Hugo-Burge-Application-2026 | New School Futures

The School of Co-Creation

The Organisers

(1) A Pilot Programme in Co-creative Learning

300 word overview
Whereas UNESCO reimagines universities as agents of change the UK government merely sees them as drivers of 'economic growth’(★). Ironically, the UK currently has 1 million young NEETS, universities face financial hardship and their students struggle to afford fees. The current business model reinforces the discipline-based, curriculum-driven model that is also failing us. Data and facts are abundant. What we lack is a shared self-reflexive awareness of the co-creative opportunities surrounding us. While university-led research accurately predicted the climate emergency, it has not curbed the irresponsible behaviours causing it.
Introducing creative pedagogies and methodologies will help universities become more long-sighted, inclusive, inventive, transdisciplinary, nimble, and adaptive. Ideally, the 'University’ would become an inclusive, citizen-led network of micro-hubs that help local communities to co-create regenerative, de-centralised systems. Tuition fees would be nominal and pay-it-forward. Where appropriate they could be repayable locally, on completion.
We welcome the current interest in neurodiversity and believe it has unexplored potential for teamwork and co-creativity. Rather than following a rigid common syllabus, our pilot will cultivate small ‘learner teams’ that bring reciprocal benefits and responsibilities to its members. We aim to reconcile curiosity with career aspirations. Learners would be supported and expected to co-manage them, thus each would learn how to improve the viability of co-creative teams at first hand.
Our well-established Self Evaluating Learner Framework is designed to help individuals to map and guide their career paths, requiring them to imagine possible relationships in different ways. Alongside peer-guided and externally sourced feedback, it can make numerical grading virtually redundant. Although this was developed and tested in 1995 we aim to show that it can mitigate or reverse the cognitive debt often produced by today’s generative AI systems, as many universities are trapped in an ‘arms race’ between the simulators of learning and their detectors.

Whereas sees universities as agents of change the UK sees them as drivers of 'economic growth'. Ironically, while some face bankruptcy, students struggle to afford the fees for a service that may not bring paid employment. The business model reinforces the discipline-based, curriculum-driven model that is also failing us. While university-led research accurately predicted the climate emergency it has not curbed the irresponsible behaviours causing it. Introducing Art School pedagogies and methodologies will help universities to become more long-sighted, inclusive, inventive, transdisciplinary, nimble and adaptive. Data and facts are abundant. What we lack is a self-reflexive awareness of the co-creative opportunities surrounding us. Ideally, the 'University’ would become an inclusive, citizen-led network of micro-schools that help local communities to co-create regenerative, de-centralised technologies. Tuition fees would be nominal and pay-it-forward. Where appropriate they could be repayable locally, on completion.
Rather than following a rigid common syllabus our pilot will include workshop activities that encourage learner-led curiosity and career aspirations. Many universities are trapped in an ‘arms race’ between the simulators of learning and their detectors. We aim to develop methods that mitigate the cognitive debt often produced by generative AI systems. Our well-established SELF system (Self Evaluating Learner Framework) is designed to help individuals to map and guide their career path in ways that require them to imagine possible relationships in different ways. Alongside peer-guided and externally sourced feedback, it can make numerical grading virtually redundant.
Unlike recent government thinking that endorses the binary distinction between ‘academic’ and ‘technical’ silos, our ‘4H’ pilot programme values modes of knowing that are ‘Hand-based’ (e.g. hands-on/performative); ‘Heart-based’ (e.g. emotional/empathetic) and ‘Humour-based’ (e.g. playful/opportunity-seeking/heretical). These would work as an essential counterpoint alongside more ‘Head-based’ learning (e.g. critical thinking). In co-managing their ‘learner teams’, individuals would learn the benefits of neurodiversity and co-creative thinking at first hand.

500 words
Each of our founder members has a proven track record of creative and sometimes radical innovation.

Paul Halliday is an artist, interdisciplinary urbanist and educator who has studied photojournalism, fine art film at the LCC and CSM (UAL), social anthropology (Goldsmiths) art history (Oxford), archaeology (Oxford & Cambridge). He is the former founding convenor of the international MA Photography & Urban Cultures at Goldsmiths, Third Year Leader of the BA Photomedia at Croydon Art School; co-founded Urban Encounters, the annual international urban photography conference at Tate Britain; is a founding director of UPA (The Urban Photographers Association) and UrbanAnalogue; worked as the Media Advisor for the British Refugee Council, and previously for Channel 4 TV as a documentary film director. He has also worked as an architectural photographer, and consultant in marketing, branding and organisational development.

