The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) has criticised the Sure Start children's centres programme for the relatively poor design of Phase 2 children's centres, in comparison to some of the highly commended Phase 1 children's centres. The hasty two-year turnaround time to build Phase 2 centres restricted the amount of time that could be given to consultation, which may have impacted on the design.
As a newly appointed Phase 2 children's centre manager, I could readily identify with this critique. There were particular aspects of the design of our centre that I felt could prove to be challenging. Part of this may have been due to lack of consultation with the 'right' people - those who have worked in, and attended children's centres previously, as well as members of the local community.
PARADOX
Consultation is crucial. However, in those areas where there may have been a lack of support services for parents with young children, how can we expect members of the local community to be the most effective 'consultees'? Not everybody is able to say what kind of environment and services would be most appropriate for parents and young children, if they are uninformed about the possibilities. Drawing on existing good practice, together with consultation with local communities, would go some way towards alleviating this gap in the design of future children's centres.
POOR DESIGN FEATURES
Some of the features of Phase 2 centres that, as a team, we visited and found problematic were:
- no outdoor space, or very small outdoor space
- a large reception desk, often perceived as a barrier by parents coming into the centres
- locks and buzzers on doors - another barrier to get through before gaining access
- a closed-off kitchen with heavy fire door, problematic for staff and parents wanting to move into and out of the kitchen with food and drinks.
It is critical that we develop excellent, accessible services for parents and children, despite these problematic features. So, what can we do?
Staff teams in newly established centres might like to consider the following, with regard to parents and children.
PARENTS
In relation to parents, consider:
- Why do you believe working with parents is so important?
- What messages does your environment give to parents coming into your centre?
Discussing and debating why you believe working with parents is so important can help to develop your own individual centre ethos.
Visit other children's centres and consider:
- How do you feel when you enter the building?
- What are the messages you are receiving?
- Do you have to press a buzzer and wait to be allowed in? How does this make you feel?
- What do you see on the display boards of the centres you visit? What does this tell you? What is important to the people in the centre you are visiting?
- Do people move freely around the centre?
- Consider other environments you visit - your health centre, the doctor, your child's nursery. What are the elements of those environments that make you feel welcome and make it a place you want to return to again and again?
- Use these discussions to consider your own environment and practice.
Design problem: entry system
When our staff team were carrying out this exercise, it became apparent very quickly that most of the local children's centres, and other public places we attended, operated buzzer systems for entry. Each staff member kept a 'reflective account' of their visits, considering:
- How they felt in the setting
- What they liked about the place
- What they didn't like, or what they felt uncomfortable about.
These reflective accounts gave us something to base our discussions around, in relation to our own building and practice. It became clear that as a team we believed it was critical to help parents to feel welcome, to be able to access our services as easily as possible, and to cultivate the feeling that the centre is 'their place', as well as ours.
During these discussions each member of staff reported feeling uncomfortable about the buzzer system. One staff member said, 'I'm not sure if I'd have even gone to the door once I saw the buzzer ... it really would have put me off.'
Our solution
Our centre also came with a door-entry buzzer system. We agreed that whenever there was more than one member of staff in the centre we would 'disable' our buzzer system. Parents would then be able to walk into the centre without first having to be 'vetted'.
Design problem: kitchen door
Our kitchen door was a heavy fire door. We considered how it might feel for:
- a child whose parent/carer had disappeared behind a door to prepare a bottle, or to get a drink
- a member of staff trying to carry food/drinks into and out of the kitchen. We had seen staff in other centres holding the door open with their foot while reaching across to the work surface to get drinks and biscuits.
In the first instance, the child might become distressed at the disappearance of their parent/carer. If they were mobile it would be likely that they would try to get into the kitchen. This might then be dangerous if the door opened.
In the second instance, we felt the door became a real danger to workers trying to prop it open and move in and out. We didn't feel that either situation was acceptable.
Our solution
The heavy fire door doesn't allow for easy access to the kitchen, the 'hub' of many a home. In our own homes the kitchen door is often left open and adults and children can move freely into and out of the kitchen.
Obviously, in a children's centre this would not be appropriate, as the health and safety of parents, children and staff is paramount. However, the homely environment we are trying to create loses something where there is not easy access to the kitchen.
We solved this, to some extent, by making our kitchen door into a 'stable' door. The top half of the door remains open, allowing children to see and speak with their parents in the kitchen, and staff and parents able to pass food and drink through the opening.
The top half of the door is connected to the fire alarm system, ensuring that it would shut automatically if the fire alarm sounded.
Considering the space you provide for children is equally important. In your team you might want to think about the following.
CHILDREN
In relation to children, consider:
- What is your environment like for the children accessing it? Children are biologically programmed to explore and learn continuously. They like to be near enough to their parent/carer to feel secure, yet in an environment where they can move away and explore.
- How is your building designed in terms of rooms? Are adults and children able to move around freely, or are doors shut immediately parents and children enter a room?
Free flow
We visited a centre where children were able, by chance, to circuit the building, moving from one room, through another, and back to the room where they'd begun. This created a real feeling of movement and freedom.
The parents and staff watched out for the children together, with parents often popping out to check where their child had gone. This created an environment in which parents were genuinely able to 'mingle' and to chat to each other - the situation was ever-changing, dictated by the child's movements. This was a feeling we were keen to try to re-create.
Impact on our practice
As a result of seeing this centre, we ensure that whenever possible our doors remain open, allowing movement between rooms. Parents have already begun to feed back to us about how their children like the freedom. One parent commented abut how her son liked to explore: 'He loves it in here, especially how he can crawl out of the room, down the corridor and back again!'
FINALLY ...
It is not as simple as giving each children's centre manager a recipe and saying 'set this up'. Whatever you create in terms of your environment must be based on what you believe in. Start talking to your staff team about your beliefs and values, and make small changes to your environment in relation to this.
REFERENCE
'Children's centre designs rated for quality', Nursery World, 15 October 2008.
'Verdict: Not so Sure Start' (Times Educational Supplement, 31 October 2008)
