Two radically different Canadian schools, Regina’s Douglas Park Elementary School and Calgary’s Connaught School, have each been recently hailed as exemplars of 21st century advances in school architecture. They also exemplify, in many ways, the advantages of “Fixing It First” over “Tear It Down and Start Anew” when it comes to building and sustaining true community-based schools for the future.
The gleaming new Douglas Park School, a “new build” project designed by Fielding-Nair International, for the Regina Public Schools purports to be a “School of the Future” with its shiny glass walls, open area classrooms, and ‘learning suite’ interior design. Its futuristic design, highlighted in a fully animated fly-over video, projects the outward image of progressive educational practice. Presented as “innovative” design features, the open spaces , lack of walls and moveable partitions will be familiar to those acquainted with the infamous “open concept” schools of the late 1960s and 1970s.
One hundred year old Connaught School, completely renovated in 2008-09, is the first sandstone modernization project in Canada ever to achieve silver status for leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED). In addition to renewing the building, the Connaught project exemplified true community engagement. Instead of mourning a school demolition, Connaught teachers and the so-called CBE EcoTeam partnered to create a series of educational resources using the heritage and environmental features of the school as teaching tools. That’s a leading edge curriculum innovation known among professionals as “place-based education.”
New build schools give the outward appearance of being innovative and “progressive” in embracing so-called “21st Century Learning.” In the vast majority of cases, they are the creations of school design theorists like Prakesh Nair who are disdainful of traditional school architecture and make a living off disposing of old schools and building brand new ones. School design visionaries describe traditional schools revered by generations of graduates as “obsolete” and only suited to “preparing students for a world that no longer exists.'” During the building phase, school user groups are normally either used as ‘sounding boards’ or engaged in giving limited input into the placement of functions. Such designs are seen as such masterpieces that public input is more or less a bit of a nuisance.
One of the most innovative recent school design projects, John A. Johnson Elementary School in Saint Paul, MN, is sure to alter public perceptions. Once a struggling, inner city traditional school, it has been reborn as “a beacon of academic excellence, design innovation, and community involvement.” Very much in line with current school design thinking, it exemplifies “Schools as Centers of Community “ principles in opening its doors to the community, tapping into local talents and resources, while offering community hub services in return. Considered one of America’s “Great Schools by Design,” it has also been recognized with the Richard W. Riley Award for Excellence for Schools as Centers of Community.
School authorities facing financial pressures are finding it simply too expensive to build new as they have for the past fifty years. Some school boards and districts have responded by focusing on building fewer bigger “super schools” giving rise to “Big Box Elementary” and “Super-Sized High,” and allowing the existing “fleet” of buildings to run-down strengthening the case for new build replacements. A few, more far-sighted, smarter school planners are awakening to the “Fixing It First” approach of targeting investments in school renovations and working to re-invigorate urban and rural communities. School projects here are seen as ways of revitalizing targeted neighbourhoods and communities. Central to that strategy is the removal of barriers to “construction and the rehabilitation of schools in established areas.”
The “School of the Future” may not look anything like Douglas Park in Regina. In its design philosophy and building principles, it looks very much “old school” in the sense that design experts deliver the school and the public stands back in awe. One of the few academics specializing in school architecture, Neil Gislason, remains cautious about anointing the Fielding-Nair creation as the ultimate in school design. Some of the promoters claims are not supported by evidence, he recently told CJME News Talk 980 Radio, and a surprising amount is “bound up in rhetoric.”
Will schools like Douglas Park alone produce better student learning? On this question, Gislason, says that Nair is mistaken when he says that the science shows the physical environment has a profound affect on learning. It simply does not work, his research shows, without proper curriculum alignment and a staff of teachers capable of, and committed to, providing quality instruction in “an open classroom environment. ”
What is “progressive” about the “21st Century School Models”now being planted in empty lots or fields in North American urban and rural communities? Should community groups and parents be engaged from the outset in determining whether the school will be renovated or completely replaced? To what extent are the new school designs repeating the mistakes of the late 1960s and 1970s? How long after a heritage school is torn down does it take to re-build the sense of community?
