Educational design

Educational design: Renewing history

Architects and educators have carefully experimented with and studied school environments for over a century. Advances in design are due to factors such as technological innovations, political movements, health epidemics, and cultural shifts, paired with the desire to provide children with a lifestyle and education better than the generation that came before. We are at the epicenter of another movement in educational facilities as influences like the coronavirus pandemic, technological varieties of educational delivery, and the need to be safe, healthy, and wanted have been in the forefront of educational methodologies. While the minute factors may vary from generation to generation, there is a common need to provide educational facilities that deliver a specific pedagogy in a community based on cultural norms and desired academic outcomes.

For example, the one-room schoolhouse is thought of as a primitive educational facility. Early on, this facility also would be what we now call a community center or a multi-use facility, as in many cases the school would also be the town’s religious epicenter. There was no separation of church and state because there was no “state” at that time, physically or figuratively. In Europe, educational experiments such as “natural education” were being better understood because of epidemics and people looking outside the city limits for refuge. Kindergartens, or children gardens, were founded at this time during the Common School Movement, and in 1874, the Kalamazoo Decision determined it was legal for public schools to be paid for by local property taxes. The political decision coupled with child labor laws during the Industrial Revolution caused expansions of public schools in the coming decades.

At the turn of the century, schools were built to be standardized with as many students as possible to maximize classroom space. Ventilation was passive through expansive openings. The placement and size of windows were standardized because of their importance for both daylighting and providing views to rest students’ eyes. In contrast to standardized schools, the Montessori Movement was gaining popularity, and in 1911, its first school in the United States opened. These facilities were the first of their kind, focusing on “child-centered learning,” therefore shifting the paradigm that classrooms needed desks in a row and instead calling for collaborative, flexible educational spaces.

Above: Part of Missouri’s educational exhibits at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, the model country school, “fully furnished,” intended to provide a model for rural school construction. Image taken in 1904. Public Domain Image Provided by: St. Louis Public Library.

During the same time, the Open-Air School Movement was gaining traction because of the tuberculosis epidemic in both Europe and the United States. It was believed that exposure to air and sunshine would assist in stopping the spread of the disease and aid in students’ physical and mental health. Outdoor classrooms became commonplace in areas that adopted the movement. By the 1930s, open-air schools were more mainstream in architectural thought, and more were beginning to question the educational environment. Like Montessori, many educational visionaries were trying to think beyond students in desks and better understand the psychological effects of school environments in the open air, with a focus on child-centered design. Both features are still a focus in educational design just shy of a century later.

During the Depression in the 1930s, the Public Works Administration provided financing for 70% of new school construction for local communities, but 15 to 20 years later, between 1945 and the 1950s, school boards struggled to keep up with ever-increasing enrollments due to the baby boom. New standards on design predicted that schools would be four times

Above: Adult men and women attend an evening class at the Jackson School in St. Louis, circa 1900. Public Domain Image Provided by: St. Louis Public Library. Above: The Clark Elementary School, located in St. Louis, was designed by architect William B. Ittner in 1910. Public Domain Image Provided by: St. Louis Public Library.

more expensive than in the past decade. Post-World War II schools aimed to be more standardized and cost-conscious, and schools took on a different look. Many of these buildings were one-story, flat-roof structures with a combination of glass, metal, brick, and concrete. The new materiality technology caused them to be lightweight and easier to build, but they had a shorter lifespan. School construction became standardized, and for one of the first times in educational construction, more attention was devoted to designing for acoustical performance.

Many well-known architects contributed to these movements because educational visionaries needed them to push the boundaries of school design. Alvar Aalto, Richard Neutra, and Walter Gropius assisted in designing child-centered schools. Crow Island School was designed by the Saarinens and Perkins & Will. Opened just before the baby boom and the start of postwar-style schools, Crow Island is still known today for its progressive philosophy and innovative solutions for maximizing access to fresh air, daylight, and the outside through flexible “finger-plan” design. The design redefined how elementary schools could look and function. Everything in the school, from door handles to furniture, is child-centered design as inspired by educational philosopher John Dewey. Dewey’s philosophy included flexible space that was unconventional at the time of standardized desks and affixed chalkboards. At over 80 years old, the school is now a National Historic Landmark.

After the baby boom, declines in enrollment and budgets caused many schools to economize or reconfigure. This led to a decline in some educational environments. Renovation projects were strategically conducted to maintain basic standards and functionality as schools from the 1940s and 1950s were starting to need repairs. Some districts found it more beneficial to build new facilities with a more informed pedagogy than to repair and add. An emphasis on prefabrication techniques came to the forefront, and an increased reliance on technology reduced the need for natural ventilation and introduced fluorescent lights as a cultural norm. Some schools were even designed with no windows.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, researchers started to conclude that there was a connection between educational environments and educational attainment and student behavior. Open-plan and open-space schools were more widely

Above: Children check out books from two librarians. Handwritten on the back of the print: “Library service at Adams School St. Louis Public Library” “Ph-BD-005-03d” “Adams School 1922” Public Domain Image Provided by: St. Louis Public Library.

accepted, though they were critically known for conflicting information about the success or failure to enhance the educational experience. While researchers started to understand the outcomes of good educational design, the largest cultural shift in the field during this period was desegregation. Equity issues in school facilities, especially in urban areas, caused social unrest, experimental buildings, and criticism about the state of education and educational facilities.

In 1995, a report was published by the Government Accountability Office on school facilities. It estimated that $112 billion was needed to bring the facilities up to “good overall condition,” through the removal of hazardous materials and the newly instated ADA guidelines. Almost 30 years later, architects still face educational environmental issues such as hazardous-material removal and non-compliant ADA facilities. Poor indoor environmental spaces led to significant research in the late 1990s on indoor air quality. Since the turn of the century, educational design has renewed exploration in natural ventilation and daylighting. The Green School movement has spurred research and rating systems such as LEED and Living Building Challenge to help guide the design. Many new implementations involve advances in technology, which is allowing facility managers to monitor energy consumption and alter building systems for efficiency and comfort. During the pandemic, technology has not only affected the delivery of educational curricula, but also caused an emphasis on outdoor classrooms and open-air solutions to stop the spread of disease.

Technology is not the only way that schools are progressing or rooting themselves in communities as cultural epicenters. New future-focused solutions have an emphasis on the physiological effects on the students. Flexibility of the learning environment has prompted designs with more multi-use space, which is also advantageous for the monetary and sustainability bottom lines because facilities can be smaller and more efficient. Because of crises such as mass shootings, safety has become a required balance between utilitarian design and educational wellness standards. Safety also requires facilities that support mentally fit individual students and overall populations, as well as anti-bullying procedures and places for self-expression. Throughout the years, technological innovations, political movements, health epidemics, and cultural shifts have altered architects’ approach to educational design. The push for innovation and solutions has renewed interest in past movements. The recycling of past ideas causes some to question whether educational design is progressing with new ideas. Architects, educators, and communities can affect generational change through educational environments and the everlasting desire to provide children with a lifestyle and education better than that of the generation before.

Kelsey Jordan, Associate AIA, WELL AP

Jordan is a project architect in Chicago with a professional and research emphasis on educational environments, focusing on how architecture can address obesity, food deserts, and wellness in educational environments.