OK, I realize I'm late to the game -- I was in China last week when President Obama first outlined his jobs proposal to a joint session of Congress. But as I look at it I'm wondering if anyone else has made a simple observation about his idea to renovate America's crumbling public school buildings:
Is this really the change we seek?
Don't get me wrong -- scores of schools need renovating, and lots of people need jobs, so anything that tackles both of those issues must have some merit. And yet it's odd that, at a time when we're all in search of the best ways to transition from the Industrial-Age model of schooling to an as-yet unnamed future vision (the Democratic-Age model, anyone?), we would choose to double down on the use of buildings that were designed to accommodate the needs of a bygone era.
I've been thinking about this a lot since I'll be spending the 2011-2012 school year observing three different schools -- district, charter, and private -- here in DC. The traditional neighborhood public school is housed in a traditional American school building -- first constructed in 1924. By contrast, the brand new charter school is located in a brand new office building.
At first blush, you'd think the neighborhood school would have all the advantages when it comes to its use of physical space, and its capacity to think creatively about how to create the optimal learning environment for children. And, to be sure, the building -- large, airy, and complete with playgrounds, art rooms and science labs -- does afford certain privileges and conveniences (the children at the charter school, for example, must traverse a busy street in downtown DC just to reach an outside playground). But as I watched the staff of the new charter school use the final weeks of August to transform an otherwise nondescript office floor into an engaging and attractive learning space, I realized that the absence of a traditional building was also liberating, and, ironically, providing the space for people to think more innovatively about what a modern school actually needs to look like.
This point has been made before. As Rick Hess notes in The Same Thing Over and Over, "If the schools erected over centuries past were a road map for the system of schooling that we want, the strategy of walking the same path faster and more energetically would have much to commend it. But our schools do not provide that road map. They were never intended to take us where we desire to go. Our schools are not a solid foundation for twenty-first century schooling but a rickety structure that wobbles under the weight of each new addition."
I agree with Mr. Obama when he asks rhetorically: "How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school -- and we can give it to them, if we act now. " I also think it makes sense to make needed repairs. But as we do so, we would be wise to be more intentional in thinking about what the school buildings of tomorrow will need to look like -- and not look like -- and Mr. Obama would be wise to lead us in that process, else we move ahead blindly to renovate a sea of rickety structures that will do little more than provide cover for our ongoing efforts to succeed in a system that no longer serves our interests.
Follow Sam Chaltain on Twitter: www.twitter.com/samchaltain
For all that, school buildings are not the real problem with our education system -- even the oldest buildings be often be converted at relatively low cost into state-of-tÂhe-art 21st Century learning environmenÂts. Classrooms are -- or should I say the mindset that students can only be educated in boxes. If we can get past this all-inclusÂive mindset that traps our entire education system within an industrial age paradigm, then Obama's new money and the huge sums we are already spending may go a long way toward fixing our education woes. If you are interested in learning how real and sustainablÂe education reform can be triggered when we address the problem with classroom-Âbased schools, read my piece in Education Week, The Classroom is Obsolete: It's Time for Something New at: http://altÂurl.com/ipÂvhx
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/07/29/37nair.h30.html?tkn=XNXFDFcvWWLDmV03sm8U7i6nllsZj5Ko4SLX&cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS1
http://www.fieldingnair.com/
http://www.designshare.com/
If you know anyone thinking about building a school, for heaven's sake get them a copy of the book at the top of the DesignShare page; I've read it and it's a marvelous compendium of new thinking about how people can interact in schools. I have no relationship with these people, so this is really not a commercial, only a couple of links that open all of our eyes to what is possible right now. Every nursery school teacher knows that you always organize the space to promote the kind of activity that you want to create; why don't all of us realize the importance of this simple concept to the future of schooling? Patricia Kokinos, http://ChangeTheSchools.com
B.O. is simply pandering to the many self-interested groups (mainly unions and vendors on-the-take) that would benefit from his so-called "jobs" program. (Okay, let's fleece the taxpayer some more...to revitalize the buildings of a failed model, which has proven itself so ineffective in a global marketplace, and coin it as, "Jobs Reform.") Real education is -- at least objectively -- the last concern of all those involved in public school systems, as U.S. student performance deficits so eloquently demonstrate, circa the late-1970s (thank you, too, D.O.E.). Just sit in on a few school board meetings and such a conclusion is glaringly apparent.
The White House et al are grasping at straws...to at least sound very good at appeasing their own constituencies, most of whom couldn't succeed in the private sector. Meanwhile, U.S. students are taking it on the chin and swiftly entering Third World academic status. Yes, sad, but true...
The system is broken. So are many of our buildings - a symptom of the broken system. Our teachers meanwhile are taking the blame and our students - well, you know - depends on the neighborhood.
Ideally a retrofit of existing buildings would be the best scenario, if that is economically feasible. If not, we might need new buildings that better suit today's learners.
Look at the new buildings going up - health care and financial services - that's where they money is and where are values lie. Until we value education in the same way, we're simply going to get same old same old.
Unfortunately, Obama is not a visionary, but only makes very safe choices.
Obama ought to be listening to the people who actually do the work of educating. But if he's voicing the idea that maybe we shouldn't be laying so many of them off, and that maybe they should be teaching kids in buildings that have been updated some time this century, at least that's a first step in the right direction.
This idea that we should inject competition into schools inherently a cooperative affair, hasn't worked out well. And so, of course, a lot of people suggest that we just need MORE of it.
We already have a significant investment made in our public school buildings. I don't really see the difference between taking over empty office space vs. bringing new technology and upgrades to older schools. In either case, you're still creating a place focused on learning. Back to the subway analogy, all the trains are new but the tunnels are still original and still work!
As someone who recently went on a tour of some pretty selective colleges with my son in his quest to determine his wish list, every single campus we visited was building a new department building (or upgrading an old one) based on some variation of the old school classroom model. Sure, they built new technology and group study areas into them, but I see no reason why that couldn't be done with our existing infrastructure. To me, the four or more walls in which the students congregate is far less important than the content and method of teaching.
When you buy a house, you look at it for what it can be, not what it is. A traditional school building can take on nontraditional uses, if viewed in such a way. Yet, the "build it and they will come" idea may not apply, that is to say a building itself is not enough to promote the future of education, though it may lend support.
Sure, buildings wont change education by themselves but real education change is very hard to do without the right buildings. After all, most of what we call education is nothing more than a series of activities that students and teachers do in school -- and every single activity can either be prohibited, inhibited or facilitated by the way in which the school campus is designed (or renovated). Educational research and our own sagging economy tell us quite explicitly what education in the 21st century needs to be. It is not hard to draw a straight line from that to the physical environment in which such a system can thrive. And that physical environment is not our grandfather's school -- which, by the way, accurately describes 99% of this nation's school buildings. If you want to see what communities in the United States and around the world that want real change are already doing with their facilities dollars see the detailed plans and photos we have published at our website, http://fieldingnair.com.