Thread: British schools rebuilt Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023966
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on
:
Thanks to the Public-private partnerships in Britain, many schools and academies have been rebuilt. In many cases this was long overdue. However I have noticed that a couple of (co-incidentally Roman Catholic) secondaries near me in South London have been built without a hall big enough to accommodate the whole school! No whole-school assembly or act of worship is possible, unless (I guess) they use the gym: plays and concerts take place in spaces which are much too small. Obviously this is to do with finance, but it seems like madness to me. Also some schools do not even have a staff room any more.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I went to a secondary school that had started out as an independent charitable foundation and which then got incorporated into the state system but maintaining its own traditions and identity.
Its buildings dated from about 1904 and it did not have any room big enough for a whole-school assembly. Instead, half the school had assembly in the Hall, and the other half had assembly in the Chapel.
Despite this the school governors were very keen to emphasise the school's religious heritage, and our assemblies were definitely intended to be Christian services.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
You think that's bad? The shiny new regulations from the DfE no longer require schools to have kitchens or canteens .
Now, some might argue that whole-school assemblies are not really a necessary part of the educational experience. But everybody needs to eat. The teachers at this school think it's so important they are paying for their pupils' breakfasts themselves.
[ 16. October 2012, 11:11: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
You think that's bad? I saw in the TES last week that they are building schools without staffrooms!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
...obviously because the schools of the future will no longer have any (human) staff...
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
In a recent speech, Michael Gove indicated that new schools/school buildings would not be designed by architects. Presumably the job will be down a pupil's competition and the winner gets a Blue Peter badge
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Gove's scheme eliminates carves -introduced by Victorian architects for safety reasons. His plans sound as though they would enable the builders of new buildings to reuse abandoned battery hen sheds.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
In a recent speech, Michael Gove indicated that new schools/school buildings would not be designed by architects. Presumably the job will be down a pupil's competition and the winner gets a Blue Peter badge
I think that means the buildings will be designed in house by the building firms retained to construct the new schools. Something which architects hate but cuts down their fees and ensures that schools are dull but practical and not the sort of high cost, high maintenance, avant-garde constructions so beloved of architects.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You think that's bad? I saw in the TES last week that they are building schools without staffrooms!
My former school was rebuilt without a staffroom - the intention was to encourage department members to snack together in their own offices - which meant they tended to talk about their work rather than gossip.
It's a way of making teachers work through their breaks.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David Powell:
without a hall big enough to accommodate the whole school! No whole-school assembly or act of worship is possible, unless (I guess) they use the gym
The 1988 Education Reform Act envisaged this and allowed for smaller assembly groupings e.g. in tutor groups, tear groups or houses.
The suggestion that it is not necessary for a whole school to assemble together has come to be seen as a recommendation.
[ 16. October 2012, 16:04: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...obviously because the schools of the future will no longer have any (human) staff...
And the children will have no need of food? Or is it that we all know that those council-estate oiks are obese?
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Gove's scheme eliminates carves
"Curves" I think you mean. I was confused for a while there!
And, bogglingly, it seems to be true. The education ministry document Baseline designs - cost and area says:
quote:
The baseline designs have been costed and are achievable within the funding allocation.
This has been achieved by:
[...]
Using orthogonal forms with no curves or ‘faceted’ curves, having minimal indents, ‘dog legs’ and notches in the plan shapes.
[...]
Specification reductions, rationalisations and omissions have also been applied to ensure affordability. Examples include:
External envelope specifications – no glazed curtain walling or ETFE roofs; low cost envelope materials, such as render or metal panel, above ground floor window head height; optimisation of window areas as a percentage of classroom external wall area; no external roof terraces.
Internal materials and finishes specifications – basic specification solid core doors; no folding partitions; basic stair and balustrading finishes; fair faced concrete soffits.
Mechanical and electrical specifications – no internal CCTV other than to the main entrance; reduced lighting specifications; simplified building controls and energy management system in place of complex (Building Management System).
Also the press release Schools to be freed from over-prescriptive buildings rules makes these points:
quote:
Schools across England are to be freed from confusing and unnecessary regulations on school buildings.
[...]
The current regulations for maintained and independent schools contain some over-prescriptive and burdensome rules. This includes:
Complicated lighting requirements – "light fittings must not produce a glare index of more than 19". Schools would find it impossible to know whether they meet them without getting in technical experts. However, safeguards will remain in place for children with special educational needs to ensure schools get specialist advice when required.
Specific requirements on the numbers of toilets and wash basins per pupils. For example, washrooms in secondary schools with three or more toilets or urinals must have two thirds the number of sinks. Under the proposed changes schools will still have to provide well planned and designed facilities but will be freed from unnecessary over-prescription.
Schools having to provide a space to dry pupils’ coats. Schools will instead take a common sense approach making sure there are suitable facilities.
