The New Schools (All Four)

[Sean Wheeler]

I was hoping to see thinking like in the video below.



Or as evidenced in the work of High Tech High in San Diego.



[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/04/20/high-tech-high-san-diego-california
[/url]

Or, again, this school just a couple hours away in Gahanna.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gahanna+clark+hall&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1341&bih=754&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=a9kiVNPXJYmcygSr1oI4&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw

While Gary points out the Montessori model, I'm not asking for Lakewood to adopt it or any other similar model, but that the school, and school building, supports the learning that is possible when we shift away from the factory model we have now.

There is also no shortage of works that I've published outlining my vision of what is possible. Much of the work can be found on my blog. http://teachinghumans.com/

The building plans have nothing to do with how a classroom is setup or structured within the rooms.

I'm not sure this is true. Not only does it start with the building plan, the set-up and structure of individual classrooms (furniture, layout, etc.) are dictated almost entirely by choices made by the architects.

Thanks for the questions, Amanda. I think it's very important that we not only complain, but that we offer solutions. I'm glad you've pushed me to substantiate my position and I appreciate your engagement.

Lastly, the main question is one of mission and vision. Were these school designs developed in response to a clear mission and vision for learning over the course of the next one hundred years? It seems like we had a big opportunity to design for the future, and I'm questioning whether or not these plans will suffice.

I'd like to see the connection between our district's stated vision (below) and the architectural plans we have been shown in these public meetings.

"In partnership with our families and community, Lakewood City Schools will develop responsible citizens, who are critical and creative thinkers, committed to life-long learning, invested in a diverse society, and prepared for technological and global opportunities."

[Sean Wheeler]

[Gary Rice]

Being a public school teacher since 1973, I well recall many of the educational concepts that have come and gone over the years. One of those was called the modular "open classroom" and Grant School (the former one) was actually purpose-designed to be such a "school of the future". Before long however, the open classroom philosophy was a thing of the past and we were on to the next big thing. Lakewood and many other school districts were forced to backtrack from the "open classroom" school buildings by modifying them over and over.

Text books, curriculums, and the questions as to what should be taught or even emphasized in the public schools all remain very open-ended speculations at this point, and I suspect they always will be. The dynamic of public discourse and political winds of change will practically guarantee that what's new today in education will be tossed out tomorrow.

I suspect that it won't be long, for example, in all likelihood before the current national "common core" movement is replaced with yet another educational dream. Not that there's that much wrong with that idea, or of open classrooms either, or moving walls, multi-purpose rooms, and flexibility. It's just this constant churning change in education seems to put nearly everything related to learning into uncertainty.

The thing is, if you look at the medical and pharmacutical fields, there are extensive testing and field trials of new medicines before they hit the market. Is that always the case with education? While one would hope so, I would suspect that we would be surprised at how few educational theories have been fully research-based and criterion-referenced before being implemented.

Computers are indeed here. Alternatives to the "factory school" model are here too, as are the charter schools. Public schools will always be changing, but if the past is any indicator, it's probably wise not to put too many eggs into one philosophical basket.

All here just an old retired teacher's opinionated musings...but...

Back to the banjo...

[Sean Wheeler]

Text books, curriculums, and the questions as to what should be taught or even emphasized in the public schools all remain very open-ended speculations at this point, and I suspect they always will be. The dynamic of public discourse and political winds of change will practically guarantee that what's new today in education will be tossed out tomorrow.

Computers are indeed here.

I agree with both of these statement, but doesn't the second one trump the first?

[Michael Deneen]

The thing is, if you look at the medical and pharmacutical fields, there are extensive testing and field trials of new medicines before they hit the market. Is that always the case with education? While one would hope so, I would suspect that we would be surprised at how few educational theories have been fully research-based and criterion-referenced before being implemented.

Here lies the fundamental problem with education reform: People don't pretend to be experts in medicine or pharmaceuticals. However, EVERY Tom, Dick, and Harry DOES pretend to be an expert on education. The general thinking is "I spent 12 years in school, so I know all about teaching".

This sort of buffoonery makes teachers an easy target for all the haters out there.

[Gary Rice]

As long as public schools have been around, there have been those having strong opinions as to what should and should not be taught in them. Along with that discussion have come different political and philosophical movements, each having their own bone to pick with public education, or otherwise having their own agenda to promote.

