[I-1] School Programming- Who's at the Table?

My interest is to study collaboration between the many players in the design of innovative new Charter schools. I want to better understand how to frame educational concepts into the right vocabulary for synthesis into the built environment.

Therefore, I was especially keen to read the article Barn raising: Collaborative Group Processes in Seminars. Oftentimes, when an architectural project is initiated, there is a ‘charrette’ or formal interactive intense exploration of concepts involved in the design of the school. After reading this piece, I was able to put a name on the way this meeting is usually conducted. It is descriptively a Distinguished House Tour. The superintendent is paraded in with his ‘Vision’ to be awed. The principal is then introduced and relates her own set of requirements. Then the favored Master teacher is ushered in with her scratchings on a sheet of notebook paper. She explains how her classroom must work.

The design process is made more problematic in Texas, there are a good number of Charter schools that were started as an extension of a religious organization by a ‘visionary’. The task of extracting the ‘vision’ to institutionalize practices so that one can design a building responsive to the pedagogy is greatly impeded by this ‘House Tour format.

I now see the need to revise the charrette to be more of a Barn raising. Each idea must be owned by the group, not the pet project of one to the detriment of the school design. First of all, the pedagogy of the school must be institutionalized (the vision must be extracted and set free). How can we acknowledge ‘peers as teachers’ in this planning meeting as the article suggests when the master teacher is sitting next to the superintendent? How can that work? How can that work? --Mikael Powell

[I-1] What is the Purpose of K-8 Education anyway?

(On Left- K-8 Charter School in Dallas, Texas)

After reading Social Class and School Knowledge –What is the purpose of Education? by Jean Anyon (radical that she is), I am left with the question “Does that purpose need to be right before you can successfully design an environment to support it?” That rationale certainly needs to be known. Is it enough to ask, regardless of the pedagogy, how does the built environment enhance the specific learning methods employed? How could the building better support the mission of the school? For example, how well did my Middle Class school design exude ‘possibility’? Are transformational spaces more appropriate for Elite schools and institutional, marble walls (etched with the history of other peoples) more conducive to the pedagogy of Working class schools? I do realize that Anyon’s work can be stereotypical to the overzealous. And, really, for the building- its layout, walls, surfaces, feel, rhythm, theme and textures to be orchestrated to fix management and pedagogical problems- that is the tail wagging the dog! But still, shouldn’t all assessment be based on programmatic response?

I am not heartless, however. Patricia Aljberg Graham's writings often mirror my excitement about the possibility of “Progressive Education” when it is at its best with individual assessment, not ‘cultural’ assessment. And not to the point of teaching direct skills as outlined in the Preparing to meet the Future and similar articles. But who will choose this “evident or probable destiny” - the child, parent, school or test results? It better be the parent (remember, I am primarily a parent- not an educator).

Lastly, what level should I best effect reform? While I am certainly in general agreement with the Levels of Moral Imperative and the overwhelming impact of changes at the Level 4 societal area, I am also reminded of an analogy with the modern field of “Smart Materials” and their thoughts on the efficiency of innovation. What is the smallest thing that you can do to effect the biggest change? Traditional HVAC systems in buildings cool the entire room many feet above our heads to the floor when actually, microscopic areas of sense receptor cells on our skin are responsible for our feeling of comfort. Heat is expended and energy wasted by attaching light fixtures 9 feet up on the ceiling when the tiniest part of retinal tissue is in our eyes and the tasks to which we need illumination is within our reach. Modern buildings are constructed this way simply because it is traditional and industries are built around maintaining these standards- no mater how nonsensical. So, what phenomenon is School Reform favoring, what are the exact actors in that process, what specific areas that they acted upon and what is the extent of the action? Perhaps wit and character is not best taught through broadcast.-Mikael Powell