Boarding schools have to have at least 0.9m between beds in dormitories and provide at least 2.3m² of living space per pupil. This over-prescription will be removed, but schools will still have to follow the relevant fire regulations and provide suitable facilities.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Sorry ken - thanks for spotting it. A isn't even near u, weird.
Also, corridors are not to be wide - recent work has found that wider corridors reduce trouble during lesson changes, so "they" obviously want to increase aggressive behaviour.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
ken quoted from the press release: quote:
Schools having to provide a space to dry pupils’ coats. Schools will instead take a common sense approach making sure there are suitable facilities.
What that usually means is that facilities will be cut to the bone as budgets are trimmed. It will apply to many other areas too. Future generations of children will be 'educated' in utilitarian sheds, deprived of a civilised space in which to socialise, etc. etc. Gove's contempt of architects is of a piece with his utilitarian, Gradgrindian mindset: Mr Jerry-Builder's back-of-the-envelope school design is likely to be not just inferior but very much a false economy compared to a half-decent architect who knows how to use space.
The most civilised school I have worked in (now sadly closed and demolished) had no 'fancy' buildings (and few curves), but it was well landscaped; there were pleasant gardens for pupils to move around and hang around in - few corridors because the school consisted of discrete buildings around a campus. A school population of nearly 2000 wouldn't have fitted into any hall except a massive arena, but the existing hall was well used and assemblies consisted of smaller, more homogenous groupings. Every student belonged to a 'house' which was the social and pastoral unit where they were known, and cared for, much better than they might have been in a traditional 500-pupil secondary school. And no, this wasn't some privileged suburban academy but an ordinary comprehensive school serving one of the most deprived communities in the UK.
I can't imagine Gove wishing to reproduce such a school now. Children are like battery hens to be force fed with Facts. The irony is that the Gradgrind era (or the years following) produced some of the best, most attractive and most effective school buildings. We're going back to the dark ages.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Until recently, there was a school in Creamtealand where the pupils of one class had to climb in the window because there was no proper door. The school had a thatched roof as well.
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
My old comp - now 50% bigger in student numbers - is refurbishing the toilet blocks and they will be 'non-gender specific'
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
ken quoted from the press release: quote:
Schools having to provide a space to dry pupils’ coats. Schools will instead take a common sense approach making sure there are suitable facilities.
What that usually means is that facilities will be cut to the bone as budgets are trimmed. It will apply to many other areas too. Future generations of children will be 'educated' in utilitarian sheds, deprived of a civilised space in which to socialise, etc. etc. Gove's contempt of architects is of a piece with his utilitarian, Gradgrindian mindset: Mr Jerry-Builder's back-of-the-envelope school design is likely to be not just inferior but very much a false economy compared to a half-decent architect who knows how to use space.
The most civilised school I have worked in (now sadly closed and demolished) had no 'fancy' buildings (and few curves), but it was well landscaped; there were pleasant gardens for pupils to move around and hang around in - few corridors because the school consisted of discrete buildings around a campus. A school population of nearly 2000 wouldn't have fitted into any hall except a massive arena, but the existing hall was well used and assemblies consisted of smaller, more homogenous groupings. Every student belonged to a 'house' which was the social and pastoral unit where they were known, and cared for, much better than they might have been in a traditional 500-pupil secondary school. And no, this wasn't some privileged suburban academy but an ordinary comprehensive school serving one of the most deprived communities in the UK.
I can't imagine Gove wishing to reproduce such a school now. Children are like battery hens to be force fed with Facts. The irony is that the Gradgrind era (or the years following) produced some of the best, most attractive and most effective school buildings. We're going back to the dark ages.
My secondary school was a lot like the one you describe - we had a campus rather than one large building, which was built around a large pond. Architecturally-speaking it wasn't perfect - for example the library could only be accessed by an outside stone staircase which was lethal when it rained - but a pleasant learning environment undoubtedly helps make school easier. I feel like school is to be used as a punishment under Gove.
As for assembly, the different years simply had theirs on different days. Having assembly once a week was plenty.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
My old comp - now 50% bigger in student numbers - is refurbishing the toilet blocks and they will be 'non-gender specific'
I think gender-neutral toilets will be the norm soon - I've certainly seen them in many places now. Gender-segregated toilets are a pretty modern invention anyway and not particularly natural. Obviously ease of use for transgender people is a big reason behind the adjustment but gender-segregated toilets seem rather pointless anyway. It is also helpful for parents who need to accompany opposite-gendered children to the toilet when there is no disabled or baby changing access.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
But in schools, and particularly when you've got adolescents with huge body image issues???
The toilets in my high school were dreadful places, the haunts of bullies and drug takers. But at least you were fairly sure the bullies/druggies were of your own gender. Having to worry that much more about rape and sexual harassment in the toilets is just wrong.
