Education Liveability A Local Perspective Michael Coleman London

Education & Liveability – A Local Perspective Michael Coleman London Borough of Hackney

Contents • Local context • Need vs. Strategy • Aspirations vs. constraints • Our response • The future

Local Context Area of 19. 06 km 2 , population 263150 (June 2015) 25% of population under 20 11 th most deprived borough in England (2015) 1997, Stephen Byers, the minister for schools, declared Hackney as ‘the worst LEA in the country’ • 2002, LBH still the worst performing in league tables • Percentage of students with 5+ GCSE grades A*–C • • Ø 1990 = 14% vs. 35% nationally (lowest performer in England) Ø 2015 = 60. 4% vs. 53. 8% nationally (15 th in London) • 2016, 86% first preference is for LBH secondary school

Need vs. Strategy • Demographic need: c. 1650 additional places by 2021 • But quality of provision is of equal importance • Building Schools for the Future delivered significant and palpable improvements to facilities • Austerity is not the answer to LBH’s challenges! • Local focus remains on providing quality facilities for all, working with ESFA & MATs to continue improvements • The compromise = supplement government funding to augment the learning environment • LA-led mixed use developments to generate capital

Aspirations vs. Constraints • Constraints (new schools) Ø Available space - 6 FE secondary schools’ footprint alone is greater than most of our available sites (even if going ‘properly’ multi-storey) Ø Funding – government funding will meet c. 60% of final costs for space allocation and facilities commensurate with existing secondary estate Ø Time – to develop, refine, approve, build, occupy = 4 -5 years minimum Ø External space – we cannot match what shire counties have! • Aspirations/Responses Ø Designs led by pedagogy and behaviour management, not £ and habit Ø Buildings that make an unashamed statement – ‘You are valued’ Ø Every space must add value to the whole, given it is at a premium, but we should not be slaves to net capacity – flexibility is fundamental Ø Natural light, generous circulation, bespoke design, efficient use of the available external space, designed to a pedagogical model (but must not be entirely bespoke and thus inflexible)

Our response – Tiger Way (mixed use)

Our response – Mossbourne Riverside

Our response – Mossbourne Riverside

Our response – Ickburgh School

Our response – Ickburgh School

Our response – Thomas Fairchild

Our response – Urswick School

The future • Continue to investigate innovative funding models to finance high quality schools • Continued focus on bespoke designs that maximise pedagogical and social benefits (e. g. ‘family dining’) • We want to work with all parties to achieve mutually beneficial results – MATs, ESFA, etc. • The quality of the school environment matters – the opportunity cost of austerity greater than fiscal savings • Even the architect of BSF’s demise has publicly regretted doing so… If only about ‘how’ not why’! • Primary schools now urgently need investment…

Thank you