I recently made a post in which I proposed that the layout of schools could become more polycentric. Not only might this bring more richness/variety into the program, but might enhance the program with the inclusion of particular spaces, such as dormitories. This would not only lead to a reflected change in the educational system, nut to a greater number of interstitial spaces. In a sense, as seen in examples of domestic architecture through history, a varied polycentric interior comes hand-in-hand with the invention of new in-between spaces (necessary to negotiate between all of the newly defined ”˜centers'; think, for example, of the window or fireplace nooks, or even the special attention paid to thickness/volume of entrances, all of these found in the prototypical polycentric home (the British country house). What new interstitial conditions might arise from the transition between a dormitory and the rest of the school grounds? Could bedrooms lead to private balconies in classrooms? How would the school building receive students ”˜entering' from an in-school dormitory?
I don't see any new ideas here...just a bunch of pretentious architectural vocabulary being used to repackage ideas that have been done, redone, and overdone in almost every dorm and school building ever built. As for the idea of overlap between classroom and bedroom, I can't see how the benefits would ever be able to overcome the vast impracticalities (such as drunk frat boys running around half naked and screaming right outside of the classroom).
This is probably too mundane for you, but we are working w/our local school district to convert their giant high schools into multiple 'houses', more like the british system. obviously, the high school students sleep in their own 'houses', with their 'parents'. uh...i said 'sleep with their parents'....
no, not new ideas. The problem is the public school system - it's one slow gov't system that sucks. I was fortunate enough to go to 'alternative' schools when I was younger and truly believe those fostered my creativity. They were small, about 15-60 students, most we made our own food (yup, all vegetarian), cleaned, etc. Sounds trivial, maybe, but it created a very holistic environment.
That, and we studied for about 2 hours a day, then did things like trips to the beach, camping, making our own football field, and many other creative things.
There were no desks at any of these schools (I went to about 5), just tables. No tvs, nothing typical. Everyone I know entered the public system well above average intelligence and creative interest.
But don't let that keep you from investigating. Just realize that there's a lot out there, look up rudolf steiner and the waldorf schools (sisters went to one - even a 'green' building) and it's been around for a long time, just our conservative country doesn't like anything different.
Once again, and Bekky it would be interesting to hear your response to some of the comments in the original thread, if you are talking about mass education, the kinds of integrated schooling that trace is talking about are simply impossible to create on a society-wide level. For many, many reasons. (From size to coordination to quality control, etc.) I don't think it's necessarily a dogmatic resistance to the ideas but more simply a pragmatic resistance. There are actually many people in education--even at the highest levels--who would love to institute more wholistic teaching.
i wish i had fireplace nooks in my high school... all we had were holes in the bathroom walls that were covered by duct-taped garbage bags. 1600 students. dented, rusting lockers, and a terrible yellow jacket problem at lunchtime.
I'm glad my parents didn't piss away their hard earned money on some private religious or green dipshit school, what a waste. Very few people in the world actually come out any better than a decent student from a normal public school. Same thing goes for the Universities, for example Harvard grads vs. University of Maryland grads (except they spend a lot less money). What people don't seem to realize is that half of "education" is INTERNALLY driven, inside the student, if you can force yourself (or convince your child) to actually APPRECIATE and VALUE (truly value) education, you don't "need" a special prep or private school with fancy buildings and high tuition. Our American society is always stressing the "external", haven't you noticed, it's always how things "appear" or "look", always with the materialistic in mind; there's no actual value given to ideas or thought any more, it's all just memorizing and regurgitating, everything from math and science to literature and history. All these things fall by the wayside, only true learning lasts and remains in memory and action, individuals in our society have actually lost the ability to think for themselves. Think of a solid example, almost every other commercial on TV is now saying "TOYOTA, Moving You Forward", ok so look how many people are brainwashed into buying a Toyota, whether they'll admit it or not, or whether they are even aware of being hypnotized with the simple power of suggestion. (this does not exclude Ford, Dodge, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes or any other vehicle manufacturer for that matter, it applies to all) Maybe Metro and Metro Bus should start such an advertising campaign.