(the one decent toilet in my high school was accessible only from within the segregated girls' changing room)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But in schools, and particularly when you've got adolescents with huge body image issues???
The toilets in my high school were dreadful places, the haunts of bullies and drug takers. But at least you were fairly sure the bullies/druggies were of your own gender. Having to worry that much more about rape and sexual harassment in the toilets is just wrong.
(the one decent toilet in my high school was accessible only from within the segregated girls' changing room)
But...they're toilets, not showers. I'm not sure why body image issues would come into it - you wouldn't see more of people than you would in the classroom. And if a school has such an issue with bullying/drug-taking/sexual harrassment, that's not something gender-segregated toilets will fix. There was none of that in my school toilets, and this was in inner city Coventry 2000-2005.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think gender-neutral toilets will be the norm soon - I've certainly seen them in many places now. Gender-segregated toilets are a pretty modern invention anyway and not particularly natural. Obviously ease of use for transgender people is a big reason behind the adjustment but gender-segregated toilets seem rather pointless anyway. It is also helpful for parents who need to accompany opposite-gendered children to the toilet when there is no disabled or baby changing access.
I hope that never comes to pass. As for the argument that we've all got to use the same loos as a gesture to the very small number of transgender people who probably aren't there anyway, that's taking dogma to ridiculous levels.
As for gender-segregated toilets being a modern invention, public toilets are a modern invention. Do you want to revert to using every inconvenient bush or alleyway, or piddling in a pot outside a fuller's house?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Gender-neutral toilets are the norm in France (if the traditional 'hole-in-the-ground' could be said to be gender-neutral). This is fine provided they do not include pissoirs, but I still wouldn't have wanted them in my secondary school. As Lamb Chopped says, at least in the toilets you knew all the bullies would be of your own sex (we didn't know about gender back in those days...) Ironic that the Tories are considering harmonising our loos with other members of the EU!
Ken: quote:
And the children will have no need of food? Or is it that we all know that those council-estate oiks are obese?
Well yes, that's why I think not making kitchens and canteens compulsory is a really bad idea. Because everyone knows that things which are not compulsory are likely to be left out.
I'd missed the bit about lighting though. Keeping glare down is 'over-prescriptive'?! Which planet do these people live on? Don't they know how hard it is to use a computer under a glaring light?
<sarcasm on> Still, I suppose there will be no money for computers in schools, so the problem will solve itself. <\sarcasm off>
[ 17. October 2012, 08:04: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Gove's contempt of architects is of a piece with his utilitarian, Gradgrindian mindset: Mr Jerry-Builder's back-of-the-envelope school design is likely to be not just inferior but very much a false economy compared to a half-decent architect who knows how to use space.
[/QUOTE]
Just out of interest do you live in a house that was designed by an architect?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for assembly, the different years simply had theirs on different days. Having assembly once a week was plenty.
But the law requires it daily and the Tories have stated that they have no wish to change the law on this.
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for assembly, the different years simply had theirs on different days. Having assembly once a week was plenty.
But the law requires it daily and the Tories have stated that they have no wish to change the law on this.
How many schools do you know that stick to that? I can count the ones I know (and I know a lot of local schools) on the fingers of one hand (and they're all CofE or Catholic Primary)
[ 17. October 2012, 11:36: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
As an Australian educator, I find many of the comments and observations above, well, intriguing. Hopefully I'm not going off at a total tangent: merely to explain and compare national differences.
Firstly, local councils have no role in schools at all. The state sets exams, employs teachers, sets the curriculum, and finances the whole lot (I won't go into the complex way that is handled here: the trouble with having a federal, state and local government system).
Australian public schools (which here are the government schools) have a canteen but not of the sort found in their British counterparts. Here students can buy food and drink etc - 99.9% of the time it is never provided. New healthy eating initiatives have removed a lot of the pies, lollies and sweets that used to adorn school canteens (which were usually, back in my student days, always run by the local P&C on voluntary basis). When I was a student I used to bring mine with me - sometimes I was given the money for a pie or the like. The only 'freebie' to be had was during primary school when we had free milk at recess - which in summer time meant it was quite warm.
Private schools (i.e independant, whether of a religious base or not) sometimes provide dining rooms for their staff and students: I have had a couple of really nice meals in some of the harbour-side school dining rooms.
Most schools have extensive grounds - with 1200 students (an average secondary school) you need them. My 1950s built secondary school was built on 22 acres of ground: damn them for it - had your own cross-country space. But also each subject had their own building, the new science/seniors block was a modern double-story with fountain in the courtyeard, etc.
I know inner city schools are squeezed for land: even Sydney Grammar has to go down to other spots/ovals/etc for sport and compulsary PE.
