It isn’t perfect but the desire for improvement in this borough is not merely theoretical nor does it require major-dude architects

It isn’t perfect; but the desire for improvement in this borough is not merely theoretical; nor does it require major-dude architects Chances are being taken, money spent. And bright, committed architects are not being treated like dangerous kryptonite The Coen brothers wouldn’t like it at all.. It’s equally true that great architects such as Walter Gropius and Maxwell Fry have produced brilliant buildings for state schools. But these exemplary big bangs have dissolved into a general whimpering. The stellar cast includes Lord Rogers, Will Alsop and Wilkinson Eyre.The ideas and building forms thrown up by the magnificent 11 are often riveting. One practice, the increasingly trendy de Rijke Marsh Morgan, propose a school dominated by a multi-purpose plaza surmounted by a vast, translucent quilt; Marks Barfield, designers of the London Eye, are in the mix, too. But how can they set useful examples unless their visions are put to the test? How, exactly, would these fine architects translate their unusual architectural ideas into affordable, maintainable buildings that not only stand a chance of making the cover of Architects’ Journal, but which demonstrably encourage learning and community spirit?There are not enough really good architects available to the Schools of the Future programme Nothing new there.

In the past, a few local authority architects’ departments have made extraordinary contributions to school design – Essex and Hampshire are two examples. But it won’t if the designs for new schools are less than excellent. Jon Rouse, the outgoing chief executive of the government’s Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, says every school building project will require a high-quality design team, and that the DfES are taking the issue of good quality design “very seriously”.But not every school project will benefit from a high-quality design team. And even those that do might still be fudged into mediocrity unless local planners – and teachers – are prepared to risk architectural solutions whose intelligence is anchored in 21st-century realities.In an attempt to cover this angle, the DfES has activated 11 big-name architects, asking them to work with specific schools to develop theoretical “exemplar” versions of them. This suggests a significant percentage of new schools will be bolted on to non-educational, commercial developments.Perhaps this can work. Six out of seven state schools are more than 25 years old, and 60 per cent of them have been in use for more than 60 years. The government wants to create hundreds more via its new Schools for the Future programme, whose remit is to rebuild or refurbish all the secondary schools in England in 15 years; the biggest such programme since the 19th century.The spectacular cash commitment is being presented as something radically decisive and groovy But the impressive numbers mask the complexity of the task.

Even if schools are better designed, what about their upkeep, their ability to meet change? The government’s predictable answer is to fund these new schools via a mix of state money and Private Finance Initiatives. About £2bn will be spent in the first push, delivering 180 secondary “city academies” in England Another £3bn will be fed into primary school development. But what kind of schools? Designed by whom? And how well managed and maintained?The track record is discouraging. Result: a small, but very arresting, building.Saunt and her practice were working in ideal conditions. Schools such as John Perry Primary are established educational beacons, and beacon schools are much more likely to demand beacon architecture. Make them Dutch, and give them fascinating glazes whose colours vary in different lights: grey to violet, violet to charcoal, charcoal to blue. And arrange everything – bricks, polycarbonate, steel, aluminium, glass – so that the shoe-box has a syncopated, slightly arrhythmic vibe.