I’m with you on this one Paul. Much better if educators and community told architects and designers what they want. Too much ego from people who don’t have to live with the possible mistakes.
The “new urbanism” in towns like Sausalito, square grid streets, front porches, looks a lot like Owen Sound where I grew up. Once in a while they actually knew what they were doing in 1920.
Thanks for renewing the discussion which started with your Sep. 16, 2012 piece Open Concept Schools: Why is the “Failed Experiment” Making a Comeback? My thoughts on open plan school architecture are laid out in the comments there, so I’ll keep it fairly brief here. You’ve done a good job of outlining my views in this current entry, in any case.
Given the ink I’ve spilled undercutting the promotional rhetoric surrounding open plan school architecture, it is perhaps only fair that I raise one or two questions about your position. First, you set the “heritage school” model over and against open plan schools, possibly drawing on a nostalgic sense that older is better. While I find the futuristic babble of “21st century learning” discourse unproductive at best, I also find myself reacting (more mildly) against the assumption that conservatism is somehow better than risk-taking. Is this an overreaction or misreading on my part?
As you note, I believe that open concept schools can work well under the right conditions. However, those conditions are difficult to achieve and to maintain. My advice to any school board considering open plan design: Ask whether you really know how to construct a curriculum suited to an open plan environment, and whether the board has the capacity to train teachers and administrators in the appropriate teaching skills. Also, the stakeholders should be sure that the risk of adopting an open plan model is worth taking, given the likely fallout from the public and the educational establishment in the event of failure. Of course, weighing risk properly entails a solid understanding of potential benefits – and I’m skeptical about how well those benefits are understood in the first place, except by a small number of educators with front-line experience.
Conservatism may indeed be the best option in most cases.
One more thought. You advocate for the integration of schools within the larger community. On the surface, this is a sound idea. One might imagine better teacher-parent-student communication, strong working relationships with local businesses, more student involvement with public life in general, and so on. These are all great things. At the same time, it’s worth noting that the notion of community integration is held up as a banner by a wide range of camps. For example, the deschooling crowd have long talked about shifting learning from the classroom to community-based organizations; privatizers have also talked about building partnerships; and of course, progressives are fans of integrating school and community. As always, the devil is in the details.
For the record, Fielding Nair International have designed schools with a strong emphasis on community integration. For instance, The High School for Recording Arts (a.k.a Hip Hop High) has partnered with the local music industry and community services in productive ways. The facility’s low-key “industrial loft” aesthetic matches its urban music curriculum and does not alienate the school’s at-risk population: HSRA’s aesthetic design is in line with the school’s program and the urban environment most familiar to the students. The idea of community integration is thus reflected in the school’s architecture. Having said that, HRA’s open design poses certain challenges for teachers and students.
Let me thank you again for providing a space where we can talk about the issues surrounding open plan school design. It’s a fascinating topic that touches on ideological, educational, and political concerns which are bound to be controversial and are worthy of debate.
I did some preliminary searches for background information to answer the questions. I selected Neil Gislason for the specific purpose regarding the statement in Paul’s post – ” Some of the promoters claims are not supported by evidence, he recently told CJME News Talk 980 Radio, and a surprising amount is “bound up in rhetoric.”
It sounded to me that he was calling down his competition, and in a way I was correct. He is an advocate of open-school environments, but not the type that Prakesh Nair is pushing. Got to hand it to the school design theorists, making a living off what the public education system is failing to do, by proper maintenance, upkeep of the school buildings, and ensuring students of today are in 21st century environments, rather than a school building where there is dead zones of connectivity to the internet.
However, there is an article that crossed my desk yesterday, called Decaying Schools May Stunt Learning. In the article, “While extreme conditions — decaying rats, for instance — can adversely affect student learning (and health), those cases are few and far between, says Larry Sand, president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network.
“Most conditions are irrelevant. It’s really the quality of the teacher. It’s that person standing in the front of the room … that’s really going to set the tone,” says Sand, who taught for nearly 30 years, mainly in the New York City Public Schools system and the Los Angeles Unified School District.”
