School

Leadership. See: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/sustainableschools-research . Accessed 08/12/2008

9. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Sustainable Development Action

Plan for Education and Skills. DfES Publications, 2003. See:

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/docs/SDactionplan.pdf . Accessed 08/12/2008

http://www.cees.org.uk/



http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/docs/SDactionplan.pdf










10. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS. Sustainable Schools for Pupils, Communities and the

Environment. DfES publications 2006. Also see:

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/ for further details. Accessed 07/12/2008

11. Department for Children, Schools and Families. DCSF Delivery Plan for Sustainable Schools.

DCSF, 2008 See: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/docs/SchoolsDeliveryplanNov08.doc. for

further details. Accessed 07/12/2008

12. DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES. S3 Sustainable School Self-Evaluation. DSCF,

v2 May 2008. See:

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/s3_self_evaluation_tool.pdf for

further details. Accessed 07/12/2008

13. See: http://www.ukbap.org.uk for further details. Accessed 08/12/2008

14. ORR, D. Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. 1992 Albany,NY: SUNY Press

15. VARE P. AND SCOTT W. Learning for a Change: Exploring the Relationship between Education and

Sustainable Development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 2007; 1; 191

16. HEIMLICH, J. E. AND ARDOIN, N. M. Understanding behaviour to understand behaviour change: A

literature review. Environmental Education Research, 2008 14 ; 3; 215 - 237

17. HUNGERFORD H. R. AND VOLK T. L. Changing learner behaviour through Environmental Education.

Journal of Environmental Education, 199021 (3): 8-21

18. See: http://www.scotlandsfootprint.org/ for further details. Accessed 8/12/2008

19. GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK STANDARDS COMMITTEES. Ecological Footprint Standards 2006. GFN

2006. See: http://www.footprintstandards.org/ for further details. Accessed 8/12/2008

20. VAN DEN BERGH, J. C. J. M., VERBRUGGEN, H. Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an

evaluation of the ’ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29 , 61 – 72.

21. FIOLA N. Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad

environmental science. Ecological Economics, 2008, 67 519-525

22. GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK 2008 National Footprint Accounts GFN, 2008. See:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2008/ for

further details. Accessed 08/12/2008.

23. DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM. Digest of UK Energy Statistics

2008. The Stationery Office, London, 2008

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/docs/SchoolsDeliveryplanNov08.doc



http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/s3_self_evaluation_tool.pdf


http://www.ukbap.org.uk/



http://www.scotlandsfootprint.org/



http://www.footprintstandards.org/



http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2008/