Paul works on long-term photographic and film projects exploring the nature of contemporary urban spaces, people and the social archaeologies of everyday urban objects. Too see his work, please visit his website at: www.paulhalliday.com

Les Moore
Professor Dilys Williams FRSA was the founder (2008) and Director of the Centre for Sustainable Fashion - a Research Centre at the University of the Arts London. Dilys built a team and global network grounded in partnership and has pioneered several world firsts, including establishing the first MA programme in Fashion and Sustainability, now MA Fashion Futures (Julia Crew). She has led participatory curriculum programmes reaching over 100,000 learners and cocreated wide-reaching projects with researchers, educators and citizens.
Professor John Wood was an artist and performer before becoming Deputy Head of Fine Art at Goldsmiths University of London for the decade that produced most of the YBAs. In 1988 he wrote several innovative design degrees that founded Goldsmith's current Design Department. The BA(Hons) Design degree was one of the first degrees to incorporate ethics and environmental issues amongst its core values. He then launched the first MA in Design Futures, co-founded the Journal of Writing in Creative Practice and conducted ESPRC/AHRC research into 'synergy' and 'metadesign'. His most recent edited book (Routledge, 2024) offers design methods for re-shaping paradigms.

The partnership with Kering has exemplified Dilys’ collaborative approach, bringing together students, educators and researchers on projects with leading fashion brands including Gucci and Alexander McQueen. Real-world outcomes include early stage mushroom leather development, experiments in rental and bespoke resale platforms, and postcarbon wardrobe concepts.

CSF and Dilys have received significant recognition, including multiple Green Gown Awards and two Queen Elizabeth Prizes for Education, most recently shared with colleagues at the Portal Centre for Social Responsibility.
Beyond CSF, Dilys has championed whole systems change across UAL for nearly two decades: helping establish UAL’s Sustainability Committee in 2010, chairing the Climate and Environment Action Group.

Her work contributes to the study of fashion as a life well lived within ecological boundaries and practices of human equity. Before that she was a fashion designer

we have been discussing and publishing ideas about the need for structural change in academia for several years. We always planned to put our ideas to the test. We have also been The School of Co-Creativity
The majority of our grants will be unrestricted. However, it would be helpful if you could tell us a bit about your regular activities, services, or events, the people who make up your group or organisation, the people who you serve or engage with, and the benefits you've seen from it as well as anything else you wish to include.

(2) Our Vision

We envision the future University system as an Indra's Net of local 'Micro-Schools'.
Tuition would be free of charge (i.e. repayable on completion or pay-it-forward).
It would act collectively as a citizen-led framework of micro-local initiatives.
It would welcome exceptionality rather than standards or commonalities.
Learners would develop their personal situated awareness and presence.
Learning would follow the learner's curiosity and creative aspirations.
It would emphasise team-learning rather than educating individuals
There would be less need for a top-down curriculum or syllabus.
A diversity of diversities would inspire a synergy-of-synergies.
Some unthinkable ideas would be seen as opportunities.
New forms of creative democracy would emerge.

(3) Our Aims

Inspired by UNESCO's vision we aim to offer applicants a radical alternative to the prevailing model of university education. This will foreground creative and co-creative thinking. WHY? The current economic order is still based on the logic of extraction (e.g. oil, mining and AI) which inevitably work according to the Law of Diminishing returns. Creativity offers society a Law of Increasing Returns. (See our forthcoming article on Co-Creation).
Subject to funding we will run the first pilot Saturday class from September<?> to September<?> 2027.

Our aim is to help learners
to value exceptions
to think more creatively
to manage their curiosity
to learn how to learn better
to redefine wisdom in their own way
to think beyond disciplinary boundaries.
to contribute to the survival of our species
to manage their career ambitions and options
to value learning via the Head (e.g. critical thinking)
to value learning via the Hand (e.g. manual skills / dance)
to value learning via the Heart (e.g. emotional understanding)
to value learning with Humour (e.g. ability to play / make mistakes)

(4) A learner-centred summary

What is it? - an experimental part-time foundation course
Who is it for? - open-minded 16-to-29 year olds living around London
What's its point? - using your creative potential for opportunity-finding
What would I learn? - to understand who you are and who you want to be
How would I learn this? - you will work in mutually supportive learning teams
Who designs the syllabus? - study themes will not be fixed by a rigid syllabus
Where would it be located? - we will work in different locations across London?
How much would it cost me? - you deposit £250 (100% repayable on completion)
When will the course take place? - most weeks (e.g. Saturdays) throughout 2026-7
What about my specialist knowledge? - we aim to think within/across the disciplines

(5) Some Unique Features

N.B. The following headings are indicative of our current aspirations and mission.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (reducing dependency on it)

AI cannot think or feel in the human sense. It has no imagination, heart, limbs, or soul, so your conscience cannot be converted into a LLM (Large Language Model). Moreover, AI systems are not (yet) designed to emulate the multiple levels of entanglement inherent in our Self Evaluated Learning Framework (SELF). We invented this simple framework in 1992 and have implemented its use in several countries. It helps learners to manage their predicament and options in a creative and potentially entrepreneurial way. It makes plagiarism futile and hard to hide.