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2013/03/25/decaying-schools-may-stunt-student-learning
I somehow think, most parents regardless of income would like the schools to be maintained and more importantly to the needs of the 21st century students. But not according to this teacher, “”If you want to empower a kid, tell them these things are minor glitches in the road,” says Sand, who taught in inner-city schools in Harlem and South Central LA. “Tell them, ‘We have much more important things to do today than to worry about the cracks in the ceiling and the broken window.'” And then the educators are scratching their heads why parents are not actively engaged in their schools!!!!
Keeping the above in mind, a PDF file – ajer.synergiesprairies.ca/ajer/index.php/ajer/article/download/730/702
Entitled – Neil Gislason
University of Toronto
Building Paradigms: Major Transformations
in School Architecture (1798-2009)
Another study by Neil Gislason – Mapping School Design:
A Qualitative Study of the Relations Among Facilities Design, Curriculum
Delivery, and School Climate
I have concluded, that the new school designed theorists are not very interested in what the communities and parents have to say about school design. Nor are they concerned with the possible mistakes that communities, students and educators must endure in the future. In the same way, the students and educators must endure poor maintenance and upkeep of schools. In the world of the school design theorists, because its all about the teacher quality and pedagogy. Environmental conditions don’t matter! Ergo, open schools are now back in vogue, repeating the same mistakes of the past.
Nancy,
Suggesting that I am in any real way competing with FNI is mistaken. I’m not an architect, nor am I currently involved in academic research. I have no stake in the matter, apart from my own intellectual interest.
I do agree that architects, and the school boards they have worked with, do not have a great track record in terms of consulting with the public, let alone teachers. I mention “stakeholders” in my earlier comments – this would include parents.
My own inclinations regarding school design are probably much closer to Paul’s than “pro-open plan.” I may have been a little too reactive in pointing at any “conservatism” in his posting. My underlying intention was to raise more fundamental questions (possibly for Paul, if he’s interested): At what point should we consider changes to mainstream educational practices, for the sake of positive innovation? How much risk should an educational body take on?
Another question: To what extent should parents be brought into the decisions about educational reform (they generally fall into the “non-expert” category)?
This is in part why find school architecture so interesting – the underlying issues.
I have my own thoughts on these issues, but I’ll save them for now.
Regards,
Neil
[…] Full article – read and comment on it. […]
I can speak as a parent/school community member who has been through the process. Our neighbourhood is home to 100-year-old Connaught School in Regina, Sask. In addition to being the place we send our kids daily, the school is a source of community and student pride.
With most of the homes in our area being of similar age and compact design, it is a place where our kids feel comfortable. It reflects our community values and way of life. It is a school that is also very deeply integrated into the community.
In contrast, a Fielding and Nair type school is completely alien to our environment. Our kids have little prior exposure to composite building materials, wall to wall carpets, and open, noisy spaces. They are used to creaky wooden floors and comfy smaller rooms.
While the board warns there could be mould in our school, I am frankly much more afraid of the chemical mix in new builds.In our neighbourhood it’s true there’s mould; everyone has it in their basements from time to time, we just clean it up. Asthma is actually rare – just one of my son’s classmates suffered from it. In the ‘burbs, it seems all the kids are walking around with puffers.
Different populations have different fears and concerns. People in the suburbs seem to have a deathly fear of mould and brick basements. I don’t like the idea of synthetic carpets and carpet glue because, unlike mould, you can’t get rid of it.
My kid went to a birthday party in a new school and said he didn’t like it because it reminded him of being in an airport. Each to his own.
Our children seem content in our school. The neighbourhood is content. No one has been complaining. The students think their old school is cool. The place needs repairs, but there was never a hue and cry for a brand new open concept building.
In our community consultation meetings, people overwhelmingly said they would like the building’s original windows restored so we can get some light back into the building (the way it was designed), the foundation repaired, and, if there must be open spaces, then build some kind of addition on the back.
Then we were told everything about our school, our lifestyles and our neighbourhood was wrong, all wrong. The community was called together and given a slide presentation that showed a classroom of the 1930s, and asked, do you want your kids in this? Our classrooms actually haven’t looked like that since the 1930s. It was a straw man.