As staff we were glad that school assemblies were ever one once a week or fortnightly - can't imagine assemblies on a daily basis.
Now, of course, if our educators of children were paid as true professionals, and had the equipment/facilities of profesisonals, we might get somewhere better - whether here in Australia, or elsewhere.
The last school I taught at was the most recent school to be built, and it was a private-government partnership. It had the best facilities I'd ever encountered (though, sadly, no staff dining rooms as per above): interactive whiteboards in every room (traditional blackboards have been banned in new schools for quite some time now due to dust allergy etc); data ports in every room, which enabled teachers to make use of multi-media more readily (also meant we took the roll electronically),and computer were available without having to book one of the specialist computer rooms. We could also stream a video and show it via the data projector which was in each room.
Look at the Finland model, for instance, which is often quoted downunder as what we should be aiming for, as an example of where education is a priority.
Sir Humphrey (on conscription): It might even give them a comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education!
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
If there is no staffroom, where are the staff to carry out the activities of planning, preparation and assessment in the time allotted for it? Sitting on the stairs?
These will be schools too hot in summer, too cold in winter, with sodden coats hanging on the backs of chairs, girls reluctant to go to the loo to change sanitary protection because of the boys' contests to leave wet marks higher up the wall than anyone else, with nowhere to hide. (And I've wept in the loos as an adult, too.)
Is it them the gods wish to destroy, or us?
[ 17. October 2012, 13:18: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
School meals in the UK are not free either (they cost around £2 per day ATM) unless your family qualifies for income support/unemployment benefit. Many families poor enough to qualify don't claim their children's free school meals because of the stigma associated with being a 'welfare scrounger'.
We have whiteboards too; we're not actually living in the dark ages although some people seem to want to go back there. My daughter's school (an ordinary state-funded primary) has wireless internet and its own VLE (= virtual learning environment). They have laptops rather than a dedicated computer room, so any classroom can quickly be converted into a computer lab.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Gove's contempt of architects is of a piece with his utilitarian, Gradgrindian mindset: Mr Jerry-Builder's back-of-the-envelope school design is likely to be not just inferior but very much a false economy compared to a half-decent architect who knows how to use space.
Just out of interest do you live in a house that was designed by an architect? [/QUOTE]
No: I live in half of a Victorian semi that was divided up in the 1930s. It has character but an architect would have made much better use of the space. I know the philistine establishment scoff at architects who design ultra-modern buildings and live in Georgian terraces themselves... not mentioning that they often radically redesign the interiors.
I certainly wouldn't want to entrust the design of a school to some property developer cum jerrybuilder, intent on cutting corners (literally as well as metaphorically) and throwing up a utilitarian box that might last for all of five years (until the next government, natch.)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for assembly, the different years simply had theirs on different days. Having assembly once a week was plenty.
But the law requires it daily and the Tories have stated that they have no wish to change the law on this.
For 16 years I was a governor of a comprehensive school which had no room big enough to hold an all pupil assembly. Every OFSTED report would note that there was no daily act of collective worship - and the inspectors would confirm that the same applied in almost very comprehensive they visited.
The law is already a dead letter - the Tories have no wish to change it but I doubt they'll enforce it either. We'd have loved a room big enough to get 1300 kids into - after assembly it would have been used for all sorts of things. Expensive though ....
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It's a tangent, but quite apart from the (logical?) impossibility of forcing people to 'worship', it's rarely been possible for reasons of space, as you point out. But does the law say that 'collective' necessarily means the whole school assembling at once? Surely several concurrent 'acts of worship' held in tutor-groups or year assemblies would comply with the law.
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on
:
Regardless of whether the school meets for an act of worship, I think it's important for some sense of "corporate identity" (there's probably a better way of expressing that) to have a large space to convene; even if it's for Midsummer Night's Dream or Pirates of Penzance. Or Grease in case I'm being too middle class.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But...they're toilets, not showers.
Men and boys stand up to piss. Women and girls chat in the bogs and do their hair and makeup. Or so the stereotype goes. I doubt if the two activities would fit together well for thirteen year olds.
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Most schools have extensive grounds - with 1200 students (an average secondary school) you need them. My 1950s built secondary school was built on 22 acres of ground: damn them for it - had your own cross-country space. But also each subject had their own building, the new science/seniors block was a modern double-story with fountain in the courtyeard, etc.
Depends on location here. The primary school I went to in Brighton in the 1960s was built in an outer suburb in the 1950s, and backed on to open fields (and in those days I'm not sure there was a fence all round). We had two tarmaced playgrounds, and two large playing fields. The whole site maybe 3 hectares or so - but felt larger because open on two sides. There were somewhere between 600 and 700 pupils.
