Conventions and Innovations in Schools

 
Many people have fixed ideas about what a school is. In forming a mental picture of a school, what are the images that come to mind; books, rows of desks, blackboards, the playground? Whatever image first occurred to you, it can be reasonably certain that it was related to your own educational experience. For most of us, these images would have associations of imposed order and authority as dictated by systems of institutionalised education. Because these systems have profoundly penetrated our own thinking processes, as human beings we find it very difficult to imagine other scenarios. As a consequence very few radical examples exist that might illustrate other viable educational options.

For all the talk about innovations in education, apart from the removal of corporal punishment, grammar and learning multiplication tables by heart and the dissolution of objective assessment systems, there has actually been little change in the nature of schools and school environments since mass schooling began. Virtually all schools throughout the world maintain a pyramidal organisational structure that places almost all administrative authority in the hands of a headmaster or headmistress (these days given a more allegorical title of ‘Director’) and the students are organised into traditional sub-groupings; elementary, middle and high sections, grade levels based on age and then further into individual classes. It is not the scope of this book to question educational strategy but the point is nevertheless interesting to raise as to why the structural aspects of education has remained so unchanged despite constant efforts to renew education in the name of progress.

In so much as the architecture of the school must reflect its workings, the essential parameters of school design must perforce remain conventional. Nevertheless, changes are taking place albeit subtly, starting from within the classroom unit, many of which no longer conform to the linear arrangements of desks, for so long the only known way of seating students. This is a reflection of the new democratisation of the classroom situation where the teacher’s role is beginning to be seen more of that of a guide rather than an absolute authority figure. However, outside of the classroom, devolving authority and controls by changing its architecture becomes a far more complex problem. In reality, the hierarchical style of management imposes far greater levels of disciplinary requirements on its adult staff than on the students. The organisational needs of individual teachers, a key factor in effective teaching, is often not a priority. Generally, there appear to be three main elements that dictate policy and managerial decisions: the proprietorship, the clientele and the particularities of the adopted teaching program. Of these, the third factor is probably the least consequential given that in most schools, for one reason or another, individual teachers tend to adapt lessons around the set curriculum. Nevertheless, a well-designed school facility can contribute greatly towards a better fulfilment of the teaching program by providing the necessary physical space and physical resources, which support the desired set of activities.

In wanting to create a building that animates the life of the school, the school curriculum and a clearly defined mission statement are critical pre-requisites documents.

Despite curriculums globally heading towards conglomeration and homogenisation, the possibility still remains for individual schools to determine its own educational charter. It would be difficult to design for a school that sees its role merely as ‘facilitators’ of the process of satisfying the pre-set requirements of the curriculum. A factory is not a good metaphor for an environment where its prevailing cultural reality derives from the sense of community generated by the presence of beings in a state of rapid growth and change; physically, intellectually and spiritually. What would make designing easier would be a school board that states its social and communal aims as well as curricular ones in defining its mission. Within the broad scope provided by standardised curriculi, schools are still free to tailor their teaching methods, determine optimum class sizes and define their educational charter beyond the pragmatic dictates of the required academic requirements. Combining the requirements of the school charter with that of the adopted curriculm would create the creative tension between spirit and function necessary in order to arrive at precise solutions rather than general ones which suffer the risk of banality.
 

ROMA 2 8 2001