Then we were shown a series of pictures of Fielding and Nair schools. Not one of the schools looked like ours, not one was in a neighbourhood that looked like ours. The pictures were dressed up in a lecture the presented a very garbled version of creative age theory (which some of us were already quite familiar with, but not the version they described).
This was sprinkled with a little junk neuroscience and a few veiled threats that if we didn’t go along with the plan, well, maybe the school would have to close altogether.
We were supposed to be very impressed by the presentation, and very shameful of our beautiful 100-year-old school and our neighbourhood full of similarly old buildings.
And then they said, “But nothing is decided, there will be plenty of opportunity for input. The school plan will be designed by you! Will will give you sticky notes to write down what you want! The world is your oyster!”
And then, a few months later, they decided to just go ahead and demolish our school, and they announced all new builds would be open concept. So much for sticky notes.
I am not a conservative. I have an instinctive aversion to traditional approaches. I myself teach, and have always built my classes around creative new ways of learning. The space I teach in has never been the main barrier – more often it’s lack of funds, time and materials to do all the projects we’d like to do.
I’m not dumb, either. I do not suffer from lack of understanding. I just know when we’ve been had. I know junk science and badly mangled theory when I hear it. I know when my neighbours and I are being manipulated. I know when ”choice” means “no choice.”
I also recognize the iron hand of bureaucratized standardization, which accepts no diversity, and no dissent. All schools must be the same. No old schools allowed. The nail that sticks up must get pounded down.
At the community consultations, people had a vision of a different way. Renovating and retrofitting is second nature to our heritage community – there is tons of expertise in the neighbourhood. We have rescued many a building that was previously deemed a hopeless case.
We were willing to raise the funds and carry out structural tests on the foundations. We were willing to develop a phased-in, lower-cost renovation option. This was rejected.
At the board’s annual meeting, the chair gave a speech about how the world has changed, and now “we” all live in larger houses with open plans, so get with the plan. She was describing her own world, I guess, and assuming we all live there, or want to.
As for me, I live in an 85-year-old, 840 sq. ft. bungalow in the inner city. My son just graduated from a 100-year-old school with polished stone floors and oak bannisters. He loved the place. This is our world. Please go reform someone else, and leave us alone with our foolish love for classic architecture shaded by tall old trees, where all the generations of our neighbourhood have played and learned, so far without any great detriment to creativity and intelligence.
In fact, a good deal of Regina’s artistic community and quite a few academics have emerged from those old walls – not bad for a place we’ve been told is not up par for serving The Creative Age. Or maybe they don’t want artists and thinkers in this world, just people who can do projects and work in groups, like a good factory hive, busy, busy. They’ve told us according to their tests our kids are failures, too.
Anyway, that’s how I see it from the view of a parent. Sorry to ramble on so long.
.
Neil: You are downplaying your PHD on physical school design and how it relates to teaching and learning. That I understand, but to downplay your book, Building Innovation
History, Cases, and Perspectives on School Design is a bit too humble on your part since it is your work and being cited across the globe in the education circles, from the creative age theorists (cited by Trish) to the school design theorists.
Here’s an example: “Gislason makes the compelling argument that teaching and learning are intimately connected with school design. Through detailed and contrasting case studies, he shows how school architecture both shapes and is shaped by educational practices. Gislson makes it abundantly clear that educators and architects must work together in designing the schools that will forever influence the lives of the students and teachers who enter them.”
Dr. Rena Upitis, Professor of Arts Education, Queen’s University and author of Raising a School: Foundations for School Architecture”
http://www.backalongbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=99
One can’t get back on the fence of neutrality by declaring – only intellectual interest, when one’s background suggests a vested interest in school and classroom design. The Globe and Mail 2012 – “One of the few experts without a vested interest in the concept is Neil Gislason, a Canadian teacher who wrote a PhD thesis and a book, Building Innovation, on the subject. He studied open-concept schools in graduate school because as a teacher, he thought the designs held potential. But he could find very little research to bear that out. So he personally toured some of Fielding Nair’s schools in the United States and found mixed results.