Light: Quite a bitter rant against private schools there. While I see and agree with your argument to a certain extent, I spent part of my K-12 education at a private school, went on to do my undergrad education at a private college, and then did my masters at a huge state university. For my parents and for me those choices never had anything to do with keeping up appearances. When I went to private shools I was there because they offered a better fit with my personality, educational goals, and learning style than did the public schools in my area.
How well brain develops by age 6 determines a child’s performance in school and subsequent health, behavior later in life. The experiences of young children have a lasting effect on later success in school and life.
Recent neuroscience research and social science research give solid evidence that predisposition to anti-social behaviors and crime and violence is set and dependent on experience-based brain development during the first years of life. Conditions affecting early brain and child development not only affect behavior and learning, but also set the risks for physical and mental health problems in adult life. Strategies to prevent violence and crime and to build competent, healthy population require high quality child care programs also involving parents.
I agree with myriam that trace's experience represents an education type that would not likely work at the scale of the US education system (or perhaps even at the state level). However, many programs, perhaps even the one(s) that trace attended, cater to younger children, often only up to 6 yrs, in other cases through elementary etc. This is where the biggest impact can be achieved. Parental involvement is crucial in any successful early childhood educational system...
At least at the scale of "day care" for children up to 6 yrs, programs like Montessori or Reggio Emilia schools (which I mentioned in the previous thread) could replace our mundane day care system. Still a long shot, but far more attainable than a complete overhaul...
(although none of this is directly related to Bekky's interest in middle/high school school architecture)...
Yes, yes, and yes. Also, thank you for mentioning parental involvement, which is pretty much the most important element in a child's educational success to begin with.
Dec 13, 05 9:31 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
School or Home?
I recently made a post in which I proposed that the layout of schools could become more polycentric. Not only might this bring more richness/variety into the program, but might enhance the program with the inclusion of particular spaces, such as dormitories. This would not only lead to a reflected change in the educational system, nut to a greater number of interstitial spaces. In a sense, as seen in examples of domestic architecture through history, a varied polycentric interior comes hand-in-hand with the invention of new in-between spaces (necessary to negotiate between all of the newly defined ”˜centers'; think, for example, of the window or fireplace nooks, or even the special attention paid to thickness/volume of entrances, all of these found in the prototypical polycentric home (the British country house). What new interstitial conditions might arise from the transition between a dormitory and the rest of the school grounds? Could bedrooms lead to private balconies in classrooms? How would the school building receive students ”˜entering' from an in-school dormitory?
I don't see any new ideas here...just a bunch of pretentious architectural vocabulary being used to repackage ideas that have been done, redone, and overdone in almost every dorm and school building ever built. As for the idea of overlap between classroom and bedroom, I can't see how the benefits would ever be able to overcome the vast impracticalities (such as drunk frat boys running around half naked and screaming right outside of the classroom).
This is probably too mundane for you, but we are working w/our local school district to convert their giant high schools into multiple 'houses', more like the british system. obviously, the high school students sleep in their own 'houses', with their 'parents'. uh...i said 'sleep with their parents'....
actually, rather than 'houses', i prefer 'pods'.
no, not new ideas. The problem is the public school system - it's one slow gov't system that sucks. I was fortunate enough to go to 'alternative' schools when I was younger and truly believe those fostered my creativity. They were small, about 15-60 students, most we made our own food (yup, all vegetarian), cleaned, etc. Sounds trivial, maybe, but it created a very holistic environment.
That, and we studied for about 2 hours a day, then did things like trips to the beach, camping, making our own football field, and many other creative things.
There were no desks at any of these schools (I went to about 5), just tables. No tvs, nothing typical. Everyone I know entered the public system well above average intelligence and creative interest.
