Bridgeman, J (2024) Can panoptic school infrastructure lead to disruptive and dangerous student behaviour which makes schools unsafe. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
Having safe schools is of the upmost importance, but evidence has shown that school buildings often do not achieve this and that the most disadvantaged students get the worst provision. This research examines whether school buildings can create the conditions for disruptive behaviour. Using the example of the UK’s 21st Century Schools Programme, which has a guiding principle to improve educational outcomes and attendance, interviews with pupils and school staff were analysed using Foucault's concept of the Panopticon to explore whether panoptic school buildings that focus on students' supervision can unintentionally create the conditions for disruptive student behaviour. Both school staff and pupils described incidents where pupils had been excluded from school because of disruptive and dangerous behaviour. If we are to build schools that improve educational outcomes, we need to consider how we construct schools that ensure students are not encouraged to engage in disruptive and dangerous behaviour.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | panopticism; school infrastructure; educational outcomes; student behaviour |
| Index terms: | pupil, supervision, school building, programme, evidence, interview, student behaviour |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, control systems, construction type, learning theory, project controls, evaluation and assessment methods, sociology |
| Topics: | Time Control, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Project Management, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here