“It can work, but the odds of it working are tough,” he said.
When teachers embraced the layout and their students were motivated, he found open-concept classrooms did promote the kind of collaboration and engagement they’re meant to. But with a distracted or high-needs student population, he found the space invited distraction:” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-schools-adopt-old-style-architecture/article4519536/
In Neil’s paper, Placing Education: The School as Architectural Space
http://journals.sfu.ca/paideusis/index.php/paideusis/article/view/87
The abstract: “School architecture is a vital part of the learning environment: Support for this thesis is drawn from spatial theory, John Dewey’s writing on educative spaces, architectural writing and ecological design theory. It is finally posited that we need move beyond certain industrial-era assumptions about learning, in order to lay the conceptual foundation for a dynamic notion of architecture for education.”
Well Neil, studying and writing about dynamic notions of architecture for education falls in within the domain of the creative age theories and school design theorists. (You seem to fall)… somewhere in the middle determined to make school design pedagogically correct so that it that works in the best interests of the classroom educators.
Neil, you ought to look up in the LD research files on distraction, white noise, and other related topics to design and operations of schools how it impacts all children, and not just the LD students. Just as Trish has suggested, creaky wooden floors and polished stone floors are not the problem – ” I myself teach, and have always built my classes around creative new ways of learning. The space I teach in has never been the main barrier – more often it’s lack of funds, time and materials to do all the projects we’d like to do.”
“In Regina, for example, the notion of preservation has been at the centre of a recent debate about Connaught School.
Built in 1912, supporters say the school building is an integral and historic part of the community; the school board says it cannot justify $21.7 million for renovations when a new school would cost $18.9 million.”
http://www.leaderpost.com/Preserving+historic+schools+sask/8534384/story.html
A picture of the Connaught school in Regina – http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/connaught-school-to-be-replaced-regina-board-says-1.1354365
In Vancouver – Lord Kitchener elementary’s $18.7 million seismic upgrade and partial replacement was officially unveiled Nov. 20.
http://www.vancourier.com/news/vancouver-s-lord-kitchener-elementary-school-celebrates-seismic-upgrade-1.374410#
Take a virtual tour of a Vancouver school undergoing renovations to install garage doors for an open-concept style
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/construction-at-vancouvers-lord-kitchener-elementary-school/article4519577/
As Paul stated in a few news articles – ““I’ve never found a situation yet where a board document didn’t inflate the cost of renovation and lowball the cost of new,” Dr. Bennett told a full house at the Cathedral Neighbourhood Centre on Monday, May 20.” http://saveourconnaught.ca/2013/05/24/good-education-doesnt-require-brand-new-architecture-expert/
Paul continues on to state, ““Schools are being taken further away from the people,” he said, connecting the demolition of historic schools to trends that favour linking students to the marketplace over community-based linkages….This movement continues today, Bennett said, resulting in what he jokingly calls “Cineplex Elementary” and “Airport Terminal High.”
We could also add Macdonald Theme Park as well – “That’s right. Vittra Telefonplan, in Stockholm, was designed according to the principles of the Swedish Free School Organization Vittra, an educational consortium that doesn’t believe in classrooms or classes. So instead of endless rows of desks, it’s got neon-green “sitting islands” and whimsical picnic tables, where students and teachers gather. Instead of study hall, it has “Lunch Club,” a smattering of cafeteria-style tables on a checkerboard floor for working or eating (or both). And instead of an auditorium, it has a faceted blue amphitheatre that rises up in the middle of the school like a giant floating iceberg. The place resembles a mini amusement park, only with laptops (yes, each student gets his or her own laptop).” http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665867/school-without-walls-fosters-a-free-wheeling-theory-of-learning#1
Back to Regina – ““I understand that the world is changing; we can’t stay stagnant, nor should we stay stagnant. However, this learning system is not working for our children,” she said. “It’s all very theoretical and quite frankly it’s very frustrating when all these administrators pass this down through theoretical means but they have no practical knowledge.”
http://cjme.com/story/photos-how-does-school-future-really-work/132948
Would it not be better for the sake of the communities, the taxpayers to upgrade the schools in wiring, plumbing, and general renovations that enables the schools to last another 100 years?? I hate to see what the costs are to maintained the upkeep of the open schools and more importantly the students being used as the guinea pigs in what is emerging 21st century theories on creative age theories and school design theorists.
