• Events
  • Masters Course
  • Members area
  • Jobs
  • Media Centre
  • Contact UK
  • | USA
Home
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Work
  • Projects
  • Blogs
  • GreenFutures
  • The Lab
  • Forum Network
  • GreenFutures

What we work on

  • Food
  • Energy
  • Finance
  • Other sectors

How we do it

  • Futures & Diagnosis
  • Innovation
  • Scaling up
  • Sustainable Business
Home › Blogs › Show All › Education, Education, Education

Filter

  • Show All
  • Forum Blog
  • Jonathon Porritt
  • Weak Signals

Education, Education, Education

31st March, 2010 by Jonathon Porritt | Add a comment
Tags :

Here’s a bit of vintage Blair for you: “Sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and even generates its own power. Our students won’t just be told about sustainable development, they will see and work within a school that is a living, learning place in which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means”.Having delivered himself of these eloquent words, Tony Blair sat back and got on with other things, presumably on the assumption that the Department for Children, Schools and Families would get together with Treasury and just ‘make it happen’. DCSF delivered on its side of the deal in terms of its ‘Sustainable Schools’ initiative, which is one of the best things the Labour Government has done. But from the point of view of our educational estate, Treasury and DCSF then spent the next decade scrapping over what could or couldn’t be done, from a sustainability perspective, through Building Schools for the Future, PFI and other capital programmes.Net outcome ten years on: pretty poor. Some brilliant (even ‘iconic’) examples of best practice on both new build and refurbishments; a somewhat larger number of projects that might be described as ‘good, but nothing special’, and a much, much larger number of projects that fall so far short of what could have been done as to make Tony Blair’s words ring very hollow indeed.It’s hard to exaggerate the scale of this missed opportunity – from an educational as well as a sustainability point of view. Here’s a very different kind of quote from an Ofsted Report last year:“In the sample schools, ‘hands-on activities’ in a range of locations contributed to improvements in standards, achievement, motivation, personal development and behaviour”.What’s being referred to here is what is known as ‘Learning Outside the Classroom’. Not just in terms of school visits and field trips, but in terms of the use of School Grounds designed specifically to promote good learning and excellent social interaction. In other words, proof positive of the kind of educational outcome that can be achieved by designing schools to the highest sustainability standards.During the election period, I’d like to see those words embossed in gold and hung over the desk of the Secretary of State at DCSF – in preparation for the next holder of that Office. They would remind him/her that schools that are well-designed, zero-carbon, super-efficient, bio-diverse and just great places to be, make a massive contribution to learning, motivation and even behaviour.What kind of money value should we put on that as taxpayers? I only ask because Treasury puts a zero value on it. It really couldn’t care less about the huge societal benefits that flow from that kind of educational uplift.Indeed, Treasury is so utterly dysfunctional that it still hasn’t settled on a standard way of accounting for the reduced operating costs of super-efficient, very low-carbon schools over the life-time of any new or even refurbished school. Time after time, as a direct result of this failure, the blindingly obvious case for spending more up front on capital costs (anywhere between 10% and 15%, depending on particular circumstances) is ignored – or eroded away as the inevitable cost-cutting kicks in during the design and construction phase for both new build and refurbishments.The sums involved here (in terms of capital programmes for the educational estate) are staggering: at least £45 billion over a ten-year period. Knowing what we now know about future energy costs and the likely cost of carbon, it’s criminally irresponsible not to be spending every one of those pounds as sustainably as possible in order to protect the interests of future taxpayers.A worthy case, perhaps, for the Taxpayers’ Alliance – if they weren’t so ideologically predisposed against anything progressive, let alone sustainable.One of the organisations that has been tracking this story close-up has been Learning Through Landscapes (LTL). LTL was set up 20 years ago, to get Head Teachers, the Department, Local Education Authorities and Ofsted to focus in on the importance of school grounds, both from a recreational and an educational point of view. During that time it’s advised and supported hundreds of schools, lobbied a stream of Ministers, and helped make life better, on the ground, for countless kids passing through those improved premises.It’s achieved a huge amount – as became very clear at its 20th Anniversary Conference in London last week. But it could have achieved so much more if it hadn’t come up against the Treasury’s reality-defying short-termism.

Add your comment »

Comments

Septic Tanks and Sewage Treatment Plants (not verified), 27 April 2010 - 13:10
  • reply

I do not believe that schools have any idea about sustainability or the concepts behind it. We have just had a request for a quotation for a cesspool for a new 100 pupil school. UK Building Regs would deem that they need a minimum 310,500L cesspool as they work on a minimum 45 day storage capacity, though they are asking for 910,000Litres storage capacity. This will need to be emptied every 130 days. This usually costs around £120 per 4500L, or £24,066.00 every 130 days in their case and who is going to pay for it - the taxpayer. It will also involve the use of 45 x 20,000L tanker trucks to transport it to the municipal sewage works, with all their associated Carbon Emissions. The Carbon Footprint of their intended Cesspool is enormous and certainly NOT GREEN! Cesspools are banned in Scotland, France and many other countries because they are not sustainable. The Environment Agency states that they should only be used as a LAST RESORT. As a school, I would have hoped that they would have tried to teach by example. Why don't they look at sustainable, non-electric sewage treatment plants if they are serious about being GREEN.

Add your comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Case insensitive.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Our Partners

Contact

  • Forum in the UK
  • Forum in the USA

Keep in touch

  • Join us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • See us on LinkedIn
  • Forum pics on Flickr
  • Forum on YouTube

 Sign up to our newsletter

About Us

  • Meet the team
  • Our history
  • Our achievements
  • Our governance
  • Who do we work with?
  • Annual reports

Forum Network

  • Work with us
  • Members area

Our Work

  • What we work on
    • Food
    • Energy
    • Finance
    • Other sectors
  • How we do it
    • Futures & Diagnosis
    • Innovation
    • Scaling up
    • Sustainable Business

Projects

  • Show all
  • Food
  • Energy
  • Finance
  • Other Sectors
  • Futures & Diagnosis
  • Innovation
  • Sustainable Business
  • Scaling Up

Blogs

  • Show All
  • Forum Blog
  • Jonathon Porritt
  • Weak Signals

© 2011 Forum for the Future | Terms of Use | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Site Map | Login | Logout

Site built by : New Digital Partnership

The Forum for the Future is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Overseas House, 19-23 Ironmonger Row, London, EC1V 3QN, UK. Registered charity no. 1040519. Company no. 2959712. VAT registration no. 677 7475 70