The secondary school I went to was built on the outskirts of town in the 1930s (so by the time I got there the suburbs had advanced well beyond it) It was on a campus with three other schools, but had more than its fair share of the grounds, maybe about half of them. So we had two full-sized cricket pitches and two or three football pitches as well as a large paved area and some tennis courts, forless than 600 boys. The total green area was an irregualr shape perhaps about 600 metres acroiss at the widest part, maybe 20-25 hectares - I think that is around 50 acres ort more. Some has been built on since, but looking at the areas as it is now on Google Earth I can see, between the four schools, markings for six football pitches, one large irregular area where we used to play cricket, an oval running track that might be 400 metres lap distance, half a dozen smaller sports fields, some areas marked for throwing sports like javelin and so on, and quite a bit of open space. So taking all four schools into account we had almost as much open space as your Australians did, and my one had more. (And what's worse it was near a golf course and some open downland parks where we got sent for the evil cross-country running)
But my daughter's primary school, in south-east London, was built on a triangular site maybe just over 100m across on each side. So less than a hectare. It had far fewer pupils - one and a half form entry so perhaps just over 300 including a few nursery - but still much less space. Now its being turned into a secondary school on the same site, which is intended to grow to over 600. So maybe twenty times the population density of the school I went to!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Latest news: Gove is refusing to allow LEAs to build new schools unless they hand them over to become academies.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[qb] But...they're toilets, not showers.
Men and boys stand up to piss. Women and girls chat in the bogs and do their hair and makeup. Or so the stereotype goes. I doubt if the two activities would fit together well for thirteen year olds.
....and boys can stand up to use the toilet in a cubicle. We have some gender-neutral toilets at uni and they don't have urinals.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think gender-neutral toilets will be the norm soon - I've certainly seen them in many places now. Gender-segregated toilets are a pretty modern invention anyway and not particularly natural. Obviously ease of use for transgender people is a big reason behind the adjustment but gender-segregated toilets seem rather pointless anyway. It is also helpful for parents who need to accompany opposite-gendered children to the toilet when there is no disabled or baby changing access.
I hope that never comes to pass. As for the argument that we've all got to use the same loos as a gesture to the very small number of transgender people who probably aren't there anyway, that's taking dogma to ridiculous levels.
As for gender-segregated toilets being a modern invention, public toilets are a modern invention. Do you want to revert to using every inconvenient bush or alleyway, or piddling in a pot outside a fuller's house?
We have some gender-segregated toilets at university and there's no problem. I really don't see the issue with them - there aren't urinals (men use the cubicles) so no one sees more of each other than they would outside.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
gender-neutral toilets will be the norm soon - I've certainly seen them in many places now.
For low-traffic situations they are already becoming the norm in the U.S. But where the volume is high-- this will be Feminism vs. economic efficiency: an irresistable force in our culture colliding with an immovable object. Such cultural fireworks are always fascinating entertainment. Who needs noisy shoot-em-up movies?
You see, urinals are cheaper than toilet stalls. They are also stinky. So are women going to endure the stench (and give "cut off their nose to spite their face" a whole new meaning), or demand that architects abolish urinals and provide only toilets instead (costlier in terms both of of plumbing hardware and square footage).
Sit back and enjoy the show.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
....and boys can stand up to use the toilet in a cubicle. We have some gender-neutral toilets at uni and they don't have urinals.
So in a country where water scarcity is becoming an increasing problem we end up replacing a facility with low water usage with a facility that has to be flushed every time it's used. Except of course not everyone will flush it when they've finished, so users will flush it when they arrive to get rid of the previous occupant's waste. But most toilets can't cope with being flushed twice in a couple of minutes, so having flushed it when they arrive the device won't flush when they leave. So there will just be regular build ups of waste, blockages and germs.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
In Ontario, Canada no primary school (K-6 or K-8 depending on location) has a cafeteria, they aren't built with them, students are expected to bring their own lunches or go home for lunch. My sister-in-law lived across the street from her primary school so that's what she did.
Depending on the school board and historic practice, Grades 7 and 8 can be in secondary school buildings as an Intermediate School. No school up here does "campuses", it's one building, always. Winter.
I went to an Intermediate School and the High School was in the same building, but with a different principal. The high school had a cafeteria, but burgers only. Most people still brought their own lunch.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You see, urinals are cheaper than toilet stalls. They are also stinky. So are women going to endure the stench (and give "cut off their nose to spite their face" a whole new meaning), or demand that architects abolish urinals and provide only toilets instead (costlier in terms both of of plumbing hardware and square footage).
Sit back and enjoy the show.
Didn't we already solve this by building a lot of new buildings with gender segregated bathrooms and one (small) 'family' or 'gender-neutral' bathroom?
Standing amongst those who can't imagine how I would have even survived my schooling without gender segregated bathrooms...