ChatGPT versus Gradescope

SELF is a simple mapping tool that helps learners to navigate their situation or predicament. It helps them to create options and opportunities that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. It is not designed to answer, but it may frame important questions for the learner. SELF encourages to ask yourself outcome-seeking questions or opportunity-seeking questions. The SELF framework replaces some of the need for individual assessment by lecturers because it encourages the learner to map a whole professional context including a nominated reader.

ADAPTABILITY

We applaud the growing appreciation of neurodiversity's importance to society and industry. A more transdisciplinary and co-creative approach would also complement . We believe that foresight, agility, imagination and playfulness are now more valuable than ‘academic rigour’ (Wood, 2012). While the Newtonian logic of ‘scholastic rigour’ may sound convincing in speeches to funding councils it is a dubious metaphor when applied to creative learning and research.

BESPOKE LEARNING

The need to 'think outside the box' and challenge the idea of a syllabus as an empty vessel that can be filled with any new content. Instead we will depend on specific values and capabilities. By self-awareness/reasoning/sensory/imagination/thinking/creativity) rather than

CHILDLIKE GENIUS

Unlike the Enlightenment's exceptionalist idea of 'genius' as an individual man with a special gift, NASA defined it in a way that resembles the playful and co-creative abilities of a five year old child.

CO-CREATIVITY

As all creativity is combinatorial, rather than summative or aggregative (Koestler, 1961) we advocate mapping situations in ways that reveal the potential relationships between things. Koestler's term 'bisociation' challenges the mythology of genius as an isolated and exceptional source of innovation. It acknowledges the combinatorial nature of all creative thinking. Using Koestler's method, several seemingly incompatible frames of thought are forced together to produce a creative leap that may surprise all. If acts of creation are always co-located, then 'co-creative acts' might equally well derive from different regions of one brain, or from different individuals within a group (see our article on Languaging Co-creation.

HEAD / HEART / HAND / HUMOUR

Our holistic approach values individual differences between learners as an asset to effective teamwork. We therefore created a fourfold model that reconciles head, hand, heart and humour. It will mean valuing the tacit skills of knowing, sensing, doing and making as aspects of one's judgment that build a sense of moral compass. We will encourage playfulness and humour as a way to embrace failure as a vehicle for unexpected opportunities and fun. We will conduct immersive experiments in ecological awareness or set philosophical quests for 'unthinkable possibles'. We will value compassion and altruism whilst helping learners to prepare for paid employment.

HEALTH

Learning to adopt lifestyles that are healthier, happier and more convivial.

HUMAN SCALE THINKING

The scale of teaching has grown from the Ancient Greek pedagogies of 1:1 teaching into the monolithic institutions of the 21st century. The factory-style methods of the 19th (?) century, led to the managerial processes (ranking & grading / syllabus repetition /standards of fairness / quality-assurance). Driven also by the recent implementation of an unfair fee system, these managerial imperatives now eclipse the need for curiosity and learning for its own sake. While the human mind can conceptualize more than 4 simultaneous social relations (Dunbar, ) we are poor at applying this to more complex situations. Four is a ‘sweet spot’, in cognitive (Fuller, 1949) and mnemonic terms (Cowan, 2001) because our brains 'chunk' information in fours and because quartets imply twice the number of relations than trios, and six times more relations that a duet.

LEARNING BY DOING

The idea of integrating /embedding intended learning experiences within useful tasks is not new (e.g. apprenticeship schemes). As Ivan Illich put it, "Most learning is not the result of instruction. It is rather the result of unhampered participation in a meaningful setting. " (Ivan Illich - De-Schooling Society)

META-METHODOLOGY

We will apply our own relevant metadesign tools (c.f. Wood, 2024) that were conceived as a generalised superset of design thinking and a creative framework for re-scoping design.

OPTIMISING ACHIEVEMENT

Training oneself to generate ‘luckier’ internal narratives in order to become 'luckier' (Wiseman, 2003).

PRESENCE

The growing use of screen-based technologies appears to have narrowed our attentiveness to the immediate locality. We therefore aim to develop sensory awareness and responsiveness to what is around us.

RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP

We will encourage learners to become more aware of their thoughts, sensations and feelings and to see and feel their relevance and impact on their immediate locality. We would also encourage them to imagine themselves as co-creative and empathetic agents within the universe as a whole.

RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION

We envisage our School of Co-Creation as working as a fractal similar to responsible citizenship as described above - i.e. with the University comprising a de-centralised network of tiny, micro-local schools.

SYNERGISTIC REASONING

The mathematics of synergy in preference to summative reasoning and aggregation

TEAM LEARNING APPROACH

We find the 'lone genius' (Enlightenment) myth to be unhelpful as it reduce the effectiveness of good teamwork. Rather than focusing on individual performance we will develop a co-creative team learning approach in which team members learn to develop reciprocal support for their respective passions and interests. We will use Hellinger’s Constellation workshops as a diagnostic and team development method.

WISDOM REDEFINED

We will continue to re-define the concept of Wisdom as a perpetual task. Our current definition acknowledges the role of ignorance within a whole system that includes non-human forms of life. Learners are invited to integrating and harnessing diverse ways of thinking. Used in conjunction with the Self Evaluated Learning Framework it should help individual learners to developing their metacognitive sense of themselves. It will mean encouraging learners to apply critical skills of reasoning to their lived experiences and ethical views. (c.f. Wood, 2024, AI v. Ecological Wisdom).

(6) What is a University?

(6a) Unmixed Messaging

What we might recognise as a 'mainstream' university has its roots in Ancient Greece and elsewhere. It was only after the Coldstream Reports of the 1960s that British Art Schools were formally absorbed into the University system. While the two systems may appear to have coalesced at the organisational level (e.g. when ratifying grades in joint Examination Boards) their ideologies have yet to be reconciled. This is a missed opportunity for learners and society as a whole. One obvious cultural difference is how creativity is understood and applied. For example, whereas scientists traditionally tend to seek predictable ‘laws’ of Nature, artists are more likely to look for exceptions rather than norms and rules (Ljubec 2022).

(6b) The University's 'DNA'

The traditional University evolved from the mediaeval monastic culture of books. As this still remains the dominant paradigm for higher education it may be hard for many of us to imagine The University without the primacy of alphanumeric writing. Ironically, although the Latin word 'universitas' implies a fully comprehensive syllabus, the first European University (1088) was a cloistered environment designed for priests to study the written and oral arts of theology, grammar, rhetoric, logic and the law. At this time, books were revered for their rarity. It was before the advent of printing, and the need to copy texts painstakingly by hand may explain some of the idiosyncracies of scholarly writing practice that linger on in the modern classroom. Some stylistic conceits, such as consistency, comprehensiveness, detachment, explicitness and completeness, remain, even though their purpose may be inappropriate for many contexts. (c.f. Panofsky, 1968).

(6c) The Art School

Today's Art School system owes less to the book-oriented traditions and more to the mediaeval crafts guilds. Loosely speaking, scholarship was part of a 'truth-centred' and contemplative culture. By contrast, the Art School offered a more hands-on, situated and co-creative culture of being, doing and making. The hegemonic status of the book explains a long-held disdain for Art Schools as an inferior mode of education. It was therefore widely assumed that the Coldstream Reports (Ministry of Education, 1960; Department of Education and Science, 1970) insisted on granting honours degrees to art and design students on condition that a written component be included in the syllabus. Art school heads therefore began to recruit ‘complementary studies’ lecturers who were au fait with the arcane conceits of 'scholarly' writing (Raein, 2004). Ironically, the word ‘writing’ was not mentioned in the Coldstream report. So, despite assumptions to the contrary, writing has never been a mandatory component of an honours degree in art and design (Lockheart, 2018; Lockheart, 2016). This oversight reveals the lack of attention given to the Art School legacy. As Sir Ken Robinson said, we have learned nothing from the last few hundred years of University education.

"Conformity continues to triumph over individuality. Curriculums are still arranged in tiers, with mathematics at the top and the arts at the bottom." (Robinson, 2026).

(6d) What is the Purpose of Universities?

What began as a lofty Socratic pursuit of self-awareness, altruism and moral development has descended into expedient concerns for institutional brand value, attainment targets and assessment procedures. After 1945, education in the UK was made free for all. This gave less privileged learners a greater chance to reach their full potential. Affordable tuition fees were introduced in 1998, but increased to £9K over the following decade or so. With it came a Quality Assurance culture in which concerns for accessibility and fairness risked eclipsing the idea of learning for its own sake. As students could now regard themselves as paying customers, exam grades acquired an inflated importance . Unfortunately, this is likely to create anxiety and unlikely to encourage better learning outcomes. (Chamberlin et al., 2023).