But don't let that keep you from investigating. Just realize that there's a lot out there, look up rudolf steiner and the waldorf schools (sisters went to one - even a 'green' building) and it's been around for a long time, just our conservative country doesn't like anything different.
Once again, and Bekky it would be interesting to hear your response to some of the comments in the original thread, if you are talking about mass education, the kinds of integrated schooling that trace is talking about are simply impossible to create on a society-wide level. For many, many reasons. (From size to coordination to quality control, etc.) I don't think it's necessarily a dogmatic resistance to the ideas but more simply a pragmatic resistance. There are actually many people in education--even at the highest levels--who would love to institute more wholistic teaching.
Just to throw it out there.
what level are you talking about?!?
university only or all levels of education?
My interest was in the middle to high school levels of education.
i wish i had fireplace nooks in my high school... all we had were holes in the bathroom walls that were covered by duct-taped garbage bags. 1600 students. dented, rusting lockers, and a terrible yellow jacket problem at lunchtime.
ahhhhh public school...
I'm glad my parents didn't piss away their hard earned money on some private religious or green dipshit school, what a waste. Very few people in the world actually come out any better than a decent student from a normal public school. Same thing goes for the Universities, for example Harvard grads vs. University of Maryland grads (except they spend a lot less money). What people don't seem to realize is that half of "education" is INTERNALLY driven, inside the student, if you can force yourself (or convince your child) to actually APPRECIATE and VALUE (truly value) education, you don't "need" a special prep or private school with fancy buildings and high tuition. Our American society is always stressing the "external", haven't you noticed, it's always how things "appear" or "look", always with the materialistic in mind; there's no actual value given to ideas or thought any more, it's all just memorizing and regurgitating, everything from math and science to literature and history. All these things fall by the wayside, only true learning lasts and remains in memory and action, individuals in our society have actually lost the ability to think for themselves. Think of a solid example, almost every other commercial on TV is now saying "TOYOTA, Moving You Forward", ok so look how many people are brainwashed into buying a Toyota, whether they'll admit it or not, or whether they are even aware of being hypnotized with the simple power of suggestion. (this does not exclude Ford, Dodge, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes or any other vehicle manufacturer for that matter, it applies to all) Maybe Metro and Metro Bus should start such an advertising campaign.
Light: Quite a bitter rant against private schools there. While I see and agree with your argument to a certain extent, I spent part of my K-12 education at a private school, went on to do my undergrad education at a private college, and then did my masters at a huge state university. For my parents and for me those choices never had anything to do with keeping up appearances. When I went to private shools I was there because they offered a better fit with my personality, educational goals, and learning style than did the public schools in my area.
lightmyfire66, you're so much smarter and so much better than anybody in the world. i bow in your presence.
Recent neuroscience research and social science research give solid evidence that predisposition to anti-social behaviors and crime and violence is set and dependent on experience-based brain development during the first years of life. Conditions affecting early brain and child development not only affect behavior and learning, but also set the risks for physical and mental health problems in adult life. Strategies to prevent violence and crime and to build competent, healthy population require high quality child care programs also involving parents.
a couple of random excerpts from 5 minutes of google-research.
via Early Childhood Development
^for LMF66
...
I agree with myriam that trace's experience represents an education type that would not likely work at the scale of the US education system (or perhaps even at the state level). However, many programs, perhaps even the one(s) that trace attended, cater to younger children, often only up to 6 yrs, in other cases through elementary etc. This is where the biggest impact can be achieved. Parental involvement is crucial in any successful early childhood educational system...
At least at the scale of "day care" for children up to 6 yrs, programs like Montessori or Reggio Emilia schools (which I mentioned in the previous thread) could replace our mundane day care system. Still a long shot, but far more attainable than a complete overhaul...
(although none of this is directly related to Bekky's interest in middle/high school school architecture)...
AP:
Yes, yes, and yes. Also, thank you for mentioning parental involvement, which is pretty much the most important element in a child's educational success to begin with.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.