Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Shared Facilities, School and Community: Practice and Implications. Thesis How to cite: Young, Ian William (1981). Shared Facilities, School and Community: Practice and Implications. The Open University. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 1981 The Author https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000fcae Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk SE/iEED FACILITIES, 8CE00L Aim COmiUI^ITY; PRACTICE Aim D'iPLICATIONS Ian V/illiara Young L.A.E.S. B. Phil. Education, January 1981 ProQ uest Number: 27919389 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. in the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 27919389 Published by ProQuest LLC (2020). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. Ail Rights Reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 (i) ABSTRACT "Shared Facilities" - an exciting educational experience or a political manoeuvre for economic expediency? In the fifty years since Henry Morris promoted the concept of opening the school to the community, his idea has been interpreted in many forms. This research was intended to examine the various methods used in England and Wales to implement the philosophy of "shared O use" of school premises. The examination of the schemes in operation shows their varying characteristics according to the local authorities' individual interpretations of the concept of the community school. Apart from a fairly extensive system of Community Colleges in Cambridgeshire, a legacy of Henry Morris, community schools were not widely developed until the Plowden Commission Report on Primary Education (1967) recommended that the idea of community schools should,be promoted as part of an attempt to involve parents more closely in the education of their children. Plowden asserted the importance of discovering ways of linking home and school and of gaining the understanding and support of parents through an active involvement with the school rather than a passive acceptance of the school’s policies. This need was felt to be greatest in "educational priority areas", i.e. areas with poor housing and social conditions. L. E.As were further encouraged to consider the establishment of community schools in the Ministry Circular 2/70, "A Chance to Share". di) One interpretation of "community school" is that of "shared use", i.e. opening the school premises and facilities to the wider community. In the investigation an attempt will be made to discover whether "shared use" does encourage parents to become involved in the education of their children through their increased contact with the school. The investigations at Boldon and Hedworthfield were an attempt to discover whether parental contact with the school through "shared use" significantly o benefited child and school. Following a pilot survey conducted at Hedworthfield School, the Boldon survey included a questionnaire to parents of pupils in the school, observation of the scheme in operation, discussions with participants and a thorough investigation of all the literature pertaining to the inception of the scheme. O (iii) CONTENTS Page Abstract Acknowledgements CHAPTER 1 The Concept of Shared Facilities CHAPTER 2 o The Community School in Practice 14 (i) Henry Morris and the Cambridgeshire Colleges 14 (ii) Leicestershire - Countesthorpe and Shepshed 24 (iii) I ,L, E.A. 36 (iv) Wales and Sheffield 39 (v) Manchester - The Abraham Moss Centre 41 (vi) Cumberland - Wyndham School 48 (vii) Nottinghamshire - The Sutton Centre 51 (viii) Summary 58 CHAPTER 3 The Implementation of Ministry Circular 2/70, 70 "A Chance to Share" ^2^ (i) Durham County 70 (ii) A.T.O./D.E.S. Course, Durham Institute of 91 Education 1974 (iii) South Tyneside 97 CHAPTER 4 Home/School Relations 102 (i) The Importance of Parental Contact with 102 the School (ii) The School and the Community 109 (iii) The Role of the Parent 121 (iv) Page CHAPTER 5 Parental Contact Through Shared Facilities - 129 Does this significantly benefit child or school? Pilot Study at Hedworthfield Comprehensive School 129 CHAPTER 6 O A Survey of the Shared Facilities Scheme at Boldon 156 Comprehensive School, South Tyneside (i) Geographical Background 156 (ii) Initial Planning 158 (iii) Management 163 (iv) Job Descriptions 166 (v) Buildings 168 (vi) Programme of Activities 169 (vii) Investigation 172 (viii) Conclusions 206 CHAPTER 7 Summing Up 216 o Addendum 221 Appendices 223 Bibliography 2^1 — ooOoo— (V) Acknowledgements B, Abrahart, Headmaster, Boldon Comprehensive School W.G. Carter, Assistant Education Officer, Community Education, o Sheffield J. Hall, Director of Education, Sunderland (formerly Deputy Education Officer, Manchester) W, Ogilvie, Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation H.T. Thompson, Assistant Principal (Community), Abraham Moss Centre, Manchester Association of Community Schools, Colleges and Centres, Sutton in Ashfield, Notts, ——ooOoo—— - 1 - CHAPTER 1 THE CONCEPT OF SHARED FACILITIES In examining the concept of "shared facilities" we may begin by pursuing the premise suggested by John Vaizey: "Schools will become much more open to the rest of the community. The school building could conceivably be the community centre, open all day and every day, not only for the teaching of children but for (2) classes for adults in vocational and recreational subjects, with gymnasium, playing fields, swimming pools all available to the 1 local neighbourhood for extensive use." These suggestions put forward by John Vaizey in 1965 are implied in the recommendations of Ministry Circular 2/70, "A Chance to Share". Few could argue with the physical nature of these recommendations. The investigation is concerned with the wider implications and potential influence the shared use of schools could have upon the educational process. We may ask the question - are "shared facility" schemes a 'trendy* innovation or will they provide some of the stability and neighbourly contact which some children may not otherwise experience? Has the educational philosophy and religious belief of Henry Morris, the pioneer of the community college, been truly interpreted or have the recommendations of Ministry Circular 2/70, "A Chance to Share", been promoted as a matter of economic 1 Vaizey, J. The Economics of Education. Faber, 1962. expediency? It is perhaps noteworthy that the major advances in this educational concept were during the periods of national growth in the optimistic eras of the 1920s and early 1930s and more rapidly in the "never had it so good" period of the 1950s and 1950s. It is interesting to note that following the innovation of the latter period we are now examining, perhaps more closely than ever before, the aims and objectives within our schools. Of the numerous new educational concepts introduced during that period, many of which o have been severely criticised, little is to be found in the way of condemnatory comment about the concept of shared facilities and the growth of the community concept of education continues, if somewhat cautiously, in the United Kingdom. We have a national policy for education and that policy is interpreted and implemented by local authorities. For shared facilities schemes to develop in England and Wales it is the local authority that must be the key unless Parliament makes these a requirement. The term "Shared Facilities" may lead to a great debate because o of the different interpretations of it by various local authorities in England and Wales. For the purpose of this study the criteria used by George and Teresa Smith, Community Schools in England and Wales (1975) will form a basic framework for the writer * s assessment of the "shared use" schemes he has examined. "First the term 'community school’ can be applied to a school which serves an entire neighbourhood; most primary schools and more and more secondary neighbourhood schools would qualify. ’ A second definition is a school which shares its premises with the community. Large modern comprehensive schools obviously have bigger and better facilities to offer, such as swimming pools and libraries. A third possibility is a school which develops a curriculum of community study, arguing for the social and educational relevance of local and familiar material. A fourth type is a school where there is some degree of community control. This is familiar in the United States, particularly following the Ford Foundation supported programmes for community control of inner city schools in the late 1960s, but less so in this country, outside a few Free Schools and L.E.As experimenting with greater community participation on governing boards. A fifth and final possibility is a school which seeks to involve itself in promoting social change within the local community. This type incorporates o some of the earlier varieties, as it could well include longer opening hours, community use of buildings, and community participation."^ The writers emphasise that probably no school would fall exactly into one of these categories but would probably be a combination of two or even more of them. It would seem logical that the facilities schools have to offer should be properly shared by us all and, accepting this, some form of common policy appears necessary. The lack of such a policy could provide the opportunity for decisions ruled by administrative o convenience, a situation regrettably often found.