As public school discussions go, this one has been relatively tame. So far at least, no one here has advocated going back to the pre-WWII "Open Air Movement". With the horrible 1918 flu epidemic and the high rates of tuberculosis going on at that time, there were many advocates for public schools that understandably felt that schools should be held outside, or with fully open windows, and in ALL weather. Fresh air was the desired objective and winter-clad children sat in their seats during sub-zero weather for their lessons. Snow days? Just brush the snowflakes off your hornbook, little Johnny, and finish your assignment!

Well, I suppose that there's something to be said for fresh air, and there's also something to be said for many, if not all, educational experiments. Over the years, a combination of what works seems to have been the result for many schools.

Computers, in the form of phones, laptops, tablets, and whatever else will all find their place in the classroom. More and more books are now available online too. Perhaps one day, traditional paper books will be totally replaced by online reading. The internet is indeed an endless encyclopedia of information and opinions already. The problem is, and will always be, how does one interpret, evaluate, and constructively apply all of that information?

And then, do we need to learn more about how safe it is to be around electronic or computer appliances for most of a day? What we view to be true today may well be proven different tomorrow.

As we hopefully all know by now, a child needs guidance. They need to learn first to read, and then, how to discern fact from fable, how to develop those critical thinking skills, and then, how to apply them so that they can better interact with the world around them.

They need to learn how to perform arithmetic operations, how to write coherent paragraphs, how to outline, how to plan, how to interact with others, and how to discern the direction of their general educational pathway, as well as their advanced area of specialization; whether that would be with chemestry or carpentry. They need to view learning as necessary, at times challenging, and as much as possible, fun.

In order to do so, they now need, and will always need, good teachers; starting at home, and later, in school.

Back to the banjo...

All just my opinion of course, and I may be wrong, but.....

[Sean Wheeler]

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2014/09/24/transforming-learning-spaces-034/print/

The questions I'm asking are structural and not pedagogical. The style we teach in, what we teach, and what philosophy of learning we adhere to are all worthwhile arguments, but in regards to the design of the learning spaces being offered up here in Lakewood, the question is, "How does what we built represent what we believe about learning in the future?" These buildings will be here for the next 100 years, and before they're built, shouldn't this be a question we've at least asked? We've asked plenty about parking, how many copier machines will be in the schools, and which driveway we'll use for picking up and dropping off kids in our walking district, but are we asking about what these schools do to promote a vision for learning inside the buildings and for our children?

My criticism of the new plans is that they don't seem to follow from a clearly annunciated vision regarding the future mission of our schools. If these schools were just built to replace the old ones, we've missed out on an opportunity to define our future.

[Amanda Tabor]

Hi Sean,
I have not had a chance to watch the videos you posted, but I've been reading your blog and have found it really interesting and thought provoking. Does anyone know what the teacher input was with the new school designs? I know that teachers and staff had their own meetings, but I don't think that many teachers were at the community meets as well (I only know of one, but then I don't know all the teachers so perhaps I am wrong). Just curious as to what their concerns and requests were.

As for the furnishing of the spaces - I'm wondering, is that something that will be decided on a school-wide basis, or will teachers get direct input about their own rooms? I imagine that that would be a bit of a headache to furnish and set up each room differently, but it is a singular opportunity that our teachers have to create a space that will enhance the learning they are trying to foster.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Lakewood High School Plans as presented October 7, 2014...


The best attended meeting so far, the Oct. 7 meeting in the L-Room.

The LHS Plans PDF: http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/media/docs_1412801509.pdf

As images,



































































The LHS Plans PDF: http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/media/docs_1412801509.pdf

[Jim O'Bryan]

Lakewood High School



































According to Asst. Superintendent Roxann Ramsey, everything is pretty much on budget.

.

[cameron karslake]

Jim,
Thanks for posting those pages. Hard to tell the details but it's good to see the overall plans. Is there a place to go to see those details better? Maybe you already posted the link and I'm blind...

Sean,
If I remember correctly, when this project was in the "selling" stages, it was all about bringing these buildings "up to date, ready for the latest technology to be installed". I surely hope that has been designed into these plans. You and I thought the same thing. Take Lincoln for example, the new design looks darn close to the old one, even on the inside now that I see it. Was the first Lincoln that far ahead of it's time in layout? I have a feeling these designs were done sensitive to the prior buildings look and feel but built in such a way as to make them more versatile for education. At least, that's what I hope has been done.

[Sean Wheeler]

The new "Academic Wing" of the high school is exhibit A. If we think that learning works best in square boxes stacked on top of each other, this plan is a winner.

[Stan Austin]

Sean--- I'm gonna do a retro old guy thing on you--- without the old steam heating ducts how are the wrestlers gonna make weight?
Stan