Teacher Design Jury — The €10,000 Decision Game
Teachers take on the role of a design jury and receive a fixed (simulated or real) budget to improve school premises. They evaluate competing proposals, negotiate priorities, and make binding decisions. School management is integrated as a responding partner, ensuring that teacher decisions are connected to real school development processes.
Purpose
This method strengthens teachers’ sense of power by involving them directly in decision-making about school premises. It makes teacher voice visible, requires prioritisation and negotiation, and connects ideas to real implementation pathways. By integrating school management, the method creates a bridge between teacher perspectives and institutional decision-making.
Use and Learning Outcomes
- 1. Strengthens teachers’ sense of agency and influence in school development.
- 2. Develops understanding of real-world constraints and trade-offs in design decisions.
- 3. Encourages strategic thinking and prioritisation.
- 4. Promotes shared responsibility between teachers and school management.
- 5. Leads to concrete, actionable proposals for improving school premises.
Wellbeing References
Details & Preparation
Room Requirements
A room with tables for group discussion and a central space (board or wall) to display all proposals and track the budget. School management should be able to join at least the final phase of the session.
Time for preparation
20 minutes
Preparation
Tasks before the activity:
• Prepare 5–8 realistic Design Proposal Cards (with cost estimates).
• Ensure that the total cost exceeds the available budget (€10,000 recommended).
• Prepare a visible Budget Board.
• Print Jury Decision Sheets.
• Prepare materials for voting (dots or tokens).
• Brief school management in advance about their role and possible responses.
Principles for success
• Keep proposals realistic and relevant to teachers’ daily work.
• Ensure budget scarcity to force prioritisation.
• Make the decision process transparent and fair.
• Integrate school management as a responding partner, not as a controller.
• Ensure a clear follow-up after the activity.
Materials
• Printed Design Proposal Cards (with cost)
• Printed Jury Decision Sheets
• Budget Board (€10,000 visual)
• Pens or markers
• Sticky notes
• Dot stickers or tokens
Sequence of Steps
Introduction
5 minutesSuggested introduction:
"Today you are the design jury of this school. You have a budget of €10,000 to improve the school premises. You cannot fund everything. You will need to prioritise, negotiate, and make decisions together. At the end, your proposal will be shared with school management, who will respond to your decisions."
The facilitator explains:
• budget is limited
• decisions must be justified
• not all ideas can be selected
• school management will respond to the final outcome
Teachers review all Design Proposal Cards displayed in the room.
10 minutes• read and compare proposals
• ask clarifying questions
• may add one additional proposal (with estimated cost)
The facilitator ensures that all participants understand the options and constraints.
Small-Group Jury Decisions
15 minutesEach group:
• selects proposals within the budget
• calculates total cost
• decides what NOT to fund
• prepares arguments for their choices
They complete the Jury Decision Sheet.
This step creates real negotiation and requires teachers to balance different needs and perspectives.
Full Jury Negotiation
10 minutesThe whole group then negotiates one shared final budget plan.
The facilitator supports:
• comparison of priorities
• discussion of trade-offs
• constructive disagreement
The aim is to reach a collective decision, not just multiple parallel ideas.
Final Decision and School Management Response
5 minutesA member of school management joins or responds:
They:
• acknowledge the process and teacher priorities
• give initial feedback on feasibility
• indicate which proposals could realistically be implemented
• explain constraints transparently if needed
Important: The role of school management is to respond and connect, not to override.
This moment is crucial for turning the exercise into real participation.
Commitment and Next Steps
5 minutes• which proposal(s) will be explored further
• what the next step is (e.g., pilot, discussion, approval process)
• who is responsible
• when feedback will be given
Suggested closing:
"Today you made real decisions about your school environment. The next step is to bring these decisions into practice and continue this process of shared responsibility."
Reflection & Tips
Reflection
Possible reflection questions:
• When did you feel you had real influence?
• What was difficult about making decisions?
• How did the budget constraint affect your thinking?
• How did the response from school management influence your perception of power?
• What would strengthen teacher involvement in real decisions?
Optional method:
Complete the sentences:
• “Teacher voice becomes real when…”
• “For stronger influence, we need…”
Tips for Implementation
Promoting the learning process
The method works best when teachers experience real responsibility. Do not reduce complexity — negotiation and trade-offs are essential.
Role of school management (integrated)
• Before: clarify scope and signal openness
• During: observe and listen
• After: respond visibly and enable next steps
Possible variations
Short version: fewer proposals, smaller budget
Extended version:
• use real school data
• follow up after implementation
• involve additional stakeholders (e.g., caretaker, students)
Cross-references
• Teacher Design Mandate
• Teacher Premises Power Lab
• Teacher Collaboration Space Lab