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Maybe your toilets (restrooms, loos, bathrooms, whatever) are different than ours. Ours are a large open space with several cubicles containing individual toilets. Each cubicle is made of two side panels and a hinged swinging door. There are normally person-sized gaps between the panels/doors and the floor, so you could in a pinch escape, even if the door refused to unlock. However, this also means that other people who are determined to do so can get at you. Again, the places where the panels meet the door usually have a gap of about half an inch, sometimes more, which means that even people who aren't trying to look through can tell whether someone is in the cubicle just by walking by. The situation is only tolerable because one assumes that those passing by are a) of your same gender and b) therefore most likely not sexually interested in you. Remove that and you have a big ol' can of worms. Especially during self-conscious adolescence, or when there are bullies involved.
Even if it weren't for the visibility and accessibility issues, women will still have the problem of having to make regular visits to an enclosed spot where there might not be anybody else at all, for hours even--and where they now face the likelihood of running into a rapist (usually male) who has every right to be there, unquestioned. There is no risk to lurking with intent in a unisex restroom of the sort I've described. Nobody will ask you what you are doing there, whether you are male or female. Your physical appearance is no longer a red flag. No one will call security if you are seen entering. Nobody will even notice if you're in there for hours, waiting--as long as you're smart enough to nip into a cubicle and groan occasionally. What a lovely set up for trouble.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Didn't we already solve this by building a lot of new buildings with gender segregated bathrooms and one (small) 'family' or 'gender-neutral' bathroom?
Oh, is that all this is about? No problem, then. I misunderstood from what Jade wrote that the growing custom was for gender-neutral restrooms only, wherein there would be no urinals and all the guys would use toilets-- so that not a single place shall remain from which women are excluded. Sometimes this seems like a logical conclusion to draw. But perhaps I'm making a tempest in a tearoom pot. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It reminds me of a campus Christian center which had a men's room, labeled Adam, and a ladies' room labeled "Eve." Between them was a janitor's closet, which I thought ought to be labeled "the forbidden fruit."
[ 18. October 2012, 02:23: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Maybe your toilets (restrooms, loos, bathrooms, whatever) are different than ours. Ours are a large open space with several cubicles containing individual toilets. Each cubicle is made of two side panels and a hinged swinging door. There are normally person-sized gaps between the panels/doors and the floor, so you could in a pinch escape, even if the door refused to unlock. However, this also means that other people who are determined to do so can get at you. Again, the places where the panels meet the door usually have a gap of about half an inch, sometimes more, which means that even people who aren't trying to look through can tell whether someone is in the cubicle just by walking by. The situation is only tolerable because one assumes that those passing by are a) of your same gender and b) therefore most likely not sexually interested in you. Remove that and you have a big ol' can of worms. Especially during self-conscious adolescence, or when there are bullies involved.
Even if it weren't for the visibility and accessibility issues, women will still have the problem of having to make regular visits to an enclosed spot where there might not be anybody else at all, for hours even--and where they now face the likelihood of running into a rapist (usually male) who has every right to be there, unquestioned. There is no risk to lurking with intent in a unisex restroom of the sort I've described. Nobody will ask you what you are doing there, whether you are male or female. Your physical appearance is no longer a red flag. No one will call security if you are seen entering. Nobody will even notice if you're in there for hours, waiting--as long as you're smart enough to nip into a cubicle and groan occasionally. What a lovely set up for trouble.
Well our toilets don't generally have person-sized gaps at the bottom, you know if someone's in there if it says 'engaged'. But in any case, this talk of teenage boys being rapists is really disturbing ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Do you really think gender-neutral toilets lead to rapists being around every corner? Physical appearance not being questioned is why gender-neutral toilets are good, because it means transgendered people who have difficulty 'passing' can use them without being questioned. The idea that it will lead to more women being raped (because that's the only reason a man would be there, not to use the toilet themselves or anything ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) is ridiculous.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Didn't we already solve this by building a lot of new buildings with gender segregated bathrooms and one (small) 'family' or 'gender-neutral' bathroom?
Oh, is that all this is about? No problem, then. I misunderstood from what Jade wrote that the growing custom was for gender-neutral restrooms only, wherein there would be no urinals and all the guys would use toilets-- so that not a single place shall remain from which women are excluded. Sometimes this seems like a logical conclusion to draw. But perhaps I'm making a tempest in a tearoom pot.
It reminds me of a campus Christian center which had a men's room, labeled Adam, and a ladies' room labeled "Eve." Between them was a janitor's closet, which I thought ought to be labeled "the forbidden fruit."
Actually some places (especially offices for some reason) do have gender-neutral toilets only.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's a tangent, but quite apart from the (logical?) impossibility of forcing people to 'worship', it's rarely been possible for reasons of space, as you point out. But does the law say that 'collective' necessarily means the whole school assembling at once? Surely several concurrent 'acts of worship' held in tutor-groups or year assemblies would comply with the law.
That's actually what happened at our school. Assembly was for announcements and so on, we had the 'collective worship' bit in our tutor groups which I think was daily (we did it just after registration). But as far as worship is concerned, it was mostly about talking about ~issues like bullying and body issues, it was never religious. I never sang a hymn once during secondary school but did so every day at primary school. For some reason primary schools find religion easy to do but not secular secondary schools.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
At my 1,500 pupil comprehensive in the 80s we had assembly 4 days out of 5 and managed thus: first years in the lower school hall, second years in the gym of the leisure centre on the school grounds (open to public but school got first dibs). Third and fourth years in the upper school hall (big, with a stage used for school productions). Fifth years in the school's own small gym. Sixth years in the small upper school canteen.
All except sixth form featured a hymn accompanied by piano, school announcements and a quick talk followed by a prayer. Sixth form was an informal thing which was more likely to be about ethics, recycling, ban the bomb or whatever. No singing.
Whether any genuine worship took place is another thing - but the gatherings certainly happened.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Whether any genuine worship took place is another thing - but the gatherings certainly happened.
My husband used to be a headteacher, he called his assemblies 'PHB' assemblies - a Hymn, a Prayer and a Bollocking.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And there's nothing wrong with that!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jade Constable quote:
But in any case, this talk of teenage boys being rapists is really disturbing
At the risk of further disturbing you... some of them are. Even in Creamtealand.
However, this would not be my major concern if my daughter had to go to a school with no separate toilets for girls. Bullies don't need to rape you to make your life a misery.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And there's nothing wrong with that!
I take that as a flippant comment. But seriously, it's the conflation of religion with morality that worries me. And the conflation of morality with conforming to school rules about uniform etc. I have taken too many assemblies in which I attempted to convey a Christian message (albeit, I hope, in an inclusive secular-friendly Thought-for-the-day kind of way) only to have it contradicted by the Head or deputy nagging the kids about something or other.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It reminds me of a campus Christian center which had a men's room, labeled Adam, and a ladies' room labeled "Eve." Between them was a janitor's closet, which I thought ought to be labeled "the forbidden fruit."
Wouldn't 'Serpent' be more appropriate for the average functionary?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Ken: quote:
Men and boys stand up to piss. Women and girls chat in the bogs and do their hair and makeup. Or so the stereotype goes.
I bow to your superior knowledge of what goes on in the men's loo, but the stereotype about what women do in the toilets is wrong. The reason why it takes us longer is because we have to go inside a cubicle, (usually) clean the seat (if we can find any toilet paper) and remove our nether garments before we can get down to business. Even if there is no queue, it takes at least twice as long without factoring in time for repairs to makeup* and gossiping. I'd hate to have to sit down on a toilet that had been trashed by a bunch of teenage boys marking their territory. Teenage girls are bad enough.
*did your school allow makeup? Mine didn't.
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
I am wary of people who talk about 'confusing and unnecessary' rules in such areas. Schools are not built just for a day, but for a century or more, and the idea they should be designed by amateurs on the back of an envelope is depressing. (Though it fits with the 'common sense' approach of many school governors, who 'know' that Fred who built their kitchen can provide a school laboratory that will knock the spots off anything designed by a specialist architect and installed by specialist contractors.)
I can't but think that those in power would be better off abolishing the 'confusing and unnecessary' traditions of Parliament, for example.
[ 18. October 2012, 09:55: Message edited by: Sighthound ]
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
By the way, I see a big problem with abolishing urinals. Many men and boys are not very accurate shooters. If they use WCs to pee, expect to find pee all over the seat and/or the floor. One often finds this problem in men's WCs as it is, because, apparently, some guys find urinals somehow 'beneath' them.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I don't think the sexual abuse issue should be ignored either. I have picked up the pieces on a 15 year old girl being dragged at knife point to some garages and being forced to perform oral sex on some 13/14/15 year old boys from the same school. I also know too many stories of teenagers locking themselves in the toilets for consensual sex acts too - and that's gendered toilets. Non-gendered toilets seem to be helpfully providing a venue.
The queue for the men's toilets is usually much quicker and shorter because they use urinals rather than having to get undressed in cubicles. So only providing cubicles is going to slow down everyone to the same slow pace?
Then there are the health issues like toxic shock because the girls won't change their tampons regularly enough, constipation and cystitis. We've got girls refusing to drink in school now so they don't have to use the toilets, you think this will improve things?
Bad school design adds to bullying problems. Some of the worst designed school sites around here - because additional blocks kept being built to meet needs without considering the whole site - means policing against bullying in corners is virtually impossible. That school is about to move into a new building, when it's finished.
Getting architects involved can improve sustainability and long term bills - designing to keep the building at a sensible temperature without the overheating in summer and freezing in winter conditions many schools now suffer. The architect in consultation with the new build above was looking at using geothermal energy to heat the buildings - not sure if he succeeded, but it's an interesting idea.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Bullies don't need to rape you to make your life a misery.
No, but rape has more serious psychological consequences than the worst bullying I have ever heard of.
Moo
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I didn't mean to belittle the suffering of rape victims, but children (and adults) have been driven to suicide by bullying that did not include rape. Don't dismiss their suffering either.
What CK said sounds sensible to me. Pity that Michael Gove won't listen to any of it.
[ 18. October 2012, 12:01: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
And whether the concern is rape or bullying, having accessible to all, private, windowless, unmonitored rooms that absolutely cannot be avoided even if you wished to is just bad news.
My school kept the piano practice rooms locked, and the tiny study offices in the library too. You had to check out a key to access one.. I doubt it was simply to protect the pianos-- or the ancient beat up desks.
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Maybe your toilets (restrooms, loos, bathrooms, whatever) are different than ours.
I can say that US-style public toilets give a lot less privacy to users than UK-style cubicles. The general layout is the same for both countries, but in the US the huge gap between door and stall walls are a bit of a culture shock. In my office building if you line up the gaps correctly, you can observe the user in the cubicle opposite while you are sitting in yours. I would find gender-neutral facilities like those quite intolerable at any age, let alone teenage.
However I've recently used modern toilet facilities in the UK, particularly in malls etc, that have ceiling to wall solid partitions between cubicles with a solid door (and no gap). In principle I'd have no problems with those being gender-neutral, provided you could get people to be considerate with their aim/leaving the facilities as you would wish to find them etc.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
By the way, I see a big problem with abolishing urinals. Many men and boys are not very accurate shooters. If they use WCs to pee, expect to find pee all over the seat and/or the floor. One often finds this problem in men's WCs as it is, because, apparently, some guys find urinals somehow 'beneath' them.
That is because they have less to aim with so don't want to be seen by others!
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Surely these boys and men are using toilets at home - presumably they manage.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid
Mr Jerry-Builder's back-of-the-envelope school design is likely to be not just inferior but very much a false economy compared to a half-decent architect who knows how to use space.
He not only needs to know how to use space; he needs to understand exactly what is to be done in the space.
The worst-designed school building I have ever seen was an architect-designed middle-school building in the small New Hampshire town where I lived.
It was built in the 1970s when it was all the rage to have removable partitions between classrooms so that the space could be opened up. (In the event it never was.) Students sitting in the back of one classroom could hear the teacher in the next room better than they could hear their own. The heating and ventilation systems did not work well in that space.
My point is that a good design requires a clear understanding of how the building will be used. If the architect does not understand this, the building will be bad. In the situation I have described, the problem was a deranged theory of the proper classroom arrangements for young teenagers.
Moo
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
This has reminded me of the building of the boys loos at our primary school when it was decided to bring them in from the cold across the playground. I was discussing the way that governors' meetings were assumed to be confidential unless they weren't, which I thought should be the other way round, and the governor I was discussing with said "you wouldn't want to be bothered with the details of the toilets, would you?" and then went on to provide us with a room extended out of the coat storage area with a wide opening which allowed the mixed group using the coat area to see the cubicles, and, if in the wrong place, round to the urinals. A screen had to be fixed to the end of the peg fitting. They also provided us with a set of small urinals at the wrong height with no tiling on the wall, which gradually absorbed ammoniacal liquors and ended up filling all the eleven year olds' classes with the stench. No architect, but a bunch of amateurs.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Not having a hall big enough is nothing new. A friend's children went to a CofE secondary in the south east that had more than double the number of pupils it was designed for. Hall could accommodate just about a third of all pupils (never including sixth form) if they stood.
No dining hall, had to use the main assembly hall, thus 4 shifts for lunch and the packed lunch people outside unless it was raining, in which case wherever they could find.
State secondary schools, for the most part, no longer provide somewhere to hang coats for 2 reasons: 1 = theft of belongings. 2=another area to be patrolled by staff.
As for the lovely new buildings, just wait until the PFI bills start to come in for the new schools.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Surely these boys and men are using toilets at home - presumably they manage.
No. Their wives and mothers manage.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Surely these boys and men are using toilets at home - presumably they manage.
No. Their wives and mothers manage.
There was a radio programme about this the other day. A bloke who always stood to pee and thought he was keeping the room clean by aiming well. He discovered how wrong he was when a shaft of sunlight showed up the fine spray going all over the place.
He now sits down to pee. Why can't all men when its not a urinal?
My three do.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Seems like a ue for the sermon about 'pissing againts the wall' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRP5xIeqBB8
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0