"If the purpose of education is to score well on a test, we've lost sight of the real reason for learning."
- (Richard Feynman)

A recent report★ predicts that, over the next 5 years, one in six 16-24 year olds are likely to become 'NEETS' (neither in training, further education or job-seeking). It attributes this partly to the way we educate young people. Some believe that universities lost touch with their primary purpose long ago (Hitz, 2019) and that the financial causes are recent.

(7) 100% Human Creativity

Until recently, most of our political leaders were products of a classical education. They were steeped in the fact-based logic of history, philosophy and in the ancient arts of rhetoric and debate. Many had been taught the dogmas of macroeconomic theory but had not acquired the creative skills to reinvent them. The system seemed viable when politics was characterised by codes of decency, ballot boxes and the rules of law. Today, however, a few authoritarian leaders and tech oligarchs are 'gaming the system' with the aid of digital toolkits. Some believe that their tools are influencing, or even contaminating the human values that underpin social relationships, how we learn, and what we mean by 'learning', 'education', 'qualifications' and 'learning'. Meanwhile, revolutions in cognitive science and digital engineering had begun to challenge traditional distinctions between 'education' and 'training'; 'knowledge' and 'information'; 'information' and 'data'. As generative AI systems became freely available to all, universities had an opportunity to reconsider their long-term purpose and to reinvent their modus operandi accordingly. Instead, they chose to embrace AI on a 'wait and see' basis. As a result they have become impotent bystanders in an arms race between the artificial simulators of learning and the gadgets designed to detect them (c.f. Wood, 2024, AI v. Ecological Wisdom).

(8) POSSIBLE Workshops

THEMES|WORKSHOPS|FACILITATORS|LOCATION

(NO FEE) - Day of Introduction at the October Gallery
A Pre-Digital Walk with Danny Bee & Paul at the Dennis Severs House
(NO FEE) - Exceptionalism (Genius v. Wisdom with John Wood at the October Gallery
Awkwardness and Awkward Spaces with Dr. Hannah Jones at the October Gallery
In-Touch with Moss with (Mossibilities) i.e. Lucy & Laura) in Hyde Park
(NO FEE) - Me -> to -> we (I Fashion My Self-identity) with Prof. Dilys Williams at the Blue Garage
Propriocepsis and My Space Harmonywith Bim Malcomson at the October Gallery
Call and Return is Our Space Harmony with Bim Malcomson at the October Gallery
Self-sustainment means Feeding Myself at the October Gallery
I Don't Enjoy Your Food But I Will Cook It for You at the October Gallery
You See Me (Clowning workshop 1) with Edward Hobson at the October Gallery
We see Us (Clowning workshop 2) with Edward Hobson at the October Gallery
(NO FEE) - Team Building 1 (Capturing Identity) with Dr. Paul Halliday at Four Corners Film
(NO FEE) - Team Building 2 (Ubuntu and I) with Dave Cotterill at the Deptford Community Choir
Team Building 3 (Creative Care) with Dr. Francesco Mazzarella at the Centre for Sustainable Fashion
(NO FEE) - Team Building 4 (Corporate Feelings) with Louise Onikoyi at the Lewisham Arthouse
(NO FEE) - Team Building 5 (Sympoiesis as a practical tool) with John Wood at The Lewisham Arthouse
Community Building 1 (Ideology and Community) with Danny Bee
Community Building 2 (Permaculture & community) with Les Moore
Community Building 3 (Community currencies) with Les Moore
(NO FEE) - Community Building 4 (Painting the town) with Alma Tischlerwood
Value only comes from wise combination
(NO FEE) - Business models beyond the dopamine-hit ((Dave - Singing-with (seratonin)
Self-fashioning fashion - micro-local cultures of being and becoming
Co-writing songs with Georgie Goldstein at
(NO FEE) - mathematics of emergence
Co-creativity - The self-inclusive mathematics of synergy with John Wood
Towards Ubuntu - Living at the interface between ‘I’ and ‘we’

Lewisham Arthouse 2 weeks = £500 (Minimum booking) / 3 weeks = £695 / 4 weeks = £860
Large co-working room (membership for 5 people), these rooms are ideal for small teams or sharers. From £1,000 + VAT per month
Blue Garage textile workshop £225/month Bolt-on to Blue Garage Membership. Grants full access to lab. Day Access £50/day to casual skilled users or alumni.

Item	Cost (£)
Venue hire	2500
Materials and equipment	2000
Workshop facilitators	1200
Admin support	1100
Comms and marketing	1100
Refreshments	1000
Photography and film	1000
Total	9900

Navigation and related functionality and content