I bet the open school opponents never anticipated this reason for reverting back to classroom walls – for security reasons.
http://www.reportexec.com/news/Added_walls_secure_open_concept_Indiana_schools_.aspx
And here – http://www.ctnow.com/news/wsbt-phm-schools-closing-down-the-open-concept-20130627,0,5599317.story
Imagine after renovations from an open-concept school to the traditional setting – classroom without windows. “While the Woodlands was designed to be an open concept school, this original vision has not been proven to be very successful. Consequently, the school, after several years, was re-organized along traditional lines by installing aluminium walls, resulting in few of the classrooms having windows.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodlands_School_%28Mississauga%29
From another respected educator – “Nair’s design has ideological motivations. As he himself acknowledges in his writings, his advocacy of open concept schools is closely linked to his belief in the constructivist approach to teaching.
Constructivism holds that, instead of passing on a defined body of knowledge, teachers should help students construct their own understanding of the world around them. Open concept schools go hand-in-hand with this approach. Interestingly, whole language and the “new math” are examples of two other failed fads that also stem from constructivism. Considering its dismal track record, there are good reasons to be skeptical of any approach based on constructivism.
To cap it all off, there is no empirical research establishing that open concept schools lead to improved student achievement. However, there is a lot of evidence that students and teachers alike find it difficult to function when their learning environment is noisy and filled with distractions..” http://michaelzwaagstra.com/?tag=open-concept-schools
To what a constructivism might look like in an open-concept classroom – Somewhere in Windsor, Ontario – http://www.mrswideen.com/2013/07/what-i-am-cooking-up-for-first-day-of.html
Its almost like the education stakeholders think the school buildings and the students are disposable commodities that can be reshaped, recycled into looking more like the progressive and constructivism ideologies without the real world intruding. But the real world does intrude upon the schools , open-concept or not – isn’t it about time to build schools that has the best interests of students and not the belief systems and values of the education stakeholders being imposed upon the buildings and the students?
[…] Two radically different Canadian schools, Regina's Douglas Park Elementary School and Calgary's Connaught School, have each been recently hailed as exemplars of 21st century advances in school architecture. […]
[…] Two radically different Canadian schools, Regina's Douglas Park Elementary School and Calgary's Connaught School, have each been recently hailed as exemplars of 21st century advances in school architecture. […]
Hundreds of parents in British Columbia’s School District 68, in Cedar on Vancouver Island, have joined the movement in opposition to the imposition of Mega-Schools introducing the Open Concept School Design. It topped the CTV News on Vancouver Island:
http://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1012327
Thanks to Trish Elliott of Real Renewal Regina for spotting this news item and for providing her assessment in the news clip.
Noisy classrooms at Regina’s Douglas Park Elementary School have now got the ear of the Saskatchewan Minister of Education. Invited to give advice as part of a focus group, Grade 6 student Bailey Balaberda took the opportunity to inform him about the oversized classrooms and disruptive noise interfereing with learning in Regina’s new “21st Century Learning” social laboratory:
http://globalnews.ca/news/890670/students-let-the-minister-know-what-is-and-isnt-working-in-education/
A little unfiltered direct feedback for the Minister.
Building Schools – The Wrong Way: Thirty-five years ago Alberta English teacher Cy Groves took dead aim at School Design and Construction that essentially ignored the advice and observations of teachers.
His feature article, in the final issue of Atlantic Canada Teacher (ACT), April 1982, identified Ten Steps that ensured schools provided an “unsupportive environment” for teachers. With the return of Big Box Open Concept Schools, it’s fair to ask — What’s Changed?
Some of my favourite “How Not to Design Schools” principles: Keep teachers away from the design team; avoid using time-motion studies; ignore noise-generating factors; provide windowless classrooms; forget to include “secluded rooms;” relegate staff to rooms out-of-sight; and adhere to school factory design principles.