LIVE PROJECTS 2010 \ PRAISE PODS
VOICE OF ARBOURTHORNE ...Lessons Learnt
By Tom Atkinson, Sam Brown, Dan Hall, Ewan Tavandale and Dan Walder
INTRODUCTION We, a group of architecture students from the University of Sheffield were introduced to Arbourthorne Community Primary School and the culture of praise that has succeeded in instilling positive values in its students. Our task was to promote this culture of praise and encourage more of Sheffield’s schools and parents to embrace it.
THINGS WE DID WELL... 1. Given the ambiguous nature of both our client and brief, the team effectively identified our primary and secondary clients early on. This enabled us to understand the client structure in order to specify their particular aspirations, and begin to formulate a brief (refer to Fig1 opposite). 2. Our client’s aspirations were very high and very broad. In response to this the team openly discussed what each of our individual aspirations were within the group. These frank and honest discussions enabled the team not only to identify clear individual roles but also further define the scope of the project. Forming both our team structure and brief in this manor ensured good individual project fulfilment and in turn good team unity throughout the project. 3. The team also realised very early in the project that the short time frame meant our impact would be limited and that the expectations of the client would have to be managed. The team recognised that the community at Arbourthorne had experienced many broken promises from ‘the powers that be’ in the past and decided not make any ambitious promises to the client group early in the process. As a result we were able to engage in a process that had no defined end goal. This loosely defined process enabled the team to be agile and respond to the evolving needs of our client.
e Golightly
rt Centre
T. 01142557679
angson - Head Gales - Deputy port Teachers ng Assistants ning Mentors
Practitioners
Crook
our Practitioner
Taxpayers
Sheffield City Council
Karachi Hucklow School
Executive Mangement Team (EMT)
Cabinet PLACE
COMMUNITIES
Springs Academy Family
RESOURCES
UK Government - Coalition
Rosehill Junior School
Thorogate School
Full Council
CYPS
Oakfield House School
Sandhill School
St Wales Joseph’s School Northern Ireland England Scotland
Ashwood Road School
Department for Business, Innovation + Skills Department for Education
Praise Pod Community
Secondary School
Other School Other School
Castlefield Community Infant School Molcliffe Primary School
Rawmarsh Community School Local Authority (LEA) Sheffield Monkwood Junior-School
Other School
Other School
City Council
Other School
Other School
Other School
M Arbourthorne Nursery Infant School Arbourthorne Junior School
Executive Officer - Dr Sonia Sharp
Arbourthorne Community Primary School
Children & Families - Jane Ludlum Lifelong Learning, Skills and Communities - Tony Tweedy Change Management & Organisational Development - Geny Bradly
Governing Body
??? - Chair Vanessa Langley - Head Teacher ??? - Community Rep ??? - Community Rep ??? - Community Rep Bev Pilgrim - Parent Rep ??? - Parent Rep ??? - Parent Rep ??? - Parent Rep ??? - Parent Rep ??? - Staff Rep ??? - Staff Rep ??? - LEA Rep ??? - LEA Rep ??? - Observer ??? - Associate
Children’s Commissioner - Peter Mucklow Business Strategy - John Doyle
Inclusion & Learning Services - Maggie Williams / Jane Golightly Oakfield House School Karachi Hucklow School
Sandhill School
Rosehill Junior School
St Joseph’s School Sheffield Primary Inclusion Support Centre
Thorogate School
T. 01142557679
Ashwood Road School
Praise Pod Community
David Langson - Head Michael Gales - Deputy Rawmarsh Community School 6 - Inlusion Support Teachers Monkwood Junior School 3 - Teaching Assistants 2 - Learning Mentors
Castlefield Community Infant School Molcliffe Primary School
? - Positive Behaviour Practitioners
Richard Crook Lead Positive Behaviour Practitioner
PTA
Bev Pilgrim - Chair Mandy Fenech - Safeguarding Officer Leanne ? - Parent ??- Parents ?? - Staff
Other Outside Agencies Sheffiled Integrated Learning Support Unit Educational Psycologist LEA Health & Social Services The Learning Year (EAZ)
Karachi Hucklow School
City Learning Centre STEPS
Rosehill Junior School
Thorogate School
NHS Rotherham
Oakfield House School
Sandhill School
St Joseph’s School
Ashwood Road School
Praise Pod Community
Castlefield Community Infant School Molcliffe Primary School
Rawmarsh Community School Monkwood Junior School
Sheffiled School of Architecture
University of Sheffield
O
Springs Academy Family
Head Teacher Vanessa Langley
Secondary School CONTACT
Kelleigh Carter
Attendance Manager ‘Praise Pod’ Co-Ordinator
Deputy Head Teacher
Other Sc
Staff - Teaching 22 teachers
Arbourthorne Nursery Infant School Staff - Support Arbourthorne Junior School 2 administration 22 communication support 2 cooking 11 lunchtime supervisor 1 nurse 7 cleaning / maintenance
Arbourthorne Com
Governing Body
??? - Chair Vanessa Langley - Head Teacher Children School of Architecture??? - Community Rep (Integrated Resource Unit) Foundation 1 - Nursery ??? - Community Rep Foundation 2 - Reception ??? - Community Rep YR1 Rep YR2 ProjectBev Live 07Pilgrim???- Parent YR3 - Parent Rep YR4 ??? - Parent Rep YR5 Sam Brown Client Liaison ??? - Parent Rep YR6 Daniel Walder - Client Liaison ??? - Parent Rep Joao Lung - CPD Parents / Community ??? - Staff Rep David Pogson - Finance Guardians ??? - Staff Rep Mothers Tom Atkinson ??? - LEA Rep Reza Fallahtafti Fathers Other FamilyDaniel Hall ??? - LEA Rep Heeley Constituency WiderAmandeep Community Kaur ??? - Observer Elderly Megg Munn MP HannahYouth O’Boyle ??? - Associate
VOICE
EwanWorking Tavendale Unemployed
RIBA The Architecture Profession
D
PTA
Bev Pilgrim - Chair Mandy Fenech - Safeguarding Officer Leanne ? - Parent
Head Teach Vanessa Langley
Deputy Head Tea
University of Sheffie
MArch in Architecture - RI Staff - Teaching 22 teachers Academic Mentor - Stephen Walker
Staff - Support 2 administration 22 communication s 2 cooking 11 lunchtime superv 1 nurse Fig1. - Stakeholder Analysis 7 cleaning / mainten
THINGS WE DIDN’T DO SO WELL... 1. Whilst the team did work very well in producing a successful project for our client, there were a number of things that we didn’t do so well. The most useful discussions with our client were often in face-to-face meetings in which we were able to exchange views clearly. However for much of the project we were reliant on email contact with our client group. At times this resulted in miscommunication and anxiety being raised in our client. On reflection the team realised that whilst email is a great way to make arrangements and record communication with the client group, the discussion of new views and ideas is best done face-to-face in order to avoid unnecessary confusion. 2. The complexity of the client group has already been touched on, and whilst the group dealt with this complexity very well for the most part, there were sections of the client group who’s knowledge could have been used more to guide us through the project. The teachers in particular were one group who were not used successfully. Whilst we did introduce the team to the teachers fairly early in the process in an attempt to build a dialogue with them, this initial introduction was not followed up with any focused discussions. As a result the teams initial workshops with the children were disjointed and would have benefitted from being further developed with the input of experienced teachers. 3. It was not only communication with the client group that could have been better, the communication and sharing of information within the team could also have been improved. The project’s multi-headed client resulted in a number of different strands and project outcomes. In the production stage of the project there were a number of overlaps between these project outcomes. Although the team was successfully broken down into more specialist subteams, these sub-teams did not successfully share information and resources in order to support each other effectively.
THINGS WE WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY... 1. Whilst the project was considered to be a success by all, there were a few things that the team could have done differently. Communication with the client group has already been highlighted as one of the main areas that could have been improved. In order to improve this, the meetings with our various client groups could have been more carefully designed and prepared. In order to ensure we gained as much as we could from our limited time with the various client groups, the way in which we encountered them should have been more considered in terms of context, number of attendees, attire, etc. Had these things been more considered, the process of extracting what our clients aspirations were and how we might be able to help them achieve those aspirations could have been smoother. 2. The dynamic of the group provided us with a good mix of experience, from both fifth and sixth year as well as MAAD students. Whist this mix of personnel provided the group with a good range of knowledge and experience, it also brought with it some difficulties. Varied external commitments between the different groups often made it difficult to co-ordinate individual tasks. This was again made more difficult due to poor communication of these other commitments between team members. Whist the team did use a resource Gantt Chart to highlight individual commitment to the project, this was often not filled in accurately and team members were not always able to give time they had previously committed to the project. Should the project be undertaken again, it would be very important for all team members to be open and honest about other commitments and to fulfil the roles assigned to them. 3. Finally, in a team that for the most part did work well together, there were some difficulties. These difficulties often arose when one member of the team was dependant on the commitment of another to fulfil their tasks. It was often the case that team members were not aware of their own tasks position within the critical path of the project. This meant that team members would often be waiting for others to finish their tasks, before beggining their own work. Had this problem been anticipated, the team could have discussed a critical path through the project and made all team members aware of their tasks position within the wider process.
CONCLUSION In October 2010 the project culminated in the showing of a film at the showroom cinema in Sheffield. The film documented the process the team had undertaken, whilst promoting the positive culture of praise Arbourthorne Community Primary School uses to encourage values in its pupils. The event was attended by, local council executives, education students, teachers, parents, and pupils of the school. The team had succeeded in not only promoting the schools culture of praise to the wider community, but also managed to engage parents who had previously not engaged with the school. The Voice of Arbourthorne project can be considered a success by all involved and has taught the project team - and clients - important lessons